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.
Why are they idiots?
Maybe they're smart enough to know where to find it??
I found it in the 10-Q that was filed today and the answer
is NO - they basically clamped down in Feb and March with
no share buybacks. I guess that they figured that if
the world went off a cliff (like some were saying), they'd
need all the cash they could get their hands on.
They bought back a little in January - 6,070 shares @ 57.5 on average.
Rich Brezski - "High level expectations for Q2":
Q2 Revenue - $97 million to $105 million
Recurring revenue $82 to $86 million
Current annual recurring revenue platform: $340 million
Goal - Increase the current $340 million to $500 million from wirelss
plus an additional $150 million CE business with some additional
IoT over time.
Qualcomm signed up Oppo and Vivo - this is from yesterday's transcript:
<<In our licensing business, we have now signed more than 85 5G license agreements, up from 80 license agreements last quarter. As expected, we recently entered into new long-term global patent license agreements with two leading Chinese handset suppliers OPPO and Vivo to cover 5G multi-mode mobile devices.>>
<<We have now entered into new long-term global patent license agreements with OPPO and Vivo. Our ability to finalize these 5G multimode agreements in a challenging environment reiterates the strength of our IP portfolio and the relationship with these customers. In the second fiscal quarter, due to the spread of COVID-19, we saw a reduction in 3G, 4G, 5G handset shipments of approximately 21% compared to our prior expectations and on a year-over-year basis.>>
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4341284-qualcomm-incorporated-qcom-ceo-steve-mollenkopf-on-q2-2020-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
<<The Agreement covers the sale of certain of Huawei’s 3G, 4G and 5G terminal unit products, including the use of Wi-Fi and HEVC in those products, and extends through December 31, 2023.>>
olddog967, thanks for the 8-K.
I'm just wondering why it evidently turned out to be just shy of a
four year agreement instead of what's a typical five year agreement.
I hope it's not because IDCC's IP will be weaker from 2024 onward.
Nevertheless, it's very good news because four years with Huawei
(including 5G) will help a lot and hopefully get the holdouts like
Oppo, Vivo, Lenovo, etc. to sign up. And hopefully Huawei will renew
from 2024 onward!
Russell 2000 was down 10% - I think that's one of the reasons why IDCC
got hit particularly hard today.
Russell 2000 (^RUT)
991.16-115.34 (-10.42%)
At close: 4:30PM EDT
IDCC's net cash position (if all debt is repaid) is just about
$480 million - I just checked the most recent 10-K:
http://www.snl.com/Cache/IRCache/c842abeb9-a73a-7071-6f93-304587de01f2.html
It also shows that IDCC's diluted shares outstanding is 31.8 million:
So at a share price of $40 or so right now, IDCC's market cap is
$1.280 billion.
So with their net cash position, they could be "conservative" and use
another 20% of their net cash to buy another 8% of their
shares outstanding with a good margin of safety.
ALLM is down 20% - has Coronavirus caused ALLM's production to decline
precipitously?
Oh, come to think of it, ALLM doesn't have any production.
Silly me!
jeffree, thanks.
I haven't had time to listen to the CC yet.
But the PR says the new goal is $650 million recurring.
If so, that should lead to a very profitable company!
<<If this is supposed to be helpful,
Why is this published today vs a decade.>>
Good question. But what's a little different today is that
the US and China signed Phase I of the trade agreement where
the Chinese are supposed to respect IP.
<<U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer insisted on a strong enforcement mechanism “with real teeth” to hold China to its Phase 1 pledges to protect American intellectual property, curb the forced transfer of U.S. technology to Chinese firms and boost purchases of U.S. goods and services by some $200 billion over two years.
The teeth in the mechanism are a familiar Trump administration tool: the imposition of tariffs in proportion to damage caused by any non-compliance.>>
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-enforcement/in-us-china-phase-1-trade-deal-enforcement-may-end-in-we-quit-idUSKBN1ZE2T1
But with the above being said, I wish that there was more "teeth" in the
agreement.
olddog967:
Maybe IDCC's "position papers" on FRAND and arbitration can shed
some light to investors and prospective licensees?
That's because if an arbitrator sides with IDCC's "position papers",
then we'll have some idea of what they're asking for.
If I remember correctly, IDCC does well in arbitration.
