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.
my3sons: I assume it will be conducted by a Chinese organization.
From an article titled: “Supreme People’s Court Issues Rules of Procedure for the China International Commercial Courts”
https://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2018/12/07/supreme-peoples-court-issues-rules-of-procedure-for-the-china-international-commercial-courts/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
“The One-stop-shop Institutions Notification sets out the first batch of One-stop-shop Institutions (One-Stop-Shop Institutions) for arbitration or mediation. Those institutions are CIETAC, Beijing Arbitration Commission, Shanghai International Economic and Trade Commission, Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, China Maritime Arbitration Commission, Mediation Centre of China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, and Shanghai Commercial Mediation Centre. There are three ways a One-Stop-Shop Institution may interact with the CICC in legal proceedings:”
u-blox seeks fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms
Thalwil, Switzerland – January 2, 2019 – u-blox (SIX:UBXN), a global provider of leading positioning and wireless communication technologies, today announced that it has no choice but to file a lawsuit against Interdigital, Inc. in the United States District Court for Southern California in order to obtain a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license to Interdigital’s patents. After two years of failed negotiations, despite its legal obligation to do so, Interdigital failed to offer u-blox a FRAND license agreement covering the sale of u-blox 2G, 3G and 4G products.
“u-blox respects the intellectual property rights of others and has always been and continues to be a willing licensee to standard essential patents (SEPs). It is how we do business”, said Thomas Seiler, CEO of u-blox. “We have therefore asked a court to review and determine the FRAND rate for the patents held by Interdigital. u-blox is a committed licensor for the benefit of our customers and we believe that our willingness to license also positively distinguishes u-blox within the module industry. To the extent that Interdigital is willing to reconsider their position, u-blox is open to further negotiations - but not to the detriment of the company, our customers or shareholders.”
Concurrent to filing the lawsuit, u-blox has also asked the court for an immediate Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against Interdigital to avoid any disruption to its existing business relationships.
......
Since it was announced that U-Blox extended an existing license in Oct 2017, not sure why this happened
http://ir.interdigital.com/file/Index?KeyFile=390670097
Paullee: My thoughts on IDCC's 8-K legal announcement:
ASUS
A redacted copy of the order is not yet available. The parties have until January 11 to submit proposed redactions to the Court’s order. If no proposed redactions are received the Court will unseal the order in its entirety. In the meantime the case was assigned to a Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference,
I was surprised it it took so long for this to happen. As I previously wrote almost year ago (post #20910), after Pegatron settled:
“ I would think that there will soon be a settlement with ASUS. Pegatron and ASUS are related companies, and their claims were almost identical. In fact, IDCC had previously asked that the cases be consolidated, but the Court did not approve.”
Huawei
Besides being a nice legal win for IDCC, I believe IDCC will not have to pay Huawei the court assessment of 20.0 million RMB (approximately $3.2 million) in damages related to attorneys’ fees and other charges; and Huawei will not be able to use the court’s royalty calculations in their negotiation of a new license
my3sons: I assume you are referring to who has been manufacturing the Google phones. According to this article HTC and LG have produced some models. Both are licensed by IDCC.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/11/googles-pixel-3-is-a-third-strike-for-hapless-htc-and-lg
my3sons: In regard to ZTE, the District Court case has been stayed again for another 90 days, awaiting action by CAFC on IDCC's appeal of the PTAB decision.
Thursday, October 25, 2018
603 order Oral Order Thu 2:22 PM
ORAL ORDER: The request to continue the stay (D.I.602 ) is GRANTED. The parties shall file another status report 90 days from the day of this Order. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/25/2018. (nms)
jjff: Google's phones are manufactured by HTC. According to the 10-K report, IDCC has a license agreement with HTC.
