is... buying more shares
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Exactly as I said in message #51828:
"It's probably about Alice Corp vs. CLS Bank Int'l, as orals are this morning at SCOTUS..."
It was pretty obvious what USA Today was covering with the headline you mentioned, as this is national news.
Oral Hearing transcripts from earlier today:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-298_869d.pdf
It's probably about Alice Corp vs. CLS Bank Int'l, as orals are this morning at SCOTUS...
although it could be related to Apple vs. Samsung where GOOG is an indirect target of Apple (who is seeking $2 billion in damages)
it's almost certainly not about VRNG
I never expected a CSCO reversal or new trial to be granted. I've been on the record against pursuing this matter as it always seemed emotional to me.
The truth is CSCO represents a very small opportunity for VHC and there are better uses of time & money and the company should be focusing its efforts elsewhere. Most notable is licensing as I believe there is a lot of low hanging fruit that should be plucked.
That being said, the patents are solid and this ruling can only help in that regard and we will see how the market reacts and how badly this hurts the stock this week. As always, the market is clueless as to the significance of CSCO and this should already be priced in many times over. "Should" being the operative word.
VHC vs. CSCO: Court DENIES VirnetX’s Motion for a New Trial and for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b) (Docket No. 798). Additionally, the Court GRANTS Cisco’s request to dismiss and DISMISSES both VirnetX’s unasserted claims and Cisco’s unasserted counterclaims WITHOUT PREJUDICE and DENIES AS MOOT Cisco’s request for a new trial on invalidity (Docket No. 803).
Full Document: Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document #851 (PDF File)
delete
No disagreement from me about this:
<< And trolls have a right to be paid for their legitimate patents as well. >>
My comments regarding "troll-like" behavior have more to do with the creative assignment of patents from large patent owners (Nokia, Ericsson, Alcatel, etc.) to small NPEs who do not take full ownership of the IP.
Rockstar+SPEX, NOK+Mosaid/VRNG/, ERIC/UPIP, etc.
I consider several of the companies in the PIPCO list at IAM's website to behave in a very "troll-like" fashion.
IDCC isn't a troll because it is a pioneering R&D house that has historically (and currently) developed products and services for worldwide use. And IDCC has offered fair licenses in addition to using legislation in a legal & responsible fashion.
Not all PIPCOs can say the same.
First time I saw it in use was just last year in an article covering IDCC. The author wrote a piece for IAM Magazine and they have been using it ever since.
http://ipcloseup.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/public-ip-cos-pipcos-an-expanding-universe/
You're preaching to the choir in regards to unpredictability of litigation and the timing of appellate dispositions. I have stated many times over the last two years the investors can't predict when litigation will be resolved.
But that knife cuts both ways. A panel may come back with a decision in a matter of weeks after orals, if it so chooses. For it to take 9 to 12 months after orals would most likely require that the decision be precidential which is not a probable outcome.
It is often fruitless to search for "binary events" in patent stocks, because there are rarely any such proceedings or decisions that yield a true binary outcome. If one is looking for a coin flip, they should be looking at another sector (such as biotech).
I don't think anybody expects VRNG will be collecting money "tomorrow" - it can't be denied that the litigation vs. GOOG has made substantial progress since its docketing and with each ruling and favorable decision received to date, it is that much closer to a positive resolution.
Semantically, I think there is a difference in saying HJJ admitted he made a mistake on the Laches ruling and saying HJJ acknowledged he had mistaken defendant's written motion to be a joint motion.
This is highlighted by the fact that the night before HJJ made his Laches ruling, VRNG "made an oral Rule 50(a) motion against the laches defense."
Laches is really a difficult subject in this case, and I think the pendulum has swung to the point where VRNG must now convince the Federal Circuit to overturn this decision. That's quite a hefty burden and I do not believe the odds are in VRNG's favor.
I would love to be wrong. I would love to see the CAFC order HJJ to revisit Laches (or even reverse it straightforwardly), but I don't see how one could reasonably expect that to happen with confidence.
