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.
But even if the ruling is flawed, it presents additional hurdles and the potential need for a higher court to correct what you believe was an error.
Such a correction wouldn't just happen overnight.
Hokiehead, yes negative. Even rolvram believes it was a negative order, although he believes it was a flawed decision.
The conclusion of the MSJ order was as follows:
"The Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit Are Invalid"
...A patent is invalid as a matter of law if the invention claimed was in public use or available to the public more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a) & (b). Because that is true here, the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid as a matter of law.
You can try to spin this how you want, but this wasn't the ruling WDDD was hoping for. The PR was trying to make lemonade from lemons.
Trust me, I get it.
The USPTO correction you refer to can only be applied "prospectively”. The judge wrote that specifically in the MSJ order.
There is a flaw with the priority chain of Worlds patents and the District court has just ruled that it can not correct this flaw. This is the main point being discussed.
As a result, there are serious doubts about how Worlds can and/or will proceed from here either in this case or in a new filing. This priority chain defect also creates a potential defense for ATVI in all future proceedings as well, so the problem just doesn't go away with a nice footnote from the judge in the MSJ and a cute PR from the company the next day.
Like everyone else on the planet who can not predict the unknown, I have no idea how the WDDD vs ATVI dispute will eventually be resolved. What I do know is that this is a very messy situation for Worlds that muddies the waters and creates additional risks relating to the overall timeline and its ability to recover past damages and future revenues.
Only in penny land can a major negative MSJ order be handed down and the shareholders think it is overall bullish.
<< The {sic} filed after one year! Go back and read the ruling please >>
Yes, that is the point. Let me help you out since you having trouble understanding this. Filing after one year is the problem. Pay special attention to the parts that say:
"Thus, AlphaWorld and Worlds Chat practiced all of the asserted claims of the Patents-In-Suit and were in public use more than one year before November 12, 1996, which is the filing date of the ‘045 patent."
and...
"AlphaWorld and Worlds Chat embodied all of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit and were in public use at least a year before November 12, 1996."
<< The prior art was Worlds themselves. They practiced on the invention after the filed the provisional. >>
Yes, that is obvious. We all know that.
What some people do not know is that in the U.S., to preserve patent rights, a patent application may be filed up to one year after the invention's first public disclosure. Those rights are considered lost after one year.
This is patent law 101. To receive a patent, an invention must be new and cannot have been publicly known before. The exception is that the inventor has one year. One year. This is known as the "novelty requirement".
Go re-read the MSJ order and see what the Court has to say about public knowledge of World's inventions and that one year novelty requirement.
The questions people should be asking all relate to the newer priority date.
If World's can't use the priority date of the 1995 provisional app, and now only has protection since the filing date of the '045 patent in November 1996, what does that offer ATVI in its defense of any future complaints?
Did the court not say that World's inventions were in public use for over a year before the effective date of the patent filing? What kind of hurdles does this present for Worlds asserting its intellectual property rights going forward?
As we wait to see what happens next and assess the potential monetization opportunity Worlds is now left with, the realities of patent law will eventually form the market's fundamental valuation of WDDD.
In the interim, this is a trader's dream.
I don't believe there is anything "new" about today's PR. We knew this all yesterday pre-market when we read the Judge's order on MSJ.
WDDD at .1440 now. What a huge bounce off the bottom earlier!!!
This might be a gift for those who want to de-risk from large wagers placed here. Probably a lot of good trading opportunities for swing players in the days ahead -- but for the long term investor, he/she may want to rethink holding a large chunk.
Yes, a much different play here and it's always a good sign when a business is not run out of someone's garage.
Still a lot of pitfalls to avoid for BCYP and I hope for the sake of everyone invested here that they are avoided.
I tried to warn people from blindly following EDVA's advice. Many became defensive and ignored the facts as I provided them about missed price calls and valuation timelines.
Today his highly promoted WDDD is down over 67% after a disappointing MSJ order and declaration of patent claims invalidity.
Hope people learn something from this. Ultra-micro cap IP plays, such as BCYP is, are extremely risky and there are no guarantees. Yes, there is a potential great reward if things go right -- but patent assertion is a tough game for small fry especially when going up against mega-cap companies with deep pockets.
Great write-ups on CIMT, Gary.
Looking forward to a strong 2014 and beyond.
Yes, I just posted the article 2 minutes ago.