We have successfully entered into license agreements with many of the leading mobile communications companies globally, including Apple Inc. (“Apple”), HTC Corporation, Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”), Kyocera Corporation (“Kyocera”), LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) and Sony Corporation of America (“Sony”), among others.
bulldzr: Some more info re: Mickey. His District court case filing against the Government ( see: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=141720198&txt2find=mickey) was dismissed on Sep 24. On Oct 2 he filed a motion for reconsideration
Tuesday, October 02, 2018
27 motion Reconsideration Thu 12:07 PM
MOTION for Reconsideration - re:25 ORDER OF DISMISSAL, filed by MICKEY BRITT. (cle)
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
26 order Judgment (Signed by Clerk: Not an Opinion) Tue 10:13 AM
CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered pursuant to 25 Order of Dismissal. 90 Day Exhibit Return Deadline set for 12/24/2018 . (ckm)
25 1 pgs order Order Adopting Report and Recommendation Order on Report and Recommendation Tue 10:09 AM
ORDER OF DISMISSAL Related [+] - The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court's opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, "The plaintiff's claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." The clerk must close the file. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 9/24/2018. (ckm)
my3sons: IDCC's challenge against 35 USC 5 was filed at CAFC.
jjff: It looks like it will take some time before IDCC's (IR Licensing's) appeal of the one patent to CAFC will be finalized.
IPR Licensing filed their primary initial brief on 7/20/2018. ZTE's response was due on 9/28/2018. However, IPR Licensing also questioned the constitutionality of 35 USC 6, which is the PTAB statute. Because of this action, CAFC has temporarily stayed the case.
From the case docket:
09/14/2018 26 Notice from Appellant IPR Licensing, Inc. Regarding Constitutionality of 35 U.S.C. 6.
09/18/2018 27 ORDER filed. Notice of the appellant's constitutional challenge [26] is hereby certified to the Attorney General. No later than 30 days from the date of filing of this order, the Attorney General is directed to inform this court whether the United States intends to intervene in this appeal. The proceedings in the above-captioned appeal are stayed.
jjff: When the parties go back to Court to finalize the ZTE case, as part of any damage award amount, the Court can award what is called prejudgment interest.
"III. Calculating Prejudgment Interest
When calculating prejudgment interest, one must keep in mind its central purpose: “to compensate for the delay a patentee experiences in obtaining money he would have received sooner if no infringement had occurred.” Paper Converting Mach. Co. v. Magna-Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11, 23 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The prejudgment interest on a damages award “merely serves to make the patent owner whole, since his damages consist not only of the value of the royalty payments but also the foregone use of the money between the time of infringement and the date of the judgment.” General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. at 655-56 (emphasis added)."
https://www.fr.com/services/litigation/patent/patent-damages/prejudgment-and-post-judgment-interest/
Ia-idcc-fan: Interesting. Apparently the situation you describe regarding the "step up in basis", only applies in community property states. The following is the introduction to a 2006 article on the subject:
Joint revocable trusts have been used historically as a mechanism for married persons to combine assets and control their disposition in a uniform manner. Estate planning attorneys in community property jurisdictions routinely have drafted joint revocable trusts to take advantage of the unique "double basis" benefit of community property on the death of the first spouse under Code § 1014(b)(6), which "steps up" the basis of the entire property, even though only one-half of the property is included in the predeceasing spouse's estate for estate tax purposes. In noncommunity property jurisdictions, joint revocable trusts are being used increasingly to facilitate full use of the federal applicable exclusion amount regardless of which spouse is the first to die, particularly when the combined assets of the marital unit exceed the federal applicable exclusion amount but the individual assets of one spouse or both spouses do not meet or exceed the federal applicable exclusion amount. In TAM 9308002, the taxpayers in a common law jurisdiction attempted to get a full "step-up" in basis, similar to the treatment received in community property. The IRS denied the full "step-up" in basis based on Code § 1014(e). Similar joint revocable trusts in common law jurisdictions were discussed in two private letter rulings, PLR 200210051 and PLR 200101021. Although the IRS maintains that Code § 1014(e) prevents a full "step-up" in basis, the joint trust has favorable results for funding a credit-shelter trust on the death of the first spouse to die.
https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_trends_news_practice_area_e_newsletter_home/jointrevocabletrusts.html
Since I do not live in a community property state, separate individual living trusts were set up to cover most assets owned. A "joint" trust was set up to cover our day to day banking account and any other miscellaneous assets.
Naturally, time to see a good lawyer based on individual circumstances.
asr: below is some of what was stated during the 1st and 2nd quarter conference calls regarding the Technicolor acquisition. The way I read it I wouldn't expect any significant revenue increase for the current quarter.