Odds of SCOTUS choosing to hear this case, provided it gets that far and GOOG actually files a petition for writ of certiorari, are too small to even calculate.
Also small odds that GOOG will ask for and receive an en banc review at CAFC.
It seems people tend to exaggerate "what will happen next" to extreme levels. The same individuals who were screaming there would be a settlement on the courtroom steps back in 2012 are now saying this case could drag on to 2020. As difficult as it is to do so, people have been forecasting the VRNG vs. GOOG dispute about as poorly as possible.
That in itself is quite an accomplishment.
pre-market "uptick" movements are often head-fakes used to confuse amateurs
SPEX SPHERIX INC COM PAR $0 01
$2.9400 (-0.4900) (-14.29 %)
Price Date: 03/28/2014 10:01 AM ET
Bid: 2.9500 Ask: 2.9800
Volume: 441923
Thanks for posting the joint submission.
I believe that is a positive that both agree the case should proceed, as the court will most assuredly now have to keep this case alive.
It will be interesting to see what she has to say about the other issues they disagree on (an amended complaint filing, consolidation of the CA case, etc).
<< Am I to understand now that this decision is entirely up to the judge? >>
That's exactly how I read it. See the following:
As you can see from the Judge's footnote, the parties are to submit their respective positions on "whether the appropriate course of action is for the Court to dismiss the instant action" or whether the Court should "confine this decision to infringement allegedly occurring from the dates the patents issued through the lives of the Patents-In-Suit."
Some may interpret the above language to mean that the parties will get together and decide this for themselves - with the court taking the appropriate action based on this joint decision. I do not read it that way, primarily since I do not believe they both want the same outcome and because of the language used by Judge Casper.
It appears clear to me that the Court is going to make this decision after taking WDDD's and ATVI's arguments into consideration. I also think it can be assumed WDDD would want to continue with this case and not have to reinvent the wheel (and lose the progress already achieved in terms of moving the litigation since the time of the original docketing). And it can be assumed ATVI would want the court to dismiss the case and force WDDD to incur additional delays as well as potential additional expenses. In addition, I am not sure exactly what additional defenses this MSJ order would provide ATVI should WDDD be forced to file a new lawsuit, but overall I think it is clear that ATVI believes it would be advantageous for the plaintiff to start over from the beginning.
Good question. Not sure how long the wait will be.
The truth is this case is now at a crossroads after the MSJ order. The judge made it pretty clear she will have to decide whether to (A) dismiss the lawsuit or (B) allow the case to go on with past damages starting with the date of the correction certificate.
This is a pretty big decision and who knows how much time she will take in reviewing each side's arguments in support for either option A or B.
Obviously, if the case is dismissed WDDD can refile against ATVI with a new complaint. But from a timing standpoint that's not what investors want to see.
I'm not one to second guess a sitting Federal Judge, but it seems it could have been simpler to just decide this with the MSJ order rather than punt on the issue only to revisit it weeks later. Perhaps her thinking was -- that by providing each side a chance to weigh in on the decision -- it makes it less likely for her ultimate decision to be overturned on appeal. I dunno. I'm just thinking out loud.
Although I think the risk/return profile for WDDD took a turn for the worse with the MSJ order, I still wish good luck to anyone still involved here.
Haha. Yes, something like that.
You never know, sometimes parties settle. Sometimes mediation works. It's just very rare for a court mediation process to yield any results this early in the process.
Also, Apple isn't known for settling. They have an unlimited wallet and historically fight all infringement complaints against them tooth and nail until the very, very end.
There were no proceedings today. The judge ordered both parties to file a joint statement. That statement was due today.
I assume the statement has been filed and so now we wait and see what the court does next.
meditation is standard for EDTX patent infringement cases
It is often ordered pre-trial as well as post-trial and generally can not be expected to generate any type of settlement or resolution.
