bull, I agree with you. Although IDCC is more thinly traded than most other companies its size, there are too many ways available to suppress a company's stock price under todays regulations. I don't know who the short sellers are but they have got to be taking some serious losses on this stock by now.

I would like to see the trading patterns in IDCC today. I'll bet there were some larger (>500 share) trades lifting the share price only to be brought back down by 100 share lots. I'm convinced the Option sellers will keep this price in check to limit damages next week. I picked up 500 shares on a pull back today and expect to repeat it several times next week. Based on the recent revenue guidance, this stock should be trading at $55.

The question is, how are the option sellers going to impact the price next week. Almost all November options are in the money now and the option sellers don't usually lose money so I'm betting they will attack the price next week. I left a couple of low ball bids in place in case that happens. After next Friday's options expiration, I believe we go to mid-50s.

Yahoo shows the consensus revenue estimate for IDCC for Q4 2014 to be $73M but I don't know how accurate that number is. Does anyone know of a higher Q4 revenue estimate than this to compare with IDCC's just issued revenue guidance?

sjaym, if you post about another poster, it will get deleted. It happens on all IHUB boards.

Yes, but if the brokerage doesn't clear the naked short in a timely manner, they assume the liability. The big banks may sell short, but they generally cover them within three days. I'm talking about the ones that don't cover within three days. Hopefully, they have the proceeds from the short as collateral to soften the blow but they are still exposed for the difference if the seller can't cover a loss.

It can only be done through a disreputable broker and then they expose themselves to a pretty significant liability which I'm sure they don't want. It's pretty easy to spot "fail to delivers" and they are often tracked by the exchanges.

BTW, I don't consider short sales that are covered within three days "naked shorts". I'm talking about the real FTDs that don't cover within three days.

I thought I read somewhere yesterday that only two of the three patents in the ZTE case were declared essential so any FRAND related defenses would not apply to the third non-essential patent that was ruled valid and infringed. That being said, I don't believe ZTE will win a reversal based on any FRAND related arguments on the other two patents so it probably doesn't make much difference anyway.

I am awfully glad Nokia got their postponement and let IDCC proceed against ZTE first. Hopefully, this will take some of the wind out of Nokia's sails for their upcoming trial.

In the FRAND proceeding, can IDCC present evidence from the ITC that IDCC was deemed to have met its FRAND obligations to ZTE?

Loop, I agree. I am not talking about the chipmaker though. I am talking about the OEMs that sell phones that contain QCOM chips inside. If QCOM has indemnified their chips sold to OEMs, that may be a good reason for them to be talking with IDCC as has been suggested. Things are going to get very interesting in the future with IDCC.

miller, QCOM stock did not rise over night. It rose over an extended period once they started announcing royalty agreements with the OEMs. Since QCOM was the dominant inventor for CDMA, anyone building to the CDMA standard was forced to license with QCOM. IDCC's time will come now that they have their first victory. Others will soon fall as well.

If you are correct, that would be really sweet for IDCC. It would mean if an OEM uses a QCOM chip in their phones, they would likely be found to be infringing IDCCs patents.

DR, I agree the chips are not the infringer but the OEMs who use the chips in their manufactured phones would be considered to be infringing. I believe that is why QCOM keeps getting subpoenaed in these trials. Everyone wants to know what is embedded in their chips.

Jim, I believe it is because QCOM is not considered the customer that is responsible for royalty payments. The responsible party is the OEM that manufactures and sells phones to customers. QCOM is a wholesale provider of chips to the OEMs.

DR, since you are the only wireless technology guru that I can think of on this board and since you follow QCOM pretty closely, do you know whether the technology referenced in the claims decided in this case are embedded in QCOM's chips that are being sold to the major OEMs?

With today’s volatility in the stock price, the MMs are just clearing out all the swing traders and momentum traders. I expect ZTE to appeal this decision but do not believe anything much will be gained by it.

If I remember the Motorola trial correctly, the Motorola attorney told the jury that if they found for IDCC, American jobs would be lost to foreign manufacturers and I believe it tainted the jury such that I wanted to see IDCC ask for a mistrial. I believe IDCC made its case after proving that Motorola filed for a patent on one of its processes that was denied because a patent for the process had already been issued to IDCC. After the case was presented to the jury, the jury not only found non-infringement of all patents but also found all IDCC patents to be invalid. Interestingly, upon appeal, the court found that there was not enough evidence presented for the jury to find several of IDCC’s patents invalid and reinstated them. However, they let stand the jury finding of no infringement on all patents regardless of the validity issue and the case was closed. My point is unless the court can find that the jury relied on blatantly incorrect facts or assumptions, I can’t see them overturning this verdict.

