You are correct. For some reason, I thought this was brought before the rocket docket in Texas. I'm getting my cases confused.

One of the issues presented in the Motorola trial in 1995 that in my opinion swayed the jury towards Motorola was a comment made by Motorola's attorney that U.S. jobs would be lost if the jury found in favor of IDCC. There was an insinuation that Motorola would have to stop manufacturing phone in Texas. I thought that comment was grounds for a mistrial because it was not true and tainted the jury. The judge let the comment stand and I believe it had a bearing on the jury's ultimate finding of no infringement. It was a Texas jury and Motorola's headquarters and manufacturing facilities were located in Texas.

I would like to see IDCC use the same tactic against Nokia in Delaware. U.S. jobs would be lost if the jury finds in favor of Nokia who has all of its phones manufactured overseas and profits substantially from sales in the U.S.

Loop, I'm of the opinion that Nokia would settle if there were a benefit associated with a settlement. The problem is, the cost to Nokia will be the same whether they lose or settle so there is no reason to settle at this point other than reduced legal fees. Why not just hold out for a win if there is really nothing to lose otherwise. Can the judge in Delaware impose additional penalties on Nokia if they lose due to patent holdout or does FRAND trump all when it comes to assessment of royalties?

If IDCC were entitled to recovery of legal fees upon a win, maybe that would bring Nokia to the table but I kind of doubt it. I think this battle with IDCC is very personal for Nokia.

I too would like to see some kind of closure to these persistent legal proceedings and hope the Delaware judge will sift through the smoke and mirrors presented by Nokia. It appears he is much more aligned with the CAFC when it comes to assessing claims interpretations. Regardless, I would love to see the CAFC call out the ITC for being incompetent when it comes to consistently adding unnecessary limitations to claims language in patents that the CAFC has previously ruled on and available in the public record.

I'm afraid pNokio and Patrick Flinn have made made this litigation personal and Flinn is now making legal recommendations to Softee. The only way it will settle is if Softee pulls the plug on legal fees.

So do you think the ITC is tossing Nokia's scrambling code argument because it wasn't presented in a timely manner (in discovery or hearings)? If that's the case Newman should be well aware of the rules of evidence and her dissention is out of line.

I'm not an attorney and even I know you can't put something in a brief that wasn't covered in discovery or hearings.

Are you saying that because this issue was not addressed at the hearing regarding this issue, it cannot be introduced in the briefs? I wonder if there was any testimony filed regarding this issue. If not, then it may be plausible to get the argument tossed.

There can't be too many bites left on the apple for pNokia. This stuff has got to get settled once and for all.

I don't know but I'm sure it is expensive. It really doesn't matter whether the staff or Commission reads IDCC's appeal, it won't change anything from the ITC. The ITC needs a good butt-kicking from the CAFC to knock them off their high pedestals. For all I care, Essex and the whole ITC staff would be better suited selling hotdogs in the South Bronx.

I like the appeal language but don't think it will help on appeal to the full ITC panel of judges. They encourage settlements between the parties but continually provide erroneous orders in favor of the Respondents that will preclude settlements from ever happening. Our government working for you.

This appeal sets the framework for an appeal to the CAFC and reads very well. As noted when the ALJ changed claim language from "and to" to "if so", it places a unnecessary limitation in the claim language by inserting a sequence of operations where none is implied in the actual claim language. IDCC should win this issue.

I also like the language about DI and the fact that even if the technical prong is mandated, IDCC passes the technical prong because there is nothing in the record that disputes the use of the patented articles in the products licensed by IDCC's current licensees. Isn't that the "innocent until proven guilty" concept?

Bert Reiser is listed as a contributor to this appeal and he did a great job before the CAFC on the last appeal. Let's see if he can bring us another victory on this appeal.