Stock already moving a bit AH up to $1.81
DSS Files Patent Infringement Claim Against Samsung, TSMC and NEC
TYSONS CORNER, Va., March 10, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- DSS Technology Management, Inc., a subsidiary of Document Security Systems, Inc. (NYSE MKT: DSS; "DSS"), a leading developer and integrator of security technologies, today announced the filing of a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. ("Samsung"), Taiwan Semiconductor Corporation ("TSMC"), and NEC Corporation of America ("NEC") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
DSS's complaint alleges infringement by Samsung, NEC and TSMC of patents related to semiconductor manufacturing. DSS Technology Management acquired these patents in 2013 in order to support development of proprietary hardware and peripherals, including devices running AuthentiGuard, DSS's digital technology for brand protection.
DSS is represented in this matter by Derek Gilliland of Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP a complex commercial and intellectual property litigation firm with offices in Dallas, Austin, and East Texas (www.nixlawfirm.com) and Bo Davis of The Davis Firm, PC, a patent litigation law firm based in Longview, Texas (www.bdavisfirm.com).
For more information on AuthentiGuard, and to view a demonstration of the technology as featured on Fox News' Fox and Friends, please visit www.authentiguard.com.
The case is Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00199. Copies of the complaint are available at www.pacer.gov/findcase.html.
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140310-909856.html
I added to my position just a minute ago.
Last I saw it was closer to 7%.
Source 1: http://www.dsssecure.com/newsroom/lexington-technology-group-inc-provides-update-operations
In March 2013, Lexington made a strategic investment in VirtualAgility, a developer of programming platforms that facilitate the creation of business applications without programming or coding. The investment by Lexington involves a non-recourse note against the proceeds derived from the patent portfolio owned by VirtualAgility, plus an equity stake of 1/8 of 7% of the outstanding common stock of VirtualAgility, for $250,000 cash, plus options to make seven additional quarterly investments of $250,000 apiece, for a total investment of up to $2 million in cash. If LTG exercises all of such options, it will have invested an aggregate of $2 million and, based on the current capitalization of VirtualAgility, would own approximately 7% of the outstanding common stock of VirtualAgility.
Source 2: http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001144204-13-061136.txt&FilePath=\2013\11\13\&CoName=DOCUMENT+SECURITY+SYSTEMS+INC&FormType=10-Q&RcvdDate=11%2F13%2F2013&pdf=
In March 2013, DSS Technology Management made a strategic investment in VirtualAgility, a developer of programming platforms that facilitate the creation of business applications without programming or coding. The investment involved a non-recourse note that would reward the Company a portion of the proceeds derived from the patent portfolio owned by VirtualAgility, plus an equity stake of 1/8 of 7% of the outstanding common stock of VirtualAgility, for $250,000 cash, plus options to make seven additional quarterly investments of $250,000 apiece, for a total investment of up to $2 million in cash. If all of such options are exercised, DSS Technology Management will have invested an aggregate of $2 million and, based on the current capitalization of VirtualAgility, would own approximately 7% of the outstanding common stock of VirtualAgility. In conjunction with its purchase accounting, the Company assessed the fair value of the VirtualAgility investment as of the Acquisition Date. A relief from royalty methodology was used to value the potential proceeds to be derived from the patent portfolio and the analysis included a discounted cash flow which estimated future net cash flows resulting from the licensing and enforcement of the VirtualAgility patent portfolio to which DSS Technology Management’s has or can obtain rights to based on information as of the date of acquisition, considering assumptions and estimates related to potential infringers of the patents, applicable industries, usage of the underlying patented technologies, estimated license fee revenues, contingent legal fee arrangements, other estimated costs, tax implications and other factors. A discount rate consistent with the risks associated with achieving the estimated net cash flows was used to estimate the present value of estimated net cash flows. The measurement of the VirtualAgility constitutes a Level 3 input.
OD: The judge severed the RR decision and that was handed down today, per the info in VHC's 8K.
I do not believe the order is available for public view. Perhaps it is because the EDTX court was closed for inclement weather. The lack of the actual document being available for analysis and full perusal may explain the wild trading in VHC.
We are talking about a judge issuing an ongoing royalty rate for Apple iOS (and other) products and the language in VHC's 8K can be considered ambiguous as it pertains to the non-adjudicated products not colorably different. I assume this includes iphone5, iphone5S, newer ipads, and products not included in the original trial (much of these devices have been asserted in a different complaint filed in the same jurisdiction the night the jury verdict was rendered on the original case). But it would be nice to have the actual ruling to verify.