This is from today's PR:
<<InterDigital’s position papers on FRAND licensing and arbitration, both of which reflect a simple, common-sense approach that balances the rights and obligations of SEP holders with the rights and obligations of standards implementers.>>
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/interdigital-launches-phase-transparency-effort-090010909.html
$600 million in buybacks since 2014:
http://archive.fast-edgar.com//20200113/AV2ZM22CZ222STJ2222K2Z42I4G9ZC223222/
That's pretty amazing for a company with a current market
cap of $1.73 billion.
<<I read that half of the non recurring rev is from the new electronics license.... so maybe the other half (~13 mil) is from zte>>
Thanks - I'm just getting caught up to speed.
That makes sense.
<<The company expects total fourth quarter 2019 revenue to be between $92 million and $100 million, which includes between $74 million and $77 million of recurring revenue.>>
The above is from today's PR:
http://ir.interdigital.com/file/Index?KeyFile=402069463
This was the recurring from last quarter:
<<Third Quarter 2019 Financial Highlights
Third quarter 2019 recurring revenue was $72.1 million, compared to recurring revenue of $75.0 million in third quarter 2018. This decrease was driven by lower royalties from one of our Taiwanese licensees.>>
http://ir.interdigital.com/file/Index?KeyFile=400745508
So apparently there's about $20 million in catch up payments from ZTE.
And I'm guessing that ZTE is paying ZTE is paying about $2.5 million /
quarter ($10 million / year) for a license.
Thoughts?
PS:
I'm assuiming that Taiwan was constant and not much has come from Technicolor yet and a little from the common Google license.
U.S. makes it easier for holders of industry-standard patents to block product sales 8:15pm ET, 12/19/2019 - Reuters
By Stephen Nellis
Dec 19 (Reuters) - United States antitrust and patent officials on Thursday said they no longer deem holders of industry-standard patents anti-competitive if they sue to stop the sale of infringing products, a far-reaching policy shift that they said supports innovation.
The new position could have seen chipmaker Qualcomm Inc , for instance, sue in an attempt to stop the sale of all models of Apple Inc's iPhones in Germany last year - rather than the limited number that were ultimately affected - without fear of being investigated by the U.S. antitrust body.
The U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Institute of Standards and Technology jointly released a policy statement on so-called standard essential patents to replace its policy since 2013.
Standard essential patents are often used in the technology industry when makers of different kinds of devices want them all to work together. In the case of cellular networks, for example, phones and cell towers must be compatible across makers and borders.
To arrive at a single standard, companies such as Nokia , Ericsson and InterDigital Wireless contribute patents to a certain technology such as 5G, the upcoming generation of cellular data networks.
Every company that makes a cellular device is required to adopt that technology and pay a license fee to patent holders. In exchange, the holders agree to license the patents on fair and reasonable terms.
In 2013, the Justice Department and Patent Office said it was anti-competitive for patent holders to seek injunctions to block the sale of a products for infringing standards patents. Holders could still seek monetary damages without running afoul of the policy.
The policy had real-world effects. When Qualcomm sued Apple to block the sale of iPhones during a wide-ranging legal dispute, Qualcomm did not use any of its standards patents to make its claims. As a result, Qualcomm's suits affected only a subset of models.
Officials reversed their policy on Thursday, saying seeking to block sales in standards patents cases presented no harm to competition and that standards patents should be treated no differently than other patents.
"Our patent system is what has made the American economy the innovation capital of the world, and we should not misapply the antitrust laws to diminish the incentive to innovate," Assistant Attorney General Delrahim said in a statement.
Morgan Reed, president of The App Association, in a statement said the group which represents software developers was disappointed by the move.
It "does not go far enough in protecting small businesses from abusive (standards patent) licensing behavior," Reed said. (Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Christopher Cushing)
US reaches a phase one trade deal with China in principle pending Trump’s approval
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/12/trump-getting-very-close-to-a-big-deal-with-china-they-want-it-and-so-do-we.html
The above will hopefully help with IDCC's litigation with Lenovo and
Huaweii.
For those that might have forgotten, Merritt told us that the Trump
administration helped them with the ZTE settlement - not directly,
but indirectly. And actual deal on IP will hopefully help even
more.
Paullee, I think that's a good ruling from the CAFC because I'd
rather have a jury set the royalty rate - they can be more
'generous' at times.
