There are minimal quantities of options out as well so the shorts are not hiding behind options at this time. As you said, they are quite naked at the moment and I am ready to give them a much needed body slam.

Loop,

Just out of curiosity, can the CAFC lodge a contempt proceeding at the ITC for blatantly ignoring their claims instructions and DI findings in the IDCC remand order? I would love to see a couple of ITC judges in the hot seat over their blatant disregard of CAFC mandates and unilateral actions usurping existing law.

The problem is IDCC doesn't have a finding of violation or infringement of any of its patents in any legal proceeding it has raised. As a result, carriers are reluctant to negotiate a license and appear unwilling to license IDCC's entire patent portfolio at the price IDCC is asking. The ITC has also done us no favors with their idiotic claims interpretations so every order from them must be appealed to get corrected. Even upon appeal (613), the ITC appears to be reluctant to issue an order in favor of IDCC. Does the ITC consider IDCC a patent troll and therefore give them no respect?

IDCC has no bargaining power until they get a favorable ruling from some legal venue on one or more of their patents. Our best hope now is the remand of the issues in the 613 case but at the moment, I am not confident the ITC will step up and do the right thing.

GBR, it's simple, it's called "Obama Law". It doesn't have to be factual or correct anymore. Just cite some previous case law and push it on out so someone else can deal with it.

The CAFC reversed some obvious inconsistencies in claims interpretations in the 613 case and remanded it back to the ITC for correction. To date that remand is nowhere to be found. Then, the CAFC directed a little harsher criticism at the ITC in it's decision on the LG termination from the 800 case based on LG's claim for arbitration. I believe the phrase "boob heads" was stricken from the official record before releasing that remand order back to the ITC.

Should the CAFC find equally disturbing inconsistencies in the claims interpretations of the ITC in its review of the 800 case, IDCC should petition the CAFC to render its own opinion as to validity of patents and infringement thereof on the grounds the ITC is incapable of rendering a meaningful opinion on any patent subject matter due to its lack of competency in the field.

M3S, I agree and the CAFC did point out numerous errors in claims interpretation by the ITC in a prior case. The problem is the ITC does not want to recognize those mistakes and fix the problem. I fear Nokia's legal counsel has successfully branded IDCC a patent troll in the eyes of the ITC and they are hesitant to find anything in favor of IDCC against anyone.

You can go to great lengths to change one word in a claim interpretation in order to find no violation and it is apparent the ITC is becoming very adept at this tactic. I believe IDCC went before the ITC because it was a faster venue than the courts and justice would often prevail. MY how things change in a short period of time.

Loop, you forgot the hyphen in de-briefed. You can sell tickets to that event. (LOL)

Gamco,

One of these new patents has a filing date back in 2002. There are others filed in 2004, 2005 and 2007. I wonder what held them up so long and whether they are considered essential. Some of the newer applications are pretty specific to methods of communication and data transmission within a multi-carrier system. They even got a patent related to data security. It sounds like they are covering all bases.

parq,

The legal system implemented Markmen hearings in patent trials for a reason. The claim language within patents is highly technical and complicated. These ITC judges are plain inadequate to deal with these cases and are virtually inept to the point of being grossly negligent. To wit, I am referencing the last two orders out of the CAFC which finds their reasoning totally without merit.

I understand IDCC is using the ITC venue for expediency but the ITC's inability to deal with technical issues is rendering them worthless. IDCC needs another means to bring foreign infringers to justice. There just doesn't seem to be much justice in the American Justice system anymore.

Loop,

Nokia will simply take a position that their essential patents are more valuable and therefore command a higher rate. Once a snake, always a snake.

I wish IDCC would buy back about 5 million shares and then cancel them. That would surely bring some intrigue to our market makers and shorts.

Do the big players get paid to keep their shares on loan? Loaning shares would appear counter productive to them unless they received some kind of compensation for making shares available to loan.

GBR,

We've discussed this before on this board. Alston & Bird's ties run pretty deep within the ITC. Maybe they're running a little too deep and are starting to attract attention. I'm not sure who is left that can participate in a decision in this case. At least we know they are starting to look at the case in order to recuse themselves.