1st qtr
As things stand, based upon a careful analysis of historical licensing rates and video and the strength of the portfolio. We think that the Technicolor video coding assets could eventually add roughly 10% to the revenue base of our core terminal unit licensing business. And again, that's separate from the additional revenue in the consumer electronics space.
2nd qtr
As I previously discussed, we plan for the acquisition to have a minimal impact to our cash operating investment after a transitional period. Later this quarter, we will provide some more detail on our expectations for the impact to the transitional period including expectations around our third quarter financial performance, which will include roughly 2 months of the Technicolor business as well as related integration expenses. I will also remind you that we picked up only minimal revenue from the acquired contracts as the real opportunity lies within our ability to deliver more value to our core market on a combined basis as well as to successfully enter into the consumer electronics market.
my3sons: Just going through normal procedures. IDCC's brief was filed on July 20, with ZTE's reply due September 28.
Jim: Nothing new about the part you highlighted. Same information was given in the March 1 announcement of the deal
"InterDigital will pay Technicolor $150 million in cash up front. Technicolor will also receive 42.5% of all future cash receipts (net of estimated operating expenses) from InterDigital’s new licensing efforts in the consumer electronics field. There is no revenue sharing associated with InterDigital’s mobile industry licensing efforts.
As part of this transaction, InterDigital would also grant back to Technicolor a perpetual license for patents acquired in the transaction.
http://ir.interdigital.com/file/Index?KeyFile=392406162
zombywolf: As you noted, the modem business was not included in the IDCC acquisition. It is part of Technicolor's Connected Home segment, rather than their former Patent Licensing segment.
Connected Home
Connected Home segment offers a complete portfolio of Broadband and Video Customer Premise Equipment (“CPE”) to Pay Tv operators and Network Service Providers (“NSPs”), including broadband
modems and gateways, digital set top boxes, and Internet of Things (“IoT”) connected devices.
FISH: Because of the announced sale of their Patent Licensing business to IDCC, in their financial reporting for 2017 Technicolor separately reported the results as discontinued operations. The following information was reported and should give some idea of how it will effect IDCC.
12.1.1. Results of discontinued operations (€ in million)
.................................................2017...2016
Revenues.....................................131....257
Cost of sales................................(52)...(43)
Gross Margin..................................79.....214
Earning Before Income and Taxes.......54......97
Net Income.....................................46.....80
In 2017, the profit of €46 million from discontinued operations consists mainly the result of Patent Licensing business
In 2016, the gain of €80 million includes mainly the result of Patent Licensing business offset partly by impact of settlements of some risk and litigation which were related to businesses discontinued several years ago
https://www.technicolor.com/sites/default/files/2018-02/TCH-2017-12-FINANCIAL-REPORT-en-23-02-2018.pdf
For the six months ending 30 June 2018, for discontinued operations Technicolor only reported:
DISCONTINUING OPERATIONS
Net gain (loss) from discontinuing operations (14) 19
A just issued two part report on “Who will be the technology leader for 5G?”. Part one covers contributors to the 5G standard, Part two covers SEP owners.
As commented on in the report, IDCC is listed as No 18 in SEP patent holdings, but is not listed among the top 20 as a contributor.
“Table 2 lists the top 20 patent portfolio shares of 5G SEP owners, estimating that Qualcomm, Huawei, LG Electronics, Ericsson and Samsung own the largest 5G SEP portfolios. In comparison to the technical contribution and the meeting attendance data (see part one), companies such as Alcatel-Lucent, Sharp, Panasonic, BlackBerry, Apple and InterDigital appear in the top 20 patent owners, despite not being among the strongest standards contributors.”
http://www.iam-media.com/industryreports/detail.aspx?g=0f9b82c5-b8a5-4354-80a4-dff99dedfcae
http://www.iam-media.com/industryreports/detail.aspx?g=8e4412ac-d29d-42b4-b529-11dbb5db38a4
Stay again requested for ZTE Delaware infringement case.
On March 6, 2018, the PTAB entered its Decision on Remand determining that claim 8 of the ’224 patent is unpatentable. On April 10, 2018, InterDigital filed a notice of appeal seeking reversal of the PTAB’s decision. The ‘244 PTAB appeal is still pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and because proceedings relating to the PTAB proceedings on the ’244 patent are ongoing and have not yet been finally resolved, the parties respectfully request that the Court extend the stay previously granted in light of these proceedings.
