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.
If I were the company I would be snatching up as many cheapies as possible. I think the two biggest shoulders alone own almost 25%. What ever the direction of the company, it wouldn’t cost them much to buy the outstanding shares up and then control the show. Anyone know if there’s a poison pill provision? I haven’t read one.
What is going on with this company, anyone have a clue? Are they still in business, who is even leading this? I read Silicon Turbine is operating out of same location, that being funded by INVT? Search of Delaware SOS and INVT appears to owe Delaware hundreds of thousands of back corporate taxes? As anyone had contact with anyone from INVT? I don’t even think they could file bankruptcy because of the assets still attached. Man oh man what a mess.
Me too
Great point. If Judge MacNamara uses Apple products, but I suppose that could also be said for Inventergy employees too. I bet they use Apple products too. IMO
I wonder if the Inventergy legal team ever considered asking for a recusal.
Interesting articles. Not suggesting there was impartiality just an interesting direction to explore. I am also not an attorney. In my opinion.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/well-recuse-me-when-a-judge-shouldnt-try-a-case.html
https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2020/01/16/judges-dont-like-your-recusal-requests-and-theres-data-to-prove-it/?slreturn=20200206105638
In 2016 Arista lost their fight against Cisco after the ITC ruled in favor of Cisco. ALJ MacNamara was the presiding Judge in the Arista ITC case, but Arista went to win the jury trial against Cisco in the civil case.
Agreed Avid and I am certainly glad Inventergy seems to have such a strong legal team. It certainly appears based on their argument that great hubris played a possibly role in the ALJ’s ID. What else could it have been? You’ve got to scratch your head and wonder how Judge MacNamara arrived at such a confounding interpretation of the law. IN MY MOST HUMBLE OF HUMBLING OPINION.
Complainant submitted one heck of a petition to review Judge MacNamara’s Final Initial Determination. Basically they stated Judge MacNamara committed an “egregious legal error”, “legal error”. Quite interesting if the Commissioners and Chairman with side with the apparent “judicial interpretation” of one of their own or the unambiguous independent jurisprudence. Maybe hire an investigator to see where the “donations” have gone. Just kidding. IMO
“Complainant INVT seeks reversal of the ALJ’s Initial Determination (“ID”) on essentiality, infringement, and the technical prong of domestic industry. For each Asserted Patent, the parties agree: essentiality, infringement, and the technical prong rise and fall together. As such, correcting the ALJ’s errors on essentiality will also correct the ALJ’s resultant errors on infringement and the technical prong.
The most egregious legal error is the ALJ’s failure to address one of INVT’s two 3G essentiality (and corresponding infringement) theories for the ’590 patent. INVT consistently advanced two theories of 3G essentiality for the ’590 patent. Yet the ALJ addressed only one, rejecting it based on a claim construction provided for the first time in the ID, for which INVT seeks review and reversal. The ID is completely silent on INVT’s second essentiality theory. INVT repeatedly raised, argued, proved, and briefed this second theory, which included pointing out that under any claim construction the 3G coding matrix’s 5-bit repetition renders the ’590 patent standard essential and infringed. Failing to address INVT’s 3G argument violates both the APA and the ITC’s own rules, which require that an ID address all “material” issues in dispute.
Beyond that, the ID is flawed because it improperly construes multiple claim terms across
the three asserted patents and applies an incorrect legal standard for “essentiality” in analyzing
the ’439 patent. Accordingly, INVT respectfully asks that the Commission find each of the three
asserted patents essential and infringed, and that the technical prong of domestic industry is
satisfied. The Commission may then remand for the ALJ to address any remaining issues.”