The CAFC may not be a favorable venue this time around. The last time IDCC went before the CAFC, they received a favorable decision from two of the three judges. One dissented on the grounds of DI. With the resignation of the lead judge who I think was in IDCC's camp, we don't know the new makeup of the judges and where they stand on the ITC's new requirements for DI. If we get a liberal judge, IDCC could have an uphill battle with the CAFC on its next appeal because I think it is all about DI now.

DR, I agree. It would also be nice to get some shared product revenues out of some of our partners. If IDCC can get shared product revenues of any magnitude, it will enhance the image of IDCC to the business communities and maybe get rid of this troll image.

If IDCC gets bought out, it will be by someone in the entertainment/video industry that needs an engineering staff to develop and manage future wireless high-bandwidth services.

It's not really fair to compare IDCC with QCOM because of QCOM's chip business. I suspect QCOM's value would decrease by 80% if they exited their chip business. Even still, their royalty business in more the five times the value of IDCCs based on current licensees and annualized royalty revenues. IDCC may be able to reduce that difference to three times with a favorable ITC order and the signing of Nokia/Msft, Huawei, ZTE and Apple but will need some type of product revenues to get over the $500 million revenue hump.

I believe the ITC is somewhat corrupt and I don't trust them at the least. They seem to change their interpretation of claims to suit their purpose which is a finding of no violation. The CAFC has called them on some of their ridiculous findings and left them very little wiggle room going forward but I expect to see the ITC defend Nokia to the bitter end.

I will be elated if they issue a finding of infringement but I am not setting my expectations for disappointment again. I think we may have much better luck in the Federal courts where the lobbyists have no reach and they can assess damages and penalties for patent hold out.

Nokia has been fighting IDCC since 2006 trying everything they can to get IDCC's patents invalidated for one reason or another. Arguments have included Domestic Industry, FRAND, prior art and that they simply don't practice the invention identified in the claims of the patents. They succeeded initially at the ITC until overturned by the CAFC on virtually every argument presented. Samsung, Huawei, and ZTE also signed on to the fight with Nokia. LG succeeded in removing itself from the ITC favoring arbitration instead.

Now where are we? Huawei acquiesced to arbitration and Samsung just signed a potential 10 year agreement. Samsung's agreement should also establish a value for FRAND which was Nokia's last real sticking point. I believe Samsung saw the writing on the wall for the upcoming ITC order due June 13 and decided to put this mess behind them. IDCC will get their deal with Huawei before year end leaving Nokia/Msft and ZTE to fend for themselves. The once mighty cartel hell bent on destroying IDCC has been pretty much obliterated. I don't see LG holding out for long either. They have to know IDCC has staying power and will see this fight to the bitter end. As the number 1 handset provider, Samsung's agreement is huge and should help to resolve the relicensing of Apple and/or its OEMs.

IDCC's stock price is still pretty abysmal because people simply don't get it. That is a plus for us because it affords us the opportunity to keep buying at low prices until people finally do start to get it. I believe the stock is trading at about 7 times current year earnings at the moment with a doubling of earnings still possible this year. Past royalties from Nokia/Msft alone since 2006 should be worth at least $500 million based on the Samsung deal. That would bring us to near $30 in cash per share. What happens when the market finally gets it? Will brokers be touting the stock at $75 saying it's a no brainer? I certainly hope so. All I can say is this is going to be one heck of a ride watching the market finally understand what we already know. Then we may be able to watch Cramer finally plug the stock after it reaches $100 saying he knew it all along.

OB, with $17 a share in cash, the stock price better never hit the 30s again or the market is totally screwed up. This guy sounds like a moron if he thinks he can get the stock in the 30s again. I'm sure he is hoping though.

That's a long drive and one-third of the trip will be just driving through Texas. Wisconsin in summer is a pretty state though. Hope your trip is a great one.

Loop, if I may ask, where are you driving from?

I don't think these are crappy numbers. They amount to about $80 million per year recurring and I expect it will go up as more devices hit the market. It is not as much as it was in the past but that's not unexpected with all the arguments about FRAND. I just wish it were a ten year deal now and not just through 2017 with an option to extend.