In the event InterDigital prevails in its appeal of the PTAB’s latest decision and the validity of claim 8 of the ’244 patent is confirmed, the parties believe it would be more efficient for the ’244 patent to proceed in conjunction with the currently pending case on the two “power ramp up” patents, avoiding the potential need for two separate damages trials.
Accordingly, the parties agree and respectfully request that the stay of this case be extended until the PTAB proceedings on the ’244 patent are fully resolved, including any and all appeals. The parties will provide regular status reports every ninety (90) days, as well as a report upon the final conclusion of the PTAB proceedings, including any appeals.
Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 599 Filed 07/12/18
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews July 12, 2018
IDCC already had a 2G, 3G and 4G license with Fujitsu Limited. The new license with Fujitsu Connected Technologies Limited, may, in effect be an extension of the existing license, OR, the result of Fujitsu’s reorganization of it’s mobile device business.
April 7, 2014
InterDigital and Fujitsu Limited Agree to Worldwide Patent License Agreement
WILMINGTON, Del., April 7, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE)
--
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a wireless research and
development company, today announced that its patent holding subsidiaries have entered into a worldwide, non exclusive, royalty bearing patent license agreement with Fujitsu Limited ("Fujitsu"). The agreement covers the sale of Fujitsu's 2G, 3G and 4G terminal unit and infrastructure equipment products, including LTE and LTE Advanced products.
----------------
Fujitsu and Polaris Reach Share Transfer Agreement for the Reorganization of Fujitsu's Mobile Device Business
Fujitsu Limited,Polaris Capital Group Co., Ltd.
Tokyo, January 31, 2018
Fujitsu Limited and Polaris Capital Group Co., Ltd., today announced that they have concluded a contractual agreement for Fujitsu to transfer shares in Fujitsu Connected Technologies Limited, a consolidated subsidiary of Fujitsu, as well as shares in a new company that will take over the mobile device business (company factories) of Fujitsu Peripherals Limited, to a new company (the "successor company") that Polaris will establish. The two companies aim to complete the share transfer by the end of March 2018.
http://www.fujitsu.com/global/about/resources/news/press-releases/2018/0131-01.html
Jim: IDCC acquired stock in Korean phone company Pantech as part payment under a licensing agreement. However Pantech subsequently went into bankruptcy and the stock was worthless.
"KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC) today announced that its patent holding subsidiaries have entered into a worldwide patent licensing agreement with Pantech Co., Ltd. and Pantech & Curitel Communications, Inc. (Pantech). In addition, InterDigital will acquire a minority equity interest in Pantech."
Jim: It probably isn't the smart meter that caused the problem. Sudden power surges when the electricity is restored can damage appliances. The solution is using surge protectors. Here is one article on the subject.
https://www.allgoodelectric.com/what-is-a-power-surge/
For a more detailed explanation:
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pml/div684/Surges_happen.pdf
From a commentary on IDCC:
Is InterDigital still cheap?
InterDigital appears to be overvalued by 63.87% at the moment, based on my discounted cash flow valuation. The stock is currently priced at US$84.75 on the market compared to my intrinsic value of $51.72.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-opportunity-interdigital-inc-nasdaq-144545901.html
Apple, Samsung settle U.S. patent dispute
Stephen Nellis
(Reuters) - Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd on Wednesday settled a seven-year patent dispute over Apple’s allegations that Samsung violated its patents by “slavishly” copying the design of the iPhone.
Terms of the settlement, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, were not available.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-elec/apple-samsung-settle-u-s-patent-dispute-idUSKBN1JN2S4
tnyellowtomcat: I don't follow technical analysis/charting. I would agree that based on charting definitions. a "gap" occurred in IDCC's trading prices on June 11 and June 12. HOWEVER, again going by definitions, of the generally recognized four types of gaps, the "gap" would be classified as a "commom gap", which as the term implies can be relatively common and has little trading significance. In the absence of any specific news or event I would consider "common gaps" to result from normal trading activity.