<<LTE have you tried entering this patent into the patent calculator which will generate the potential expiration date.>>
What does that mean?
Please tell me that you don't think that this is wrong. Because if
you think it's wrong, then I will really (and I really mean really)
wonder about you:
<< U.S. application Ser. No. 10/358,082 and U.S. application Ser. No. 10/341,528 are both continuations of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/400,136, filed Sep. 21, 1999. The entire teachings of the above applications are incorporated by reference herein.>>
September 21, 1999 + 20 years = September 21, 2019.
No problem.
I already posted this to zdog:
<<RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/326,809, filed Jan. 6, 2006. U.S. application Ser. No. 11/326,809 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/358,082, filed Feb. 3, 2003, and a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/341,528, filed Jan. 13, 2003. U.S. application Ser. No. 10/358,082 and U.S. application Ser. No. 10/341,528 are both continuations of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/400,136, filed Sep. 21, 1999. The entire teachings of the above applications are incorporated by reference herein.>>
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,380,244.PN.&OS=PN/8,380,244&RS=PN/8,380,244
<<after June 7, 1995 that the term of a patent begins on the date that the patent issues and ends on the date that is twenty years from the date on which the application was filed in the U.S. or, if, the application contained a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under 35 USC 120, 121 or 365(c), twenty years from the filing date of the earliest of such application. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 154 was amended to provide term extension if the original patent was delayed due to secrecy orders, interferences, or appellate review periods.>>
Yes, just as I thought - 20 years from the original application.
Also, hopefully there was an extension of the '244 due to appellate
review periods, etc., but I've noticed that those are not for a very
long period of time. But any extension would be better than nothing.
It's not when the patent issues - it's from the original priority date.
I'm sure of that!
I'm also sure that olddog will agree because he knows his stuff.
PS:
It's simple - that's because a parent patent could theoretically have an
infinite life by filing continuation after continuation off of it.
The '244 is the progeny of the original U.S. application Ser.
No. 09/400,136, filed Sep. 21, 1999.
zdog, unless there's any extensions (which are usually pretty minimal
even if they are granted), the '244 has already expired because you
must go back to the original priority date as depicted below from
the patent.
Don't forget patents have a 20 year life from the original priority date:
<<RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/326,809, filed Jan. 6, 2006. U.S. application Ser. No. 11/326,809 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/358,082, filed Feb. 3, 2003, and a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/341,528, filed Jan. 13, 2003. U.S. application Ser. No. 10/358,082 and U.S. application Ser. No. 10/341,528 are both continuations of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/400,136, filed Sep. 21, 1999. The entire teachings of the above applications are incorporated by reference herein.>>
olddog967, thank you for the summary.
It's good that the CAFC said that the '244 wasn't invalid.
But as we can see below, it looks like that patent expired
a couple of months ago:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,380,244.PN.&OS=PN/8,380,244&RS=PN/8,380,244
Hopefully, this can still help with the holdouts like Xiamoi, Huawei,
Lenovo, etc. on past damages.
What are your thoughts?
Federal Circuit: PTO Judges Were Unconstitutionally Appointed
The court says it can fix the problem by interpreting the Patent Act as giving the PTO director greater authority to remove APJs from service. In the meantime, many of the board's final written decisions will have to be reheard by a new panel.
By Scott Graham | October 31, 2019 at 05:14 PM
The administrative judges who hear challenges to patent validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Thursday.
Instead of throwing the 270 or so APJs off the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the court said it will solve the problem by interpreting the Patent Act as providing the PTO director greater authority to remove APJs from service. “We conclude that severing the portion of the Patent Act restricting removal of the APJs is sufficient to render the APJs inferior officers and remedy the constitutional appointment problem,” Judge Kimberly Moore wrote for a unanimous panel in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew. Judges Jimmie Reyna and Raymond Chen concurred.
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/10/31/federal-circuit-pto-judges-were-unconstitutionally-appointed/
Good points - it's not like anyone is withholding payments - it looks
like Q3 is when they collect a lot of their accounts receivable.
If we subtract the current and long term debt, we get $472 million
in net cash - that's a very strong position because it's growing when
they're not buying back stock.
It looks like the Street doesn't care about this stock.
IDCC is apparently one of their own biggest supporters.