Mickey, what is interesting to me is that Samsung was being represented by Patrick Flinn from Alston Bird. He is the guy who fought IDCC on behalf of Nokia for the last 10 years. This is really a surprising move to me but I'm happy to take it.

I agree. I thought FRAND was already established. I hope Judge Essex tells them to take their FRAND witnesses and send them all back to France where they belong.

Loop,

Is MMO assuming all past liabilities of Nokia's handset division or it just for entering an agreement going forward? This sounds positive but I hate to see the Snake let off the hook so easily.

Agreed, IDCC has been the victim of a couple of crummy ITC orders. Unfortunately, it takes years to get these crummy orders reversed and corrected. I am not confident the idiots at the ITC will get it right the next time either. They seem to be more focused on punishing a Nokia branded troll than understanding how the technology really works for purposes of claims interpretation and patent enforcement.

I am also concerned about the large number of ITC judges that have exempted themselves from the proceedings. Just why is it that they do not consider themselves impartial or independent?

Otsy, it is best not to reply to these self-proclaimed shorts. To try to profit on someone else's failure is simply pathetic in my book. I think this company may have something and I sincerely hope they succeed in a big way and that these self-proclaimed shorts get buried in the process.

I am most interested in their diabetes treatments. If their pancreatic cancer treatment is successful, that should provide them an abundance of capital to bring their diabetes treatment to market. That market is huge and if they have what they say they have, diabetics and investors will by very happy people.

Interesting, it looks like the future business plan is to commercialize some applications for public use. It would be nice to have revenues derived from sources other than licensing. I really like the idea of a premium services in the M2M space.

Jeffree, that number appears low even without the Fujitsu settlement. It should be somewhere north of 1st QTR revenues.

DND,

I'm not sure jist has and agenda, he just likes to play devils advocate and is letting his fear get the best of him. There are a couple of points that are real though. No one knows what any of the current litigation will result in. I am feeling better about a win against Nokia and Samsung. The problem is the courts have now started to try to value the patents to determine damages and I think the values are coming in on the low side.

China says IDCC has a monopoly but yet the Chinese manufacturers don't infringe IDCC's patents. I guess those are all honorable people making those decisions. The ITC won't defend US patents due to Federal administrative mandates. More honorable people?

There is not much honor among businesses any more and that is a sad truth. I do think we will get a better value than we have today but not the value I thought we would have gotten five years ago. The question is, is there a better investment to be in today than IDCC? There may be but I like my position for the remainder of this year.

I just looked at the quarterly balance sheet. Deferred revenue did not go up from year end 2013, it went down a little bit. I don't know where Fox got his number from in the CC transcript but it is wrong. Oh well, at least we should get some additional revenue from Fujitsu in 2nd quarter earnings. I hope the Apple royalties continue to increase as well.

You may be right. My take from the CC is that the Fujitsu settlement was not reflected in 1st quarter earnings. That means those settlements will be reflected in 2nd quarter and beyond. Also from the CC transcript, Gene Fox of Cardinal Capital asked a question about the increase in deferred revenues and it was fairly significant ($50M). Some of that may be attributable to Fujitsu but I would like to know what the rest of it is due to? BM said it had to do with timing of A/R. That may be true but the other side of the A/R entry is current revenues and if current revenues and deferred revenues are both increasing at the same time, that can only be a good thing.

I think another big win was the patent where defendants tried to change the claims language to incorporate spoofing. That seemed to be a big deal for them and the judge refused to adopt that language. I think IDCC may eke out a win in Delaware based on some of the adopted claims language.

There is an easy solution to the Chinese problem. If they pay IDCC what they are paying QCOM, IDCC will gladly pay their fine of 10%. I still don't understand how the NDRC can fine a company that does not derive any money from China because the Chinese deadbeats refuse to license.