"On March 3, 2014, VirnetX Holding Corporation (the "Company") announced that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, issued an order in the Company's pending patent litigation against Apple Inc., awarding the Company an on-going royalty of 0.98% on adjudicated products and products not colorably different from those adjudicated at trial that incorporate any of the FaceTime or VPN on Demand features found to infringe at trial."
Yes, we do know. See: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByyR-FelC5OTenp5aTE3Q1QtcEU/edit?pli=1
It applies to the the lowest saleable unit price of Apple's iOS products, with the exception of Mac computer software which is $29/p.u.
For the iOS devices, VHC's damages expert testified that using the smallest salable unit, the per-unit royalty worked out to $4.71 per device.
I've been following this case since the start and can provide any docs, transcripts, etc. that anyone requests.
Remember, these aren't SEPs being utilized. The technology is not related to wireless protocol and the types of royalties and/or convenience licensing agreements that IDCC seeks. So it's really an apples and oranges comparison. This technology (the VirnetX patents) covers secure domains and encryption technology - related to any internet communication, wireless or not. For more info, I highly recommend the research published at www.vhcreport.com.
Big News: 0.98% royalty rate on iOS products!
http://archive.fast-edgar.com//20140303/A725N22CZC22C9I2222M2Z32F7AHZC223262/
On March 3, 2014, VirnetX Holding Corporation (the “Company”) announced that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, issued an order in the Company’s pending patent litigation against Apple Inc., awarding the Company an on-going royalty of 0.98% on adjudicated products and products not colorably different from those adjudicated at trial that incorporate any of the FaceTime or VPN on Demand features found to infringe at trial.
The following appears to be good news for DSS (in regards to its minority investment in Virtual Agility). It looks like the April Markman hearing remains on schedule.
http://docketreport.blogspot.com/2014/03/no-stay-pending-interlocutory-appeal-of.html
No Stay Pending Interlocutory Appeal of Denied Stay Pending CBM Review
Monday, March 3, 2014
The court denied defendants' motion to stay pending an interlocutory appeal of the court's earlier decision to deny a motion to stay pending CBM review. "Defendants have failed to cite, and this Court is unaware of, any authority holding that attending a Markman hearing in the middle of a co-pending reexamination proceeding constitutes 'irreparable injury.'. . . To the extent any further statements of Plaintiff’s [during CBM review] or amendments to claims may affect the Court’s claim construction, such is fully remediable with supplemental claim constructions. . . . This Court is mindful that the Federal Circuit, in reviewing whether or not this case should be stayed, is tasked with ensuring that AIA § 18(b) is 'consistently applied across cases and across the various district courts.'. . . However, the Federal Circuit’s decision-making does not depend on whether the proceedings below are stayed pending appeal. Defendants have failed to demonstrate how this Court’s denial of a stay pending interlocutory appeal would impede, in any way, the Federal Circuit’s interest in the consistent application of AIA § 18(b) across the nation’s district courts."
VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc. et al., 2-13-cv-00011 (TXED February 27, 2014, Order) (Gilstrap, J.)
Posted by Docket Navigator at 9:18 AM
I don't blame you for being hesitant.
We all know the big picture and potential with DSS to run, especially in regards to litigation and upcoming events.
But on the flip side, DSS is prone to sharp downturns and nobody really knows what is going on behind closed doors. That applies to a whole laundry list:
* licensing progress relating to Authentiguard
* negotiations with any of the defendants in any of the lawsuits
* the details of the recent financial deal
* Bascom application development
* and so on and so forth
As much as it can be profitable to invest in this team and trust they can/will execute, it's definitely not without its risks
All-Out today around $38.50.
Nice quick flip. Best of luck to all in SFW going forward.
High of $39 After Hours. Now trading at $37.65.
Sprouts Farmers Market (SFM): Q4 EPS of $0.07
Revenue of $608.2M beats by $20.66M.
Press Release: http://investors.sprouts.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=828996
I'm not disappointed. I will continue to hold this one.
It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone could buy the Vringo law firm without the lawyers just standing up and walking out the door.
I agree. No need to bend over picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer.
That being said, DSS has been an excellent vehicle for making large moves and when I buy and sell it is to take advantage or avoid those big moves you speak of.
The move from 1.8X to 1.5X is approx 14%.
If you go back and read the discussion to which I responded, it is clear.