"Common gaps provide no significant analytical insight, and are regular occurrences. Common gaps are small, meaning the price difference between the two gapping bars is not significant. Common gaps occur frequently in stocks from one day to the next, and in currency markets over the weekend.
Common gaps are typically, but not always, "filled." For example, if a stock closes at $50 on Monday, and then opens at $50.25 on Tuesday, the price will often move back to $50 within the next few days. If the price goes back to where the gap started, technicians consider the empty space filled."
https://www.investopedia.com/university/charts/charts8.asp
"Common Gaps
Sometimes referred to as a trading gap or an area gap, the common gap is usually uneventful. In fact, they can be caused by a stock going ex-dividend when the trading volume is low. These gaps are common (get it?) and usually get filled fairly quickly. ”Getting filled” means that the price action at a later time (a few days to a few weeks) usually retraces at the least to the last day before the gap. This is also known as closing the gap. Here is a chart of two common gaps that have been filled. Notice that after the gap the prices have come down to at least the beginning of the gap? That is called closing or filling the gap
A common gap usually appears in a trading range or congestion area, and reinforces the apparent lack of interest in the stock at that time. Many times this is further exacerbated by low trading volume. Being aware of these types of gaps is good, but it's doubtful that they will produce trading opportunities."
http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:chart_analysis:gaps_and_gap_analysis
"COMMON GAP
Of the four types of gaps, the common gap, not surprisingly, occurs most frequently. It can occur to the upside or downside and can, depending on the security being charted, occur daily. A common gap is characterized by an opening price that is outside the range of the previous trading day.
Common gaps also tend to be found during periods of trading indecision or congestion. During such periods, you will find the price of the stock or commodity moving within a defined trading range with little volatility as there is a balance between buyers and sellers, with neither group having the power to sustain a
prolonged upward or downward price movement."
(snip)
"Common gaps do not tend to be overly predictive of future price movements, since they rarely mark a fundamental shift in the market or in the underlying interest in the stock. They tend to be relatively narrow, and are typically filled (over time, prices trade through the gap). One cause of a common gap can be a “surprise” event regarding a news item or an earnings announcement.
https://www.aaii.com/journal/article/when-nothing-says-something-understanding-price-gaps
Paulee: An interesting argument regarding the appointment of PTAB judges.
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/01/appointments-illegal-adjudication.html
Paullee: The decision should have no effect on the PTAB judges.
According to the following comment from a write up on the decision ALJ's can be appointed by the heads of federal agencies. This appointment problem has already been corrected at the USPTO.
"Administrative law judges are officers of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution’s appointments clause, which requires their appointment by the president, courts or the heads of federal agencies, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled."
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_overturns_process_that_had_been_used_to_appoint_sec_administr
"According Constitutionality
In 2007, Professor John F. Duffy, a law professor, argued that, since 2000, the process of appointing judges to the BPAI (the PTAB's predecessor court) has been unconstitutional, because the judges were appointed by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rather than by the Secretary of Commerce (a "Head of Department" under the Appointments clause of the Constitution).[5] This problem has since been rectified and current Administrative Patent Judges are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Trial_and_Appeal_Board
my3sons: latest entry
05/22/2018 15 Certified list from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Service: 05/21/2018 by email. Appellant's brief is due 07/20/2018. [523578] [CFT] [Entered: 05/22/2018 12:54 PM]
my3sons: I previously reported that the case was active.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=140705420&txt2find=IPR
redvking: The revenue from the sale of XCellAir might be included in the"less than $1 million of non-recurring revenue."
The term "non-recurring revenue" does not show up and is not defined in IDCC's latest 10-K.
SAB: Each arbitration association has their own rules. Since you mentioned FINRA, below are the applicable FINRA rules:
In regard to "1) Is there a "30 day rule" of the arbitrator coming out with his/her ruling after the case is completed". While there is a 30 day rule, it is a goal rather than a requirement:
"12904. Awards
(d) The panel shall endeavor to render an award within 30 business days from the date the record is closed."
In regard to "2) Does FINRA's rule of 30 days apply to listed companies?", the FINRA rules apply to disputes with FINRA members, not "listed" companies.
"12101. Applicability of Code and Incorporation by Reference
(a) Applicability of Code
The Code applies to any dispute between a customer and a member or associated person of a member that is submitted to arbitration under Rule 12200 or 12201."