I can hear the ITC Chairperson now, "Is there anyone in the agency that doesn't owe a favor to Nokia or Alston & Bird?" If so, please step forward so the ITC can maintain its honor and integrity. (lol)

TD,

I'll settle for a finding of infringement for now based on the revised claims interpretation from the CAFC and the ITC telling Nokia that DI is no longer an issue for further argument. Nokia may still be able to argue public interest or FRAND to elude a ban but a ban is no longer that important to Nokia (IMO) unless it affects the Microsoft purchase of the handset division. IDCC can take a finding of infringement back to the Delaware court for determination of damages (back royalties). That's the only way IDCC will get paid by Nokia. Nokia will never settle with IDCC, they will to take this case to the grave.

A finding of infringement may put some fear into the other parties IDCC currently has before the ITC and could lead to a settlement in those cases. At any rate, the market should give some credence to IDCC's patents if we get a finding of infringement against Nokia.

I was under the impression that a ban was not implemented in the Apple/Samsung case because neither party made a serious attempt to negotiate a FRANDLY license agreement with one another. The parties were intending to use a ban to keep competition at bay and that was not deemed to be in the public's interest.

I don't think that is the case with IDCC so if they do look at the public interest issue, they will find that IDCC has been a willing licensor and offered a FRANDLY rate. Nokia, on the other hand, has not been a willing licensee as can be seen through the years and years of litigation to get IDCC's patents tossed one way or another.

Heck, I'm not even sure Nokia will care about a ban anyway since they will be out of the handset business shortly. If we get a finding of infringement against Nokia, we will have to take that back to Delaware to assert damages for past infringement since the day Nokia's license expired in 2006 or thereabouts.

A win against Nokia could be troublesome for the remaining infringers though because our patents will have finally been validated. That is the most important thing.

Interesting...at about 2:00pm CDT, I placed an order for 500 shares at the current ask. The price immediately went up $0.02 and never came back down to fill my order. They weren't interested in selling shares, just controlling the price. It is amazing how this free market works.

The question I would like to know is how the Commissioners are putting themselves into the position of having to recuse themselves. Is it an independence issue of some sort or have they started buying IDCC stock in anticipation of a favorable ruling given the facts from the Appeals court remand and Supreme Court refusal to overturn existing Domestic Industry law?

Gungrey,

And if you link this post with Olddog's post (377170) about Alston Bird, you will notice that Jamie Underwood was previously a partner with Aducci, Mastriani and Schaumberg. That is the firm that hired former Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun in Oct 2012. Is this a small world or what?

M3S, that is interesting indeed. A while back it was rumored that Nokia's law firm had some deep ties within the ITC and based on some of the idiotic orders that were released in favor of Nokia, it looked like those ties may have been providing some dividends to Nokia. I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory but several orders from the ITC included interpretations of claim construction that made absolutely no sense and were rightfully corrected on appeal. Unfortunately, the remands have not made it back through the system yet but are expected before year end.

Is this now the second recusal by an ITC judge from an IDCC case? Are some of these ties beginning to get exposed? If so, that is a huge plus for IDCC.

I believe someone said earlier that there is an appeal process that could be used in the case of the arbitration award found in IDCC's favor. If that is the case, the deferred revenue cannot be recognized until the award is accepted by the opposing party or the appeal process has been exhausted. Apparently, it is not yet finalized or the revenue would have been recognized. I believe IDCC said they are exploring revenue recognition options with their auditors.

I think the accounting standard is that the outcome should be more than a reasonable expectation meaning probable and that the standard is not met if appeal avenues are still available.

FISH,

You forget one important fact. An exclusion order will be levied against the phone products regardless of who makes them. So a ban would apply equally to Nokia or Microsoft if the phones have not changed.

I hope there is something in the record to refute Ahn's certification of events. It seems like he has been given the standard coaching instructions which is to deny, deny, deny!!