Chronological order of events:
1) DSS releases 8K with info regarding a mixed financing agreement
2) discussion ensures on the board about the details (and/or lack thereof) and the potential impact this will have on DSS stock in the near term
3) DSS stock rises the next trading day
4) I point out this rise in price gives those of us who are concerned/cautious a chance to sell or scale back some of our position in the $1.8X range and take some gains since DSS did run up recently from the $1.4X area
5) the stock closed yesterday at $1.65
6) the stock is now trading at $1.55 this morning
Summary: selling a stock at $1.8X is a "good sale" if one now has the opportunity to repurchase at $1.5X this morning, if so desired... or possibly lower if it keeps falling
Looks like so far a good sale in spite of the uncertainty surrounding the financial deal.
Spec purchased made earlier today on SFM. I'm hoping for good numbers this week.
We shall see what happens.
Impressive stock recovery for ACTG. Despite disappointing numbers, the stock is now trading at pre-release levels just days later.
Very interesting.
RE: Foxconn (Hon Hai)
It's been over six years, so I'm not holding my breath -- but it would be nice for IDCC to pen a deal with Foxconn. A few hours ago it was announced that Wi-Lan (WILN) and Hon Hai settled all litigation. Based on recent deals, I would be surprised if WILN was able to obtain anything close to an optimal RR... but who really knows?
IDCC obviously hasn't litigated against Hon Hai and who knows for sure what opportunity really exists here... but based on the Pegatron deals and arbitration results, I would say (like I have been saying for years) there is a very nice opportunity. Are we waiting until the Apple deal expires shortly or is it time for another lawsuit, Bill?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wilan-and-hon-hai-settle-all-litigations-2014-02-24-61733125
Press Release - Feb. 24, 2014, 6:31 a.m. EST
WiLAN and Hon Hai Settle All Litigations
OTTAWA, CANADA, Feb 24, 2014 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- Wi-LAN Inc. ("WiLAN" or the "Company") CA:WIN +1.17% WILN +1.02% today announced that Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. ("Hon Hai") and WiLAN have reached an agreement to dismiss all pending litigations between the companies.
Payment and other terms of the agreement reached are confidential.
Sticky info: Analyst Reports, Rmarchma Reference Information, etc.
If anyone has updated reports/reference material to add to this please send it via email to Jimlur or myself.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Rmarchma Reference information on IDCC
IDCC Revenues by Quarter Q1 2012 - Q4 2013
Recap of IDCC's Stock repurchases through Q3 2013
IDCC's Revenues through 2011 by licensee
IDCC's fixed-fee revenues Q4 2010 through Q1 2012 by quarter and by licensee
IDCC's fixed-fee revenues 2009 through 6/30/2010 by quarter and by licensee
Expiration dates in chronological order, and some other financial information, for IDCC's significant licenses
Rmarchma observations regarding some positive trends for IDCC since 2008
____________________________________________________________________________________
Analyst Reports:
Dougherty & Company report: Strong Quarter – Now Focus Turns to Samsung (2/21/14)
Stephens report: Initiating Overweight; Future Not Exactly Clear, But Favorable Nokia Ruling Helps (8/3/12)
William Blair & Co. initial coverage report on IDCC and VHC (8/23/12, 80 pages)
Barclays Capital initial coverage report (4/27/11, 46 pages)
Barclays Capital report: F1Q First Take (4/28/11)
Barclays Capital report: Broadly In-Line 1Q (4/28/11)
Barclays Capital report: Disappointing Near-Term Guidance (5/12/11)
Barclays Capital report: Nortel Auction Highlights Value (7/1/11)
Barclays Capital report: Exploring Strategic Options (7/20/11)
Barclays Capital report: In-line 2Q Results; Earnings Call Suspended (7/28/11)
Barclays Capital report: F3Q Beat on 1x Items; Process Ongoing (10/27/11)
Barclays Capital report: Strategic Review Process Closes; No Sale (1/24/12)
Barclays Capital report: Despite Lower 1Q Guide; Optimistic on Renewed Strategy (2/7/12)