IMO, the benefits to be drawn from this case are twofold. First, we have at least three patents found to be both valid and infringed and second, the finding of infringement should negate the DI argument that IDCC has failed to prove that its patent claims are being practiced. I don’t think I am off base here but maybe Ghors or Loop can correct me if I am wrong.

Postyle,

Thank you. That jury verdict is going to get framed in my office. Now we need to determine whether the technology at issue in this case is embedded in the cell phone chips sold by QCOM. If so, we'll have a bunch more companies that will be forced to come to the table. Also, what does this mean in regards to the DI argument constantly raised by the ITC in those pending cases?

Finally!!!!!!

Jiff and Technical,

Thanks for your on site reporting. Who knows what the jury will ultimately rule but in my past experience, a witness seldom wins a case from the stand but can certainly lose one if discredited on the stand. It sounds like IDCCs counsel did their job well today. Any idea how many witnesses are left to testify for ZTE?

It sounds like the judge doesn't want to mess with damages unless there is a finding of infringement and I can't blame him for that.

The only way to win this jury is to point out that the Chinese government has already deemed IDCC's patents to be valid and essential and is trying to assess penalties in an attempt to extort lower royalties for the benefit of Chinese manufacturers. Now ZTE is trying to back door the US courts saying IDCC's patents are not essential and/or not valid. As M3S argued, you can't have it both ways.

Since the Chinese decisions are in the public domain, can it be presented at the trial in Delaware? If so, the Chinese courts have already established that IDCC's patents make a perfect Chocolate Sundae.

Out of curiosity, how many of those nine Board positions are currently filled?

Does IDCC have any ownership of the wot.io spinoff?

GC, and what are the chances this new collaboration is due to some really good preliminary results from the trials Dr. Hoff has been conducting. This could really provide a fast-track for NVLX's orphan drug application.

Awesome!!

We are more than likely going to get a preliminary statement if the early treatment indications are positive. I don't think the actual study results will be published until the end of the year. If the treatments show reductions in ascites fluids due to tumor shrinkage or remission, I would think they would keep the study going until they achieve maximum benefits.

Do any of the longs know if they are using multiple groups of mice being treated with varying levels of cancer drugs?

I was a buyer too. Had a GTC order for $42.50 that got filled. Happy to see it filled too. Stock was tanked on relatively light volume until the end of the day.

I whole heartedly agree. It's almost a blessing in disguise that ZTE is now scheduled ahead of Nokia. Nokia instigated their own delay and they should now be scheduled however IDCC sees fit to schedule them in.

Do not put Nokia ahead of ZTE!!!!!!!!!

How can they be using up all the money if they are paying the Execs with stock? I don't mind them paying themselves in stock because if successful, it will be well worth it for the shareholders. As for the number of patients in the trial, if they show a success rate of 80% using a trial with only 30 patients, it is going to be positively accepted, I guarantee it.

Pete, the thing I don't understand is why someone would want to short a $0.25 stock. The gain is minimal unless you short millions of shares. However, the upside is pretty significant if NVLX can establish a foothold in any of their initial targeted fields (pancreatic cancer, colon cancer or diabetes). If NVLX is ever approved for diabetes, we will be sitting on a major gusher. The risk/reward ratios just don't favor the shorts no matter how you review it unless NVLX fails in every trial and that is not likely given the results of their preliminary work.

dws, I would agree. Since Samsung is now under license and paying royalties, one would think that they would agree to support IDCC's position before the ITC regarding satisfaction of the technical prong requirement in Section 337. I'm sure Samsung would like to see the other OEM's obligated for the same royalties that they are paying.

Ghors, I think you are right that the finding of no infringement is reversed based on the specific claim language but then the Commission still found no infringement for any patent in suit due to the inability of IDCC to satisfy the Technical prong of its DI argument.

However, I believe you are correct that the reversal of the non-infringement finding based purely on the claims language will be important in the Delaware court. I also hope the Delaware judge tosses the ITC's arguments relative to its newly adopted position for satisfying the requirements for DI.

revlis, two reasons come to mind. I believe Nokia thinks they will lose on at least one claim and prefers to have the patents valued in Delaware rather than risk a ban at the ITC. I believe IDCC was seeking royalties for the entire patent portfolio and Nokia wants to pay only for patents found to be infringed. We have seen the values assigned to patents in our court system and that is by far the lessor of two evils.

You may also be right about Nokia using Delaware to get the ITC to punt on their obligation to acquire all the facts and render a meaningful decision. We all know the ITC is being played like a yo-yo by Nokia. The question is, do they know it?

Jim,

In response to your comment about the Samsung settlement, Samsung had good reason to believe IDCC would win its case based on the CAFC claims interpretations and a couple of early decisions in favor of IDCC at the ITC. Had they known the ITC ALJ would invalidate IDCC's patents due to Domestic Industry, I highly doubt they would have settled when they did. In any event, I agree with you that the market did not see that settlement coming.