It seems Judge MacNamara has a history of giving mixed rulings. Thoughts on this and next steps?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N23C21C
https://www.fastcompany.com/90325495/the-iphone-should-be-banned-from-sale-in-u-s-says-trade-judge?partner=newscred&utm_source=newscred&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=newscred+fastcompany&utm_content=newscred
Doubtful Apple ever adopts that approach. Settle ing would hurt them in the long run as it would present them to tremendous litigation. I don’t know the strength of the VirnetX case as it compares to Inventergy’s case, but I can only hope the Inventergy attorneys leading the litigation against Apple look very carefully at what worked in the VirnetX case and model a similar strategy. The one thing the “sure thing” ITC ruling reinforced, there’s no such thing as a sure thing and always plan for a contrarian decision. IMO
Good read, thank you.
Apple looses $440million patent appeal in Supreme Court
https://www.google.com/amp/s/9to5mac.com/2020/02/24/apple-virnetx-rehearing-us-supreme-court/amp/
Agreed Avid. It sounds like the Judge added a CYA into her decision. Basically Inventergy you didn’t prove your case but if I am wrong then you proved the economic portion. I’ll read some of her other decisions to see if that’s her boiler plate CTA.
No that is not what Judge McNamara stated in her Notice Of Initial Determination On Violation Of Section 337. Judge McNamara makes it very clear Inventergy failed to prove Apple, HTC and ZTE violated Section 337. She further states Inventergy failed to prove that their domestic industry (DI) products “satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.” Judge McNamara stated should her technical prong of DI be reversed, THEN AND ONLY THEN will Inventergy have satisfied economic loss of the economic prong of DI.
The judge is essentially saying that in the event her finding is reversed based on being incorrect, then Inventergy has proved economic loss. That’s it, Inventergy lost their ITC case. What Inventergy’s next step is I have no idea. They still have the civil trial in Circuit Court. Clearly the market has shrugged this off though. Inventergy hasn’t issued any SEC filings in approx 18-24months and their continued silence with the ITC determination is par for course. In my humble opinion.
Indeed. They’ll drag it out through appeals for decades.
I’m not sure a defendant can appeal an ITC decision. Regardless it appears while everyone made a huge deal of the ITC case, the stock just shrugged it off, so maybe it never really mattered anyways. I’m not sure what to think.
Reading the full 3 page finding by Judge McNamara, it’s apparent she ruled in favor of Apple. The last portion of her statement is what is puzzling. I believe she means if her decision is overturned during review then Inventergy has proved the financial loss prong. If so then that could be massive windfall. But from reading it all it’s disappointing. Again not sure why Inventergy hasn’t put out a statement. Still long and haven’t sold. In my opinion.
ITC Verdict is in-2/18/2020 Judge McNamara ruled today No. 337-TA-1138
“I have found that Complainant INVT SPE LLC (“INVT” or Complainant”) has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that any of the Respondents, whether Apple Inc.....I have found that none of the Asserted Patents is essential to the 3G or LTE standards. I have found that INVT has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that any Accused Products satisfies an asserted patent claim that remains in this Investigation....I have found that Respondents have failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the Asserted Claims is invalid....I have found, alternatively and only in the event that my finding on technical prong of the domestic industry requirement is reversed on review, that INVT has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Sections 337(a)(3)(A) and 337(a)(3)(B).”
Wow. Not much more I can say but, wow. So did INVT satisfy the ecominc prong if reversed in review? Will there be a settlement to make everything just go away? Should we be concerned that this information is publicly available on ITC EDIS, yet Mr. Beyers and Inventergy have provided no updates whether through a press release or SEC filing? Is this a material event? What is going on? I can’t post the document but you can log into ITC EDIS and read it for yourself. It’s 3 pages long. Thoughts and comments appreciated.
https://edis.usitc.gov/external/?loginPrompt=true
Fair enough. I hope INVT is successful in the bifocal front, ITC & US Circuit, and lands an landmark judgment against Apple et el. Nothing fishy or non transparent about that.
Avid, let me refresh your memory with the statement you made less then 24hrs ago:
“Kevin Kanning, a major share holder of invt is colaborating with invt concerning patents they hold with Adomani”
No one is debating the former that Mr. Kanning is a “major share holder of invt.” As you stated this is indeed public record and information. What is not public information is the latter portion of your statement, “ is colaborating with invt concerning patents they hold with Adoman.” Quite the off script comment that until you introduced it, no one had ever suggested it, let alone was thinking it. So again, no one accused you of anything, just a discussion of your previous statement.