I thought it had already been determined that Samsung's legal counsel passed on confidential information in an e-mail update to Samsung executives. Now they say they can't remember anything? What a crock.

M3S,

Given the fact that Nokia lost its appeal to SCOTUS to toss IDCC's case by arguing that IDCC lacks a domestic industry in its patented inventions and given the Fifth Circuits revised claims interpretation for remand at the ITC, do you see any way the ITC can come back with another finding of "no violation" in the "613" case?

Weren't the patents in this case already considered valid by the ITC subject to the domestic industry ruling? I am at a loss as to why this stock is not trading higher after the SCOTUS refusal to take up Nokia's appeal unless there is the potential for another loss at the ITC for some other unknown reason.

I'll bet BM is under strict orders from outside legal counsel to say nothing publicly regarding IDCC's litigation unless and until a settlement or absolute victory is achieved with the parties to case. After all, why tip your hand during ongoing litigation? It would serve no purpose.

Loop, this has been a very long ordeal beginning with the Motorola loss in 1995. It's a miracle IDCC recovered from that case to begin with. The Qualcom sale was a desperation move to stay in business and turned out to be one of the worst decisions in the company's history.

I don't know if we will ever see the end of this litigation because there seems to be endless avenues for appeal and delay. As for Nokia, I take some solace in the fact that their hatred and contempt for IDCC distracted their executive management team from what should have been its sole focus on technology development and enhancements and may have contributed to their demise in the handset industry. IMO, Nokia is getting exactly what they deserve.

A victory against Nokia in the final stages of its life would indeed be sweet revenge as long as it serves to put the other manufacturers on notice that IDCC's patents are valid and its rates FRAND-ly.

$0.10 per chip for every WI-FI chip may not be a bad deal. Every electronic device will be loaded with a WI-FI chip in the future for M2M. I would think cell phones have multiple chips that would qualify for additional royalties and they may be worth a lot more in royalties than WI-FI chips. Real-time two-way voice communication is a lot more complex than data communications through WI-FI.

m3s,

I agree with you. The way I read the ITC's acceptance of the appeal is that respondents must prove that the existing case rulings and precedents are somehow no longer applicable. I think that is a tall challenge for Nokia, et. al. to overcome. They will surely try but I believe it is a long shot unless existing precedent is overturned by the SC.

Does anyone know if the patents sold to Intel cover any of the new devices Intel is planning to offer? I hope they didn't sell some crown jewels to Intel.

M3S,

I was thinking the same thing. Releasing earnings before the market open is often bullish. I hope there is a positive announcement in the fold.

You would think the CAFC would have a panel to review open proceedings on a monthly basis and force closure for ol cases. IDCC would be tops on that list. I think our judge is too old to carry a full load and thus we suffer. It sure does not put the CAFC in a positive light.

What I like about this new case is that they have included various parties in addition to Nokia. This shows a bullish attitude about IDCC's ability to win this case. They must consider the last case a dry run.

Maybe they thought the CAFC decision would have come a lot sooner than this. I would bet nearly everyone on this board thought the CAFC decision would have been issued by now. Their slowness is typical government bullcrap.

B&G, seriously, where do you come up with this stuff. Companies aren't licensing because IDCC can't win a legal battle proving the patents are valid and infringed. If we get a win at the CAFC or with the new case at the ITC, companies will begin licensing again. IDCC has no hammer without a legal finding to back them up.

I'm of the opinion IDCC may be waiting for a ruling from the CAFC to get more value for the patents. I only wish the company were allowed to prod them a little bit. This wait is getting old and our Judge is getting even older. Will somebody send a case of "5 hour energy" shots over to the court house?

OD, I am well versed with the accounting rules for recording liabilities from potential litigation. The auditors usually need help from legal counsel to gauge whether losses are probable because they are not always capable of interpreting laws. Lawyers will be very careful about providing guidance on the potential outcome of litigation so the audit firms have to balance the information and perform risk assessment on the engagement. The audit firm is usually sued along with the company when things go awry so audit firms in essence become insurance companies against what would otherwise be considered incomplete or fraudulent reporting that results in damages suffered by third parties.