Nokia and ZTE had the same set of facts before them as Samsung and chose to take their chances because they know the ITC is a favorable venue for large OEMs and foreign competition.

Also, had the case with Nokia not gone to hearing until the 15th, it is highly unlikely it would have been completed by the end of the week which means an adjournment to a later date. They can't risk an adjournment to a later date with a jury trial so a postponement was the only option and IDCC did not oppose it. As for the cancellation of the conference call, the Judge probably talked to the parties and was told a settlement was not probable at this point in time so the conference call was not necessary. That just supports my theory that Nokia is not interested in a settlement now or ever until there is a finding of infringement levied against them.

Jim,

You should know by now that Nokia will never settle with IDCC unless they are found guilty of infringement and then they will even try to control the terms of the settlement. Nokia is too good at the delay game to settle at this point. I don't have any idea where Microsoft stands in all this insanity but it looks like they are willing to ride it out as well.

Again, there is no benefit to a settlement because the cost to Nokia and Microsoft will be the same if they are found guilty of infringement. If found guilty in Delaware, there are appeals that could go for another two years or better. I would knock the appeal process but that is the only thing keeping IDCC in the game at the moment.

Looking at the facts surrounding the reasons for the postponement of the Nokia hearing, I would surmise the following:

1. The judge kept the hearing on the docket until a late date in hopes of spurring a settlement between the parties. (We all know that the chances for a settlement with Nokia were between very slim and none, and

2. In light of the fact that the Nokia hearing was pushed to #2 for the week of the 8th meant it would most probably extend to the entire week of the 15th, and given the fact that Nokia said three of its witnesses would not be available to testify during the week of the 15th, it didn't make sense to hold this hearing now because it would probably have to be scheduled for completion at a later date anyway, and

3. I recollect seeing somewhere that IDCC did not oppose a postponement of the hearing when responding to one of the Judge's questions on the issue.

Based on the above, I don't see that there was much choice but to postpone the hearing to a later date. I don't like it but it does make sense. I will be thoroughly ticked off if ZTE comes in with some lame excuse to get their hearing postponed though and Nokia better be rescheduled for November. However, a win against ZTE on one or more of the same infringement claims levied against Nokia could bring Nokia to the settlement table.

The final couple of paragraphs tell the story by stating that the issues are being addressed in other proceedings (Delaware) so we (ITC) will just punt on our fact finding obligations and further decisions and let the other proceedings sort them out. Talk about passing the buck!

This sucks. Nokia all along wanted their trial postponed until after ZTE and it looks like they may now get their wish. When does the ZTE trial start?

The only possible positive outcome from this is that ZTE won't have the luxury of knowing whether any of Nokia's arguments are powerful enough to sway a jury. I am more confident in a win against ZTE than I am in a win against Nokia in the first case out of the block. A win against ZTE will look pretty powerful in the Nokia trial. If we now see ZTE come in with a request for postponement, we will know the two parties are working together to kill these cases and the judge better wise up real quick.

I'm sick and tired of the constant legal delays afforded to Nokia.

I'll bet Samsung and LG could find a lot of prior art in Nokia's patents whether listed or not. They were pretty good at copying and stealing other peoples inventions.

It sounds like there are two prongs to this statement. First the patentee must prove that it has a substantial investment in the exploitation of a patent and second, it must prove that those investments pertain to products that are covered by the patent that is being asserted.

If I understand the ITC's position correctly under the second prong, does this mean that a patentee must now basically prove (in some legal venue)that a product infringes its patents before it can bring a case before the ITC? How else can a patentee prove that its investments in patents pertain to products covered by the patent?

Am I totally off base here?

Oh wow, they closed a whopping position of 47K shares worth about $10,800. I'll bet the bottom 10% of investors in this stock all have more than 47K shares. This is a non-event no matter how you try to spin it.

Microsoft and Apple were once failures too. Think about it.

I hear what you are saying but a win in Delaware should override any decision by the ITC on the same issues. The only reason to go to the CAFC is on any issue not addressed in Delaware but that would only set up a remand proceeding that will take another two years whereby the ITC will find a way to crap in our face again.

M3S, a win in Delaware would make the ITC completely irrelevant and I'm sure there will be a lot fewer patent cases brought before them because they are totally incompetent when it comes to ruling on complicated patent issues.

I would love to see the CAFC rip them apart again but don't want to see IDCC waste any more money trying to get their errors corrected.

You're right, but for every sell there is a buy and the smart investors are happy to see the price going down so we can load up with cheaper shares. The fundamentals are still positive and when the news hits about the latest trials, I don't think we will have to worry about the stock price any more.