The other problem that you have not considered is the fact that the brokerage houses you use to purchase stock reserve the right to loan shares in your account unless you ask them to hold the certificates in your name. If you request the latter, a large fee will be assessed to you every time you want to trade the stock.

The brokerage then charges a fee to the borrower for the loaned shares and you get the shaft because your own shares are working against you. This whole financial system is rigged against the small investors.

The fact is the reasons for the 613 remand are public as well as the interpretations of the claims construction in the Delaware Markman proceeding. If Judge Essex ignores all of it, I hope it prompts a thorough review of the ITCs operations. The problem is the Judge won't get any help from his staff attorneys as it appears they are clearly biased in this case. They have ruled against IDCC every opportunity that has been afforded them.

I also like the responses from IDCC's attorneys because they appear to focus on the lack of experience and disregard for precedent indicated in staff counsel's opinions.

You generally don't want to burn any bridges but in this case the bridges have already been imploded so there is nothing to burn. No more playing nice.

Jeffree, I am intrigued by the block buys this week. I believe there were at least three block buys that caused big temporary swings in the price. Interestingly, they appeared to be at market which means someone wanted in quickly. The question is whether the block buys are one or three different buyers.

I too am hoping for another announcement in the near future.

David, that would be great news indeed. The last time we had a little spike in volume and price, it was followed by an announcement of the deal with Fujitsu. I hope there might be another something behind today's spike in volume and price. Somebody always knows something before it is announced to the public. A Samsung agreement would absolutely fry the shorts because it would probably lead to a settlement with LG shortly thereafter.

Nokia will never settle, they will just die a slow death.

It's interesting that several arguments posed by ZTE's counsel refer to lines in a preferred embodiment and were called out by IDCC's counsel. They try to cite language in the preferred embodiments because that language is more specific when trying to point out examples of applications of the invention. The actual claims language will normally apply to multiple applications or even a broader standard of which a preferred embodiment will reflect only one example. In a least two instances, IDCC's counsel pointed out that ZTE's arguments to limit claims construction were derived from language contained in a preferred embodiment that was merely discussing one example of an application of the invention.

There is plenty of legal precedent disallowing this tactic so why don't the judges go after the attorneys who continue to attempt it?

jist1, my take on the revised ITC remand instructions is different than yours. My recollection is that somewhere in these appeals, Nokia backed off on its argument that its Prach preamble signals are never transmitted so I read the revised instructions to be that Nokia's argument is waived which is favorable to IDCC when taken in context with the other findings regarding the code/signal limitations and the increased power level limitation of the 966 and 847 patents.

I think the revised remand instructions are favorable to IDCC. Also favorable is the fact they are opening the proceedings to determine if currently exported products practice any of the inventions included in this proceeding. If it were obvious that there were no violation, why would they need to determine whether current products practiced the inventions?

This is getting ridiculous. Why do they need 18 months to resolve the open issues from the remand? Also, settlement conferences between these parties are a joke. Nokia will never settle so lets save that time, energy and expense.

You would think the lawyers hands would be cramping by now from milking this cow for over 5 years.

Are we expecting the ITC to adopt the remanded claims interpretation in the 868 or will the ITC simply go with their old interpretations and arguments leading to findings of non-infringement?

GBR, what is the start date for the 18.5 month target date for the remand?

I'm sure pNokio is wanting to retry parts of the initial case whereas ALJ Essex said no new evidence or arguments can be submitted. If the ITC decides to ignore the CAFC directives on claim construction, I hope the CAFC comes down hard on them.

The filing by NSCC requests to exit the stock borrowing program due to the fact that utilization of its stock borrowing program has been declining over time and is not economically feasible to maintain it going forward.

It looks like the NSCC was acting as a clearing house for lenders and borrowers of stock and that they would pair-off (match) shares on loan with borrowed shares on a daily basis. I believe they are but one of many clearing houses used for this purpose.

I don't think this will have any impact on the shorted shares of IDCC.