A "Member" is defined as:
The term "member" means any individual, partnership, corporation or other legal entity admitted to membership in FINRA under the provisions of Articles III and IV of the FINRA By-Laws.
There is no question that Smart Cities technology is the future. The question is how much of the business will Interdigital (Chordant) get,
Top smart companies named in new index
https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/news/news/top-smart-companies-named-in-new-index-2683
These are the top ten companies that build smart cities
http://smartcityhub.com/technology-innnovation/the-top-ten-companies-that-build-smart-cities/
80+ Startups Making Cities Smarter Across Traffic, Waste, Energy, Water Usage, And More
(click image or second cite to see list of companies)
https://www.cbinsights.com/research/iot-smart-cities-market-map-company-list/
https://cbi-blog.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/smartcityfinal.jpg
mickey: This is one time that I agree with you when you say "their is something bad wrong with the system". However, I disagree with your simplistic approach that "The patent should speak for itself and if it performs as designed the patent office should be able to verify it and that should end it." With millions, and even billions, at issue in patent disputes, things can get extremely complicated.
To illustrate how complicated things can get you should look at the USPTO's "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 [R-08.2017]"
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html
As can be seen by the listing on the left side of the site this is only one of many USPTO regulations regarding prior art and obviousness.
Do you remember in one of the Nokia cases where they claimed prior art based on some obscure publication that they found in a library in some small town in Austria or Germany?
mickey: I know it is only your opinion; however, how come with all the legal professors, constitutional lawyers and courts around, why are you apparently the only one that appears to claim that the Fourth Amendment applies to the AIA?
Ia-idcc-fan: The arguments in the Christy filing regarding the Fifth Amendment and the Takings Clause are not new.
In 2016, a scholarly legal paper titled “Taking Patents” was published"
"We show on the basis of constitutional takings jurisprudence that the loss of value that some patent owners have suffered as a result of the new procedures-even if their patents have not been specifically subjected to them-potentially compare with physical takings and definitely fall under the umbrella of regulatory takings. The way to remedy these failings is for the government either to change its procedures or provide just compensation to the patent owners that received patents from the PTO before the enactment of the ALA.”
https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2229&context=faculty_scholarship
Several months later another scholarly article titled “The AIA Is Not a Taking: A Response to Dolin & Manta” argued against the original article,
“Gregory Dolin and Irina Manta argue in a recent article that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) effectuates a “taking” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment by depriving patent owners of the economic value of their patents without compensating them for these losses. Specifically, they contend that the AIA’s creation of enhanced inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method review (CBMR) proceedings significantly interfered with patentees’ “reasonable investment-backed expectations” by increasing the likelihood that their patents would be found invalid.
Dolin and Manta’s analysis offers an engaging and important discussion on the constitutional implications of patent reform. But this response refutes Dolin and Manta's argument that the AIA effectuated a compensable taking. First, the authors’ premise that patents are property rights protected by the Takings Clause is far less clear than they contend. The relevant precedents are hardly decisive. Second, courts are unlikely to view IPR and CBMR proceedings as the kinds of government actions governed by the Takings Clause. Courts assessing constitutional challenges under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment tend to distinguish actions intended to “cure” defects in government administrative systems from incursions on property rights. Indeed, the Federal Circuit rejected a challenge to IPR’s predecessor based partly on this distinction. We see little reason that a court would reach a different conclusion today. Third, even if it were possible to “take” patents by subjecting them to more stringent post-issuance review, Dolin and Manta overstate the extent to which the AIA affected patentees’ investment-backed expectations. The AIA was enacted against a background of federal statutes and regulations that authorize challenges to patent validity. Patentees could foresee that the government would continue to actively regulate patent rights without necessarily compensating patentees for their losses. Together, these arguments persuade us that the AIA is not a taking.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2770723
(note: cite is for the above abstract. full paper can be downloaded from cite)
It will now be up to the Courts to decide.
orientbull: The RIM i.e. Blackberry, license expired last year. They no longer sell mobile phones, transferring their rights to TCL, just one of the many Chinese companies that IDCC has yet to license.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/16/13979914/blackberry-global-branding-phone-rights-tcl
For some more on Blackberry and TCL:
https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3027419/tcl-pats-itself-on-the-back-after-flogging-er-850-000-blackberry-phones-in-2017
my3sons: The case is already active.