Time will determine if your statement ever has merit. If it turns out it does, I’m sure their will be interested parties who would like to know how you came to such conclusions.
And for the interest of full transparency, I am long INVT and have never held a short position.
1: I would like to know how you are aware of this.
2: To suggest publicly that Mr. Kanning would go along with Beyers plans for Inventergy as a form of quid pro quo for Beyers assistance with Adomani, is quite interesting. Even more reason to throughly exam any future deals executed by Beyers that potentially injure common shareholders.
Personally I don’t see Mr. Kanning being a Form 3 filer to them go along with potential deals that are contradictory to his Inventergy holdings. You have made quite an interesting statement.
I am long Inventergy and may buy more now.
That story would coincide with the 200% increase and case update in EDIS ITC. Seems someone took a position in INVT based on the Cal Tech news before it broke? Speculation, confusion, advanced knowledge? Apple is appealing but it will be settled. The question now is Cal Tech is a world renowned institution, Inventergy is considered a “patent troll” (media’s words not mine). Does that change things in the eyes of the court or jury? Lastly it appears retail holds upwards of 40-50% (maybe more) of Inventergy common stock, I don’t think Mr. Beyers’ and what ever is left of his board will EVER get the votes needed to affect a reverse split. Even with looming dilution from the last round of capital raise. My point, should a verdict rule in Inventergy’s favor, retail will have a seat out the table and can’t be ignored. I believe Mr. Beyer’s knows this and this is one of the reasons Inventergy stopped providing updates. Failed vote on last R/S, and now retail holds upwards of 25% more shares. IMO.
I can’t put my finger on it but something odd is going on. ITC EDIS updates that are not publicly viewable with huge corresponding gyrations on heavy volume in the equity, followed by market makers deliberate stomping out the increase on next to no volume. In appears something is brewing.
http://www.inventergy.com/the-ip-market/
ITC case update 6 hours ago. Stock goes up 200% on heavy volume. Then retreats end of the day on no volume. This goes unnoticed. I can’t see what today’s update was but can see there was an update. Strange even by Inventergy’s standard.
OFFERS ARE NOT FRAND and Seventh Amendment violations —————> IMO BOLD Mr. Brinkman. Kirkland and Ellis openly criticizing the Federal Circuit? WOW. Then Zhang states “INVT’s offers to Respondents were not FRAND.” INVT being accused of not being fair with the “alleged” infringers of their IP. Isn’t that like a defense attorney blaming the rape victim for wearing clothing? In my opinion it looks and sounds like the respondents and counsel are sinking and sinking fast. They appear to be clinging to anything and everything that’s floating by. Inventergy with a $1billion dollar settlement or wouldn’t that be FRAND? What may have cost your clients $500m 18months might cost them potentially billions. Quite amazing, and in my humble opinion a universally poor defense by the respondents counsel. This is beginning to remind me of Edward Masry's law firm when he filed his direct action suit against PGE and we all know how that turned out for PGE. SETTLE SETTLE SETTLE and admit no wrong doing....or have we long past that point? LOL
Long and strong INVT.
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/International_Trade_Commission/337-1138/Certain_LTE-_and_3G-Compliant_Cellular_Communications_Devices/docs/699202/1.pdf
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/International_Trade_Commission/337-1138/Certain_LTE-_and_3G-Compliant_Cellular_Communications_Devices/
What did you miss?
Only this.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.law360.com/amp/articles/1232400
And evidently this. Silicon Turbine??? Run by none other then are absentee Inventergy founder Joseph Beyers and located at Inventergy’s office in Cupertino California. And considering the last sec filing and company update was May 10 2018, yes after nearly two years I think it’s fair to say our founder has been absent. So I’ll ask it, what the heck is silicone turbine and why is it located at Inventergy’s offices? Boy oh boy would I like to see Inventergy’s accounting. JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION.
https://www.siliconturbine.com/leadership-team
By that same argument then the ITC QCOM decision against AAPL that added $45billion to QCOM market cap should have already set significant precedents. QCOM ITC case also called for iPhone importation bans.