Barclays Capital report: Steady Progress Forward; Better 4Q Results (2/23/12)
Barclays Capital report: Steady Progress in a Consolidating Market (4/26/12)
Barclays Capital report: Weak F2Q Offset by Patent Sale (5/7/12)
Barclays Capital report: Progress Monetizing IPR a Positive Step (6/19/12)
Barclays Capital report: Per Unit Weak; IP Monetization Still a Focus (7/26/12)
Barclays Capital report: Ruling Strategic, Not Yet Definitive Positive (8/2/12)
Barclays Capital report: Unit Weakness Persists in 3Q, Sale Offsets (9/7/12)
Barclays Capital report: Per Unit Weak; Opex Savings a Lever for ‘13 (10/25/12)
Barclays Capital report: Japan Based Licensees Aide 4Q12 Guidance (11/12/12)
Barclays Capital U.S. Wireless Equipment report: Disruptive Mobility 4 - Handset Vendors (11/28/12)
Barclays Capital report: RIM Extension Supports LTE Portfolio (1/2/13)
Barclays Capital report: Past Sales Drive 4Q Beat & 1Q Guide (2/21/13)
Barclays Capital report: 1Q Revenue In-Line; Litigation Expenses Impact EPS (4/26/13)
Barclays Capital report: 2Q13 Revenue Guidance Boosted by Pegatron Past Sales (5/16/13)
Barclays Capital report: Solid 4Q and 1Q14 Outlook; Continue To Monitor Litigation Activity (2/21/14)
MPartners initial coverage report (9/30/10, 19 pages)
MPartners report: Solid Performance, Dividend Coming (10/29/10)
MPartners report: Q4'10 Guidance Ahead of Consensus (11/15/10)
MPartners report: HTC Has Big Plans for 2011 (12/15/10)
MPartners report: More Happy To Come...(12/21/10)
MPartners report: 4G/LTE Performance More Assured (3/9/11)
MPartners report: War Chest Expected To Be Increased By At Least $183.9M (3/31/11)
MPartners report: Update on Nortel Patent Auction (4/5/11)
MPartners report: Patent Update FY 2010 (4/19/11)
MPartners report: Q1'11 Earnings Preview (4/25/11)
MPartners report: Q1'11 Results Follow-Up (5/2/11)
MPartners report: RIM Woes Showing Up in IDCC Performance (5/13/11)
MPartners report: Taking Advantage of Nokia's Collapse (6/2/11)
MPartners report: Winning Bid for Nortel Patents...Adds $11.00 To Our Sum-Of-The-Parts Estimate(7/5/11)
MPartners report: Striking While the Iron is Hot (7/20/11)
MPartners report: New Perspective - InterDigital As A Weapon (7/25/11)
MPartners report: Mum's The Word (7/28/11)
MPartners report: Samsung Enters The Process (8/3/11)
MPartners report: Rumors Distributed From Twitter Unfounded And Refuted (8/12/11)
MPartners report: Demand Tension Ratchets Up... Not Down (8/15/11)
MPartners report: IP Continues To Be Hot (8/18/11)
MPartners report: Samsung Thinks IDCC Is Getting Too Expensive (8/19/11)
MPartners report: ITC Initiates Investigation (8/26/11)
MPartners report: Google May Have Been Forced To Buy Motorola (9/16/11)
MPartners report: BOD Declares Regular Quarterly Dividend (9/22/11)
MPartners report: IDCC Announces Technology Conference Participation (9/23/11)
MPartners report: Deal Reporter Rumor - Company Says Process Continues (9/26/11)
MPartners report: Process Continues: Stock Fundamentally Undervalued (9/27/11)
MPartners report: Undervalued Relative To Other Patent Portfolios (10/3/11)
MPartners report: Why LG Has Suddenly Been Added To The IPR LItigation (10/4/11)
MPartners report: We Are Removing LG License Renewal From Our FY’11 Estimate (10/24/11)
MPartners report: Q3'11 Earnings Results Exceed Expectations (10/27/11)
MPartners report: We Can't Seem To Shake Our Takeout Target (11/9/11)
MPartners report: There Was No Bid (1/24/12)
MPartners report: Fixed Licensees Success Reduces Mean Royalty Rates (2/10/12)
MPartners report: Q4’11 Beats Expectations (2/24/12)
MPartners report: An Inventory of Progress (4/5/12)
MPartners report: Expands License Agreement With Pantech and Acer (4/10/12)
MPartners report: InterDigital's GameChanger Video Solution For Networks (4/13/12)
MPartners report: Earnings Preview Q1'12 (4/20/12)
MPartners report: Earnings Results Q1'12 (4/26/12)
MPartners report: Q2'12 Guidance And Share Buyback Announcement (5/7/12)
MPartners report: Announces $375M Patent Sale to Intel (6/19/12)
MPartners report: ITC Ruling Regarding LG Termination Is Final (7/11/12)
MPartners report: Q2'12 Earnings Preview (7/23/12)
MPartners report: Q2'12 Earnings Report (7/26/12)