Once a liability is deemed probable, it must also be estimable to be recorded as a liability on the financial records. Royalties are easily estimable once you determine the rate. I believe Nokia has a rate in mind even though it may be less than IDCC's and I believe they know a liability is probable so they must accrue a liability. If they lose to IDCC and no liability is accrued, then Nokia shareholders may have a claim against Nokia's audit firm for lack of due diligence in determining potential losses from litigation.

If a loss from pending litigation is considered neither probable or estimable, it must only be disclosed in the footnotes to the financial statements; ie., a liability is not required.

B&G, the auditors duty is to those that are relying on the financial statements that are being reported on. For a public company, that means the shareholders and any banks that are creditors. Auditors are pretty careful to identify potential liabilities and will go over potential legal claims with a fine tooth comb. Every legal issue will be discussed at length with the Company's legal counsel to identify potential liabilities based on past or current activities. Ultimately, the auditor has to be comforatble with the Company's reporting or remove itself from the engagement. Auditors do not want to set themselves up for damages claims so they are pretty careful about the things they report on.

As for Nokia, the board has discussed this at length and we try to keep track of the growth in Nokia's accrued liabilities for patent litigation. Although Nokia doesn't identify IDCC by name, it is one of the few company's they are publicly fighting with so it is more than reasonable to believe they are still accruing for potential royalties owed to us.

dmiller must be the long term investor referenced in the blog. Everyone else is still holding long and strong. These last ditch efforts to collapse the share price are getting rather humorous. Just how stupid do they think the long term investors are? It is more like the recently added speculators just bought a lot more shares from the shorts and now they are really getting desperate.

You are wrong on several counts. If a company expects a settlement down the road based on current activities, an obligation must be recognized based on the expected settlement down the road. The company's auditors will go to great lengths to review potential litigation and the liabilities that will result and must quantify those results in the current period. If anticipated obligations are missed, it sets the auditors up for litigation based on the lack of adequate audit procedures or if the liabilities are intentionally hidden from the auditors, it sets the company's management up for fraud.

Nokia continues to accrue royalties even though they have beat us in litigation the last few attempts. If they win out entirely, they get to undue those accruals and that will become a one-time benefit to them. They would however get to eliminate the accruals going forward.

Smartphones will not be the largerst revenue generator for IDCC. The M2M market will surpass smartphones in short order. Companies will generate scalable revenues from the M2M market and that will easily surpass revenues from the sale of smartphones. We have only seen a small piece of IDCC's inventions for use in the M2M market. I am eager to see more and to see what value that will bring the company in terms of either licensing the technology or from the sale of the company.

Management may have a better feel for the value of their M2M inventions so they will have to be talking with Evercore and Barclays during the sale process.

LAguy,

Disagree: evaluation period passed. That was what labor day was all about. And months for a consortium? Disagree: Nortel auction took 4 days.

And the justice department is still reviewing the consortium established at the last minute of the Nortel auction. Everything takes time.

Centerline, I have to agree with you. It is one thing to leave investors in the dark but you can't leave your employees in the dark unless they have no plan to continue existing operations. If management still considers "continuing business as usual" as an option, they are not setting themselves up for long-term success. Whoever they are getting their recommendations from about their silence, they better rethink it fast.

"Wi-LAN certainly sees the value in taking out its competitor and forming a Canadian patent powerhouse, upping its all-cash per share offer for Mosaid to $42 a share on Wednesday. This values the company at more than $500-million. Yet Mosaid and its primary investor, Mawer Investment Management Ltd., have resisted Wi-LAN’s advances, insisting they have a “white knight” private investor willing to offer an even heftier price tag,"

I would love for IDCC to be that White Knight. $500 million for an annual $125 million in revenues would be great use of our cash. Better than leaving on deposit earning .5% in interest.

Nic, IDCC's process is designed to maximize shareholder value. No one will ever know if MMI received maximum value since there was only one bidder. All we know is that the offer satisfied the expectations of MMI shareholders but they may not have received maximum value.