But apparently, it looks like they can't buy their stock
right now due to the licensing negotiations.
I like a stock with growing revenues but decreased share
count.
I forget who said it during the conference call, but it was stated
that ZTE isn't as big as they used to be. They implied that Huawei
and some others (Xiaomi?) were meaningfully larger.
ZTE's release on past sales is limited. If they don't cooperate in the future, I am assuming that litigation could be reopened.
<<Bill danced around the issue of rates for past sales from zte. Hoping that he didn’t give away the farm in order to get a licensee.>>
He implied that we shouldn't worry about that. He said that it's
a solid deal that is a good benchmark for the other holdouts.
4Q Revenue estimate $83-$95 million
$74 to $78 million recurring.
More information as the quarter progresses.
Recent face to face meetings with the majority of unlicensed companies.
ZTE is a solid benchmark in negotiations to other Chinese companies (eom)
Fox Business Interview Link:
https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6097661210001/#sp=show-clips
<<Looks like the ZTE IDCC story broke on thefly.com. It’s no wonder we haven’t seen any other announcements. We have been here before, who know how valid it is.>>
You can't be serious, can you?
IDCC files many things in their 8-K's and this was already posted here:
<<
Item 8.01.
Other Events.
On October 18, 2019, certain subsidiaries of InterDigital, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) entered into a multi-year, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-bearing patent license and settlement agreement (the “Agreement”) with ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”) and agreed to resolve virtually all of their existing disputes. The Agreement covers the sale of ZTE’s 3G, 4G and 5G handset and tablet products, as well as 802.11 and HEVC technologies incorporated in such products, and includes a partial release by InterDigital of claims of past infringement by ZTE.
InterDigital and ZTE have agreed to terms for dismissal of all outstanding litigation and other proceedings among them and their affiliates, including, without limitation, the two actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware previously disclosed in InterDigital’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019. ZTE has also agreed to withdraw from all proceedings related to the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,380,244, including the pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and to request the termination of or withdraw from any other invalidation or opposition proceedings it has initiated against InterDigital. Notwithstanding the foregoing, InterDigital has retained the right to continue to participate in any such IPR, invalidation or opposition proceedings, including any appeals.>>
http://www.snl.com/Cache/c400539340.html
patopinion, thanks for the article - I found it interesting.
I bet that this from the article is true:
<<Kipling was not completely wrong when he wrote, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet”?
You can never be China’s friend. We obviously have to do business with China. You can’t isolate 1.4 billion clever and industrious people. That’s absurd. But one can only deal with them successfully from a position of strength.>>
jeffree:
It includes 5G - that's great!
<<The Agreement covers the sale of ZTE’s 3G, 4G and 5G handset and tablet products, as well as 802.11 and HEVC technologies incorporated in such products, and includes a partial release by InterDigital of claims of past infringement by ZTE.>>
Shareholders remained whole after bankruptcy?
What kind of nonsense is that?
Share count has increased 50% from pre bankruptcy to after
bankruptcy:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ALLM/profile
Check page 4 here:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=12985399&guid=fiefUHvTXmxoe3h
Warning! This company may not be making material information publicly available
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ALLM/overview
No sales revenue. Why not - even many companies going
through reorganization have at least some revenues -
see page 4:
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/conv_pdf?id=13628002&guid=lRFfUWVnrAq0h3h
And since they're pink sheets where the heck are the shares outstanding?
Or do they want to hide that too?
China - this is what worries me and obviously many others as well. I feel that there could be
rapprochement with strictly business issues like IP protection, etc.
However, when the USA starts getting involved in other countries internal affairs and
tires to change them by any forceful tactic, that's an entirely different scenario. And
it could spiral out of control if cooler heads don't prevail.
<<“We strongly urge the U.S. to immediately stop making irresponsible remarks on the issue of Xinjiang, stop interfering with the wrong actions of China’s internal affairs, and remove relevant Chinese entities from the list of entities as soon as possible,” a spokesperson from the Ministry of Commerce said.>>
<<“China will also take all necessary measures to resolutely safeguard China’s own interests,” the spokesperson said.>>
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/china-strongly-urges-us-to-remove-sanctions-and-stop-accusing-it-of-human-rights-violations.html
<<...some headway could be made this time concerning industrial policies and intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, they predicted.>>
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1166301.shtml