Extended Hours stock trading in the U.S.A. is open to just about anyone and has been for over a decade.
There is no IQ test. Many brokers will give access to any client regardless of their trading acumen, account balance, or risk profile.
PreMarket and AfterHours trading makes up a significant portion of daily volume in U.S. stocks.
See: How Much U.S. Equity Trading Volume Happens Before and After Market Hours? More Than You Think.
I disagree. If someone gave me a bunch of SEPs for free, I will want to license them for as much as they are worth by the manufacturers who are profiting from the inventions I own. It doesn't matter if these patents cost me zero to purchase or if the original inventor spent less than $100 researching his patent.
Conversely, if I am a manufacturer and I use one patent that makes up thousands and thousands of contributions to a single standard, I am not going to pay the single patent owner an excessive royalty simply because he spent billions researching it. As a manufacturer it's not my problem.
If one's perspective is biased in analyzing the worth of a patent it might lead to unrealistic expectations regarding royalty rates.
I want IDCC to receive as much as the next shareholder, and I support the notion that IDCC should be compensated for its pioneering inventions over the long term. But using the cost of R&D as the single metric for evaluating a fair RR is illogical.
That explains a lot. I don't think it would take most people 10 years to search Google and determine that several brokers offer external hours trading.
You might want to try one of these brokers:
E-Trade
eOption
Fidelity
Firstrade
Interactive Brokers
Just2Trade
Merrill Edge
OptionsHouse
optionsXpress
Schwab
Scottrade
SogoTrade
TD Ameritrade
TradeKing
Vanguard
There are more, but these are some of the biggest and most popular.
I believe you missed the point as I was not gloating about breaking the news.
Simply, I posted the news to explain to others (like yourself) who were confused as to why the stock was absolutely hammered this morning.
SPEX is currently down 20% and the financing deal is the primary reason. You claimed the reason could be money flow into VHC but that seems preposterous and I provided the link to show you how the markets work in valuating these IP companies with terrible capital structures.
As for the "spike" this morning that preceded the massive sell-off, that was obviously the result of uninformed traders buying the CSCO news which was PRed a day late and already known by more experienced traders. Those that ignored the financing news and focused on the delayed announcement of the CSCO lawsuit have paid the price.
I don't think it would "reasonable" for a company with one moderately important SEP to achieve the same royalty rate as another company with at least 1,000 equally important SEPs. Generally speaking, of course, without any specific companies in mind.
By this logic, royalty rates for FRAND-obligated patents should differ and they should differ greatly from one contributor to the next.
So the key isn't trying to compare company ABC's patents to company XYZ's patent holdings, but rather determining the fair and reasonable value of whichever specific contributor one is evaluating.
For IDCC, haven't its negotiated rates fallen somewhere between 70 and 100 bps (excluding the AAPL deal, of course, which is an outlier) ?
Using this as a baseline and then adjusting for your typical provisions (volume, early adopter discounts, etc.), I think would give us a better range of FRANDly RR expectations as opposed to comparing to QCOM or (heaven forbid) waiting for the courts to get into playing "name that FRAND rate".
It was announced and I posted it. I believe it is a mistake to constantly believe one stock is dropping just because another is popping. Money flow at the retail level generally explains nothing.
Ooops. Financing deal has cost SPEX owners a pretty penny.
Raising cash at $3.75 = not good.
We may have just got an insider signal that we are near the low...
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1082324/000118143114014051/xslF345X03/rrd406313.xml
time will tell...
I added on the RR decision, but didn't take as much profit as I should have when it went to $25+. Shortly thereafter, I was quickly stopped out of the rest.
As of today I have begin buying back those shares in tranches. Options still too pricey and at these bargain prices I prefer shares over calls anyway. The chart is still broken here and it won't stop until there is news or everything flushes out -- which could be $11, or it could be even lower.
I don't have the skill to time the bottom perfectly, and that's why I started rebuying here. Hopefully the CAFC affirms the judgement in the next two or three months.