4/19/2018 5 Entry of appearance for Julie M. Holloway as of counsel for Appellant IPR Licensing, Inc.. Service: 04/19/2018 by email. [515268] [18-1805] [Julie Holloway]
04/19/2018 6 Entry of appearance for Maximilian A. Grant as of counsel for Appellant IPR Licensing, Inc.. Service: 04/19/2018 by email. [515274] [18-1805] [Maximilian Grant]
04/19/2018 7 Entry of appearance for Richard P. Bress as of counsel for Appellant IPR Licensing, Inc.. Service: 04/19/2018 by email. [515276] [18-1805] [Richard Bress]
04/19/2018 8 Entry of appearance for Jonathan M. Strang as of counsel for Appellant IPR Licensing, Inc.. Service: 04/19/2018 by email. [515277] [18-1805] [Jonathan Strang]
04/25/2018 9 Entry of appearance for Charles M. McMahon as principal counsel for Appellees ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation. Service: 04/25/2018 by email. [516838] [18-1805] [Charles McMahon]
04/25/2018 10 Docketing Statement for the Appellees ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation. Service: 04/25/2018 by email. [516843] [18-1805] [Charles McMahon]
04/25/2018 11 Certificate of Interest for the Appellees ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation. Service: 04/25/2018 by email. [516850] [18-1805] [Charles McMahon]
04/25/2018 12 Entry of appearance for Jay H. Reiziss as of counsel for Appellees ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation. Service: 04/25/2018 by email. [516885] [18-1805] [Jay Reiziss]
04/25/2018 13 Entry of appearance for Natalie A. Bennett as of counsel for Appellees ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation. Service: 04/25/2018 by email. [516967] [18-1805] [Natalie Bennett]
04/30/2018 14 Entry of appearance for Brian A. Jones as of counsel for Appellees ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation. Service: 04/30/2018 by email. [517758] [18-1805] [Brian Jones]
my3sons: Previous post in error. I didn't check back far enough. Case was docketed very quickly.
18-1805
IPR Licensing, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation 04/11/2018
PATO-1 : IPR2014-00525
United States Patent and Trademark Office
my3sons: I think the case is still waiting to be docketed.
mickey: I have no idea what you are talking about in your posts, so I will not attempt to reply.
If ZTE goes bankrupt because of the Commerce Departments actions, what happens to IDCC's patent infringement case ?
ZTE CORPORATION
??????????
(a joint stock limited company incorporated in the People’s Republic of China with limited liability)
(Stock Code: 763)
INSIDE INFORMATION ANNOUNCEMENT
This announcement is made by ZTE Corporation (the “Company”) pursuant to Rule 13.09(2) of the Rules (the “Listing Rules”) Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of
Hong Kong Limited and the Inside Information Provisions (as defined in the Listing Rules) of Part XIVA of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Chapter 571 of the Laws of Hong Kong).
Reference is made to the announcements of the Company dated 17 April 2018, 20 April 2018, 22 April 2018, 25 April 2018, 1 May 2018 and 6 May 2018 in relation to the trading halt of H shares of the Company, the order issued by BIS, the Actions taken by the Company and the continued suspension of trading of H shares of the Company (collectively the “Announcements”). Unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms used in this announcement shall have the same meanings as defined in the Announcements.
As disclosed in the announcement of the Company dated 20 April 2018,BIS has issued an order for the activation of a denial order (the “Denial Order”). As a result of the Denial Order, the
major operating activities of the Company have ceased. As of now, the Company maintains sufficient cash and strictly adheres to its commercial obligations subject to compliance with laws and regulations. The Company and related parties are actively communicating with the relevant U.S. government departments in order to facilitate the modification or reversal of the Denial Order by the U.S. government and forge a positive outcome in the development of the matters.
The Company will make announcements of material developments in relation to the above matters as soon as practicable. Investors of the Company are advised to pay attention to further announcements made by the Company and investment risks.
By Order of the Board
Yin Yimin
Chairman
Shenzhen, the PRC
9 May 2018