MPartners report: Signs Wistron To Global License (8/1/12)
MPartners report: InterDigital Vs. ITC & Nokia: Reversed & Remanded (8/2/12)
MPartners report: Q3'12 Earnings Preview (10/23/12)
MPartners report: Current Outlook For 2013 (11/5/12)
MPartners report: A Big First Week Of 2013 (1/7/13)
MPartners report: Q4'12 Earnings Preview (2/20/13)
MPartners report: Q4'12 Earnings and Outlook For FY'13 (2/27/13)
MPartners report: Q1'13 Earnings Preview (4/23/13)
MPartners report: Q1'13 Earnings Review (4/26/13)
MPartners report: Q2'13 Revenue Guidance Above Expectations – Kind Of (5/17/13)
(As of October 2013 Ron Shuttelworth has left MPartners)
Davenport & Co. report: Updating Estimates Following Q2 Revenue Guidance (5/24/10)
Davenport & Co. report: Good Quarter...Cash Balance Keeps Us On The Sidelines (7/29/10)
Davenport & Co. report: Initiation Of Quarterly Dividend Is Positive, But We Remain On Sidelines (10/28/10)
Davenport & Co. report: 2Q11 Results a Non-Event; Focus Remains on Potential Takeout (7/28/11)
Davenport & Co. report: GOOG-MMI Transaction is Positive for Patent Licensing Companies (8/16/11)
Davenport & Co. report: Core Business Declines While Sale Process Continues (10/27/11)
Davenport & Co. report: Ends Sale Process With No Bid for Entire Company (1/24/12)
Davenport & Co. report: Remain Cautious Ahead of License Expirations at Year-End (4/26/12)
Davenport & Co. report: Patent Sale to Intel is Positive, But Remain Neutral on Renewal Risk (6/19/12)
Davenport & Co. report: Lower 2Q Results on Higher Expenses; Renewal Risk Keeps Us at Neutral (7/26/12)
(Davenport & Co. has dropped coverage of IDCC)
Jefferies & Company report: Patent Wars / "the InterDigital auction" (7/21/11)
(the above report covers Apple and the price target and other financial data are related to AAPL)
Think 20|20 report: IDCC - Still in the Offing (9/12/11)
Ocean Tomo: Nortel Networks 4G/LTE Portfolio Analysis (4/6/11)
(the above report compares the quality and relevance of 13 leading competitive 4G/LTE portfolios {including IDCC} and also includes a chart and PDF file)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Videos, CAFC info, etc.:
For past information including Videos, CAFC reply briefs, detailed CAFC info -- including case details, member reports, press releases, the oral recording download & more -- please see the following older posts:
post #306080
post #352377
Dougherty & Company Report (2/21/2014) - "Strong Quarter – Now Focus Turns to Samsung" is now at WirelessLedger.com.
Price Target: $48.00.
Investment Conclusion: We believe there is about a 50% probability that IDCC will be able to license Apple, Samsung and Nokia at $0.70 per device for 4G, which nets a $48 PT in our DCF model. Reiterate Buy rating.
View/Download PDF Report
No. It's a five year goal. Which would make it 2018 based on the December Presentation (PDF File).
I believe it's more reflective of a 2016 price target.
Granted, Lake Street classifies its "BUY" rated stocks as those that are expected to generate greater than 10% returns during the next 12 months.
But the actual report clearly outlines a model that extends a bit further than 12 months, as can be seen in the following snippet:
Barclays Capital Report (2/21/2014) - "Solid 4Q and 1Q14 Outlook; Continue To Monitor Litigation Activity" is now at WirelessLedger.com.
Price Target: $35.00 (lowered -19% from $43.00)
View/Download PDF Report
Wow another big miss from ACTG. At least they are consistent.
Stock is now trading down 16% after hours @ $12.50
PAMT coverage initiated by Lake Street Capital Markets: Buy Rating, $23 Price Target (2-20-2014)
Added my first positions today. Hoping for a strong report.
Cheers!
Here is the PDF document:
http://wirelessledger.com/337800_commission_opinion.pdf (large fie - 18.8 MB)
I remember when DIDO was in the news back in 2011. Someone wrote that DIDO was just Multi-User MIMO renamed and reimagined in a way that would give Perlman/Artemis all the credit. It is very similar to the IEEE 802.22 standard.
From August 2011: DIDO: snake oil or wireless salvation? Parsing the Perlman paper
The comments at bottom were most interesting as well.