From the $1.8X range to the $1.2X range. Quite the decline from just a month ago.
This is another confirmation that the risks of holding tech companies (especially those that are still in a somewhat pre-earnings stage relative to their patent assets) outweighs any rewards.
I'll be looking to pick some cheap shares later this week or next.
I added to my CIMT today. Overall, there is weakness in the market and specific tech sectors. CIMT could rebound at any time and rebound strong when it does.
Rocket Docket ! Not bad schedule.... now to find out if this scheduling order means the motion to change venue is denied.
I added more CIMT this week
<< Last I heard, the claim for damages was some $250-300m, and that was last year. >>
Yes, it's sort of a mystery what is at stake. Keep in mind the 10Q was from November 13, 2013 and used the language "...is seeking in excess of $10 million...".
Again, this is not a patent infringement lawsuit so there is no royalty base and royalty rate combination from which one can approximate past damages. I am sure with discovery we might get more information.
Until then, I am going to have to believe that the language in the 10-Q offers the best approximation from which to analyze the opportunity.
Coupons lawsuit is not that big of an opportunity and it should be understated.
It's NOT a patent infringement lawsuit. It was filed as a trade secret/breach of contract lawsuit. It is now just a breach of contract lawsuit. From the recent 10Q:
"On October 24, 2011 the Company initiated a law suit against Coupons.com Incorporated (“Coupons.com”). The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of New York, located in Rochester, New York. Coupons.com is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business located in Mountain View, California. In the Coupons.com suit, the Company alleged breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and unjust enrichment, and is seeking in excess of $10 million in money damages from Coupons.com for those claims. The Company’s breach of contract claim remains intact as of the date of this report."
And from the New York Law Journal on May 20, 2013:
"Document Security Systems' (DSS) provided "safety paper" to Coupons.com between 2003 and 2008. They signed nondisclosure agreements in 2003 and 2005. The binding 2005 NDA restricted Coupons' use of DSS's trade secrets. Despite not buying proprietary DSS "blackout technology" rendering printout images unable to be copied or scanned, DSS learned of Coupons' unpermitted use of such technology. In addition to breach of the 2005 NDA, DSS claimed misappropriation of trade secrets under state law. District court dismissed DSS's trade secret misappropriation claim as duplicative of its contract breach claim. Distinguishing Topps Co. Inc. v. Cadbury Stani SAIC the court disagreed with DSS's position that the parties' six-year business relationship resulted in a confidential/fiduciary relationship. Thus the parties' course of dealing did not create an independent tort duty. Distinguishing Klein v. Ecko Products Co. and Stewart v. World Wrestling Fed'n Enter. Inc., and noting the parties' arms' length dealings and written confidentiality agreement covering the subject matter of their dispute, the court found no implied-in-law duty arose from DSS's disclosure of the "blackout technology" to Coupons in connection with a possible sale."
No. It will rule on it one way or the other.
EDTX and change of venue has been a big talking point in recent years.
This quote... "Defendants in the Eastern District of Texas have become accustomed to a lengthy delay between submitting a motion to transfer and receiving an order. In an order issued last year, Judge Davis noted that he had approximately 40 pending motions to transfer venue." comes from a 2013 article which can be found here:
United States: The Federal Circuit Provides Guidance On When To Consider Judicial Economy In A Transfer Motion
Also see: Transfer motions in the Eastern District of Texas favor defendants
And also see: No Venue Transfer from E.D. Texas: Federal Circuit Denies Mandamus Petition
Yes, it is wrong.
Markman hearing is about the claims construction of the asserted patents.
Both sides argue how the court should interpret the claims.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MARCH 12, 2014
TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD G. ANDREWS (PDF file, 174 pages, 612 KB)
As others have also done on this issue, I was correcting obvious misinformation.
"News" can't be positive if it isn't real.
It's always better to keep things real than to have misinformed investors.