Yes I am aware QCOM is not the INVT case. I was citing an example that the ALJ recently sided against Apple on a similar case. As far as the INVT ITC case goes, I have zero positive expectations. Expect the worst, hope for the best. But I’m not even sure it’ll move the stock.
Jackie when ITC ALJ McNamara ruling was released, QCOM stock nearly doubled. In dollars that equates to roughly $45billion dollars. Look at the QCOM chart in relation to ITC.
“ ITC Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara issued a Notice of Issuance of Initial Determination (ID) on Violation of Section 337 in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1093 finding that Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (‘674) is valid and infringed by Apple.
“ALJ Rules in Favor of Qualcomm in Patent Infringement Case Against Apple at the U.S. International Trade Commission”
https://www.wolfgreenfield.com/publications/articles/2019/alj-mcnamara-finds-violation-by-apple-in-second-qualcomm
ALJ McNamara is ITC.
McNamara ruled against Apple a few months ago in the QCOM case. I have no speculation or opinion if the ITC will side with INVT.
My concern is what will Beyers do in the event ITC rules in favor of INVT. He has not shown to be shareholder centric. If the stock runs hopefully we can all exit at >$1 before possibly further dilution.
alj mcnamara recently ruled against Apple
Apple was paying Panasonic for the same patents INVT currently owns and are at the center of the ITC case.
If ITC rules in favor of INVT, where does the stock go?
Only 18 million shares but will there be dilution from the TCA senior secured convertible redeemable debentures?
Will Mr. Beyer’s come out of hiding, not to imply he is hiding, but will he update shareholders? Is TCA getting updates? Maybe time for equal footing?
In my opinion, it certainly seems like a reach for Apple to prove Fortress/Inventergy is in violation of anti-trust laws. I do however wonder if merely being accused of anti-trust violations will influence the ITC’s decision. The timing of said litigation is not by happenstance.
That’s not to say that INVT SPE LLC will loose the ITC probe because in my opinion the ITC will rule in INVT favor. IMO
AAPL and INTL are not worried about Fortress and in my opinion they consider the suits by Inventergy vis a vis Fortress/SoftBank nothing more then nuisance suits. Please also keep in mind that Apple has tens of billions invested with Softbank’s Vision Fund so there is an existing well heeled relationship. The recent counter litigation by AAPL/INTL are antitrust suits, specifically for alleged violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Act. Simply legal strategy and maneuvering by the staff attorneys and firms representing the plaintiffs, rather then “Hail Mary” efforts to derail the bigger cases. IMHO
Still no idea what you’re talking about but if it means a recovery for shareholders then I’m behind that. Cheers to .25 share, .50 share......even .12 per share ??
Long
What you figure out?
Lotta volume today. Appeared as MM
Also odd there was a barrage of Pom Pom posts supporting the company and they vanished after were proven incorrect by multiple contributors. Gotta wonder if there’s individuals associated with the company posting on the board. IMO
Inventergy entered Solar licensing market?
Seems reasonable Mr. Beyers is still actively involved?
Investors would like to see financials?
Is Inventergy paying salaries and board compensation?
Is Inventergy paying for executives perks such as travel expenses, entertainment?
Mr. Beyers feels comfortably giving interviews for trade publications, but not providing investor updates?
Might be time for investors to take up plan b?
What is plan b?
HOLDING LONG INVT. IN MY MOST HUMBLE OPINION.
https://solarindustrymag.com/inventergy-to-license-a-sun-systems-tech-in-north-america
Yes I’m long. Yes I probably hold more then most here. And no there’s nothing fishy about it.
IMO the company’s toxic decisions put shareholders in this position and holding an equity position doesn’t change the decisions that got us here.
Wasn’t aware that being a shareholder requires one to done pom poms and a pump. SMF.