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.
Sort of, he turned them back to satisfy tax he owed on the huge amount of free stock he got last year
????????????
So, if you sum it up, they asked for 317 mil and received 138, which means their crack legal team is on par with their crack negotiating team. Correct me if I am wrong?
thanks for the additional info. Just go to show you how bad IDCC wrote their statement.
But still no details on legal fees and interest, tick tock
my guess if IDCC was asking for 337mil they won't get legal fees.
sounds like IDCC was asking for 100's of millions, so why was IDCC happy?
and is the 138 a lump sum for everything, and nothing going forward ?
"InterDigital, a U.S. company, has been holding out for a "discriminatory premium" compared with the rates paid by other manufacturers — "to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and to which it is not entitled," Lenovo said in court documents"
Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1455185/lenovo-makes-80m-play-to-resolve-interdigital-ip-dispute?copied=1
The way I read it is, all they are getting is 138 mil for infringement, not clear whether there is a thru date (like 12/31/22) or is it one lump payment for everything? Motorola is not part of the case and there is no action against them.
It's a British court so do we get legal fees also ?? And then he has to rule on back interest, too.
Remember Lenova offered 100 mil a year ago.
IDCC is going to appeal, so do we get anything before the appeals plays out? Will Lenova appeal. More questions than answers.
Could be one of the worst PR's I have ever seen. And Mr. Market yawns
UK court issues decision in InterDigital's FRAND licensing case against Lenovo
7:30 am ET March 16, 2023 (Globe Newswire) Print
GlobeNewswireMarch 16, 2023
WILMINGTON, Del., March 16, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced that the UK's High Court handed down its judgment in the company's licensing dispute with Lenovo.
The Court ruled that Lenovo should pay a total of $138.7 million for a license to InterDigital's portfolio of 3G, 4G and 5G patents, and should pay in full for past sales dating back to 2007. The Court will decide in due course whether additional interest is due on the past payments.
"We welcome the Court's decision as the first major SEP FRAND judgment that recognizes that a licensee should pay in full for the past infringement of standard essential patents and we agree with the Court that this could be a powerful way of guarding against patent holdout in the future," commented Josh Schmidt, Chief Legal Officer, InterDigital. "However, we plan to appeal, as we believe that certain aspects of the decision do not accurately reflect our licensing program."
anyone still here
not a good sign, the CFO is turning in stock (this early in the year) to get his "free" stock, instead of paying some tax and keeping the stock for the future.
BREZSKI RICHARD 2. Issuer Name and Ticker or Trading Symbol
InterDigital, Inc. [ IDCC ] 5. Relationship of Reporting Person(s) to Issuer (Check all applicable)
_____ Director _____ 10% Owner
__X__ Officer (give title below) _____ Other (specify below)
Chief Financial Officer
(Last) (First) (Middle)
200 BELLEVUE PARKWAY, SUITE 300 3. Date of Earliest Transaction (MM/DD/YYYY)
2/28/2023
(Street)
WILMINGTON, DE 19809
(City) (State) (Zip)
4. If Amendment, Date Original Filed (MM/DD/YYYY)
6. Individual or Joint/Group Filing (Check Applicable Line)
_X _ Form filed by One Reporting Person
___ Form filed by More than One Reporting Person
Table I - Non-Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
1.Title of Security
(Instr. 3) 2. Trans. Date 2A. Deemed Execution Date, if any 3. Trans. Code
(Instr. 8) 4. Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D)
(Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s)
(Instr. 3 and 4) 6. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 7. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
Code V Amount (A) or (D) Price
Common Stock 2/28/2023 M 12518 A $54.93 101881.7646 D
Common Stock 2/28/2023 S(1) 10386 D $73.77 (2) 91495.7646 D
Common Stock 1955 (3) I By 401(k) Plan
Table II - Derivative Securities Beneficially Owned (e.g., puts, calls, warrants, options, convertible securities)
1. Title of Derivate Security
(Instr. 3) 2. Conversion or Exercise Price of Derivative Security 3. Trans. Date 3A. Deemed Execution Date, if any 4. Trans. Code
(Instr. 8) 5. Number of Derivative Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D)
(Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 6. Date Exercisable and Expiration Date 7. Title and Amount of Securities Underlying Derivative Security
(Instr. 3 and 4) 8. Price of Derivative Security
(Instr. 5) 9. Number of derivative Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 4) 10. Ownership Form of Derivative Security: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 11. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
Code V (A) (D) Date Exercisable Expiration Date Title Amount or Number of Shares
Employee Stock Options (Right-to-Buy) $54.93 2/28/2023 M 12518 (4) 3/30/2023 Common Stock 12518 $0.00 0 D
Explanation of Responses:
(1) This sale represents a sell-to-cover transaction, whereby a portion of the shares acquired through the exercise of employee stock options were sold in the open market, with the proceeds used to fund the aggregate exercise price of the options and associated tax withholdings.
(2) The number of securities reported represents an aggregate number of shares sold in multiple sell-to-cover transactions over a range of sales prices ranging from $72.59 to $74.35 per share. The price reported represents the weighted average price. The Reporting Person undertakes to provide to the staff of the SEC, the Issuer, or a stockholder of the Issuer, upon request, the number of shares sold by the Reporting Person at each separate price within the range.
(3) As of the most recently published account statement, the reporting person beneficially owned this number of whole shares of common stock pursuant to the InterDigital Savings and Protection Plan.
(4) The stock options vested in three equal annual installments beginning on March 30, 2017.
Blackrock 7,232,043 240,252 6,991,791 36,731
Vangaurd Total 6,579,011 191,791 6,387,220 421,210
State Street 2,202,284 (1,558) 2,203,842 241,734
Geode Cap Mgt 2,091,598 120,632 1,970,966 114,272
Northern Trust 1,038,215 42,381 995,834 599,564
Schwab 837,167 18,577 818,590 64,150
Bank of NY 375,704 (1,716) 377,420 377,420
Nuveen 304,979 (12,039) 317,018 317,018
UMB Bank N A MO 300,092 140 299,952 14,000
Swiss Nat'l Bank 270,600 6,000 264,600 264,600
First Western 233598 233,598 0
Monte
Thx
Monte
Thx
that's called breaking the law, which anyone can do
Montey, great
can you explain how you reformatted that, I have never figured it out
the filing rules still apply
If they own over 5% they are required to file
If they do, they haven't filed. Both Blackrock and vangaurd own over 5%
top holders
Top 15 Dec-22 Sep-22
Blackrock 7,232,043 240,252 6,991,791
Vangaurd Total 6,579,011 191,791 6,387,220
State Street 2,202,284 (1,558) 2,203,842
Geode Cap Mgt 2,091,598 120,632 1,970,966
Northern Trust 1,038,215 42,381 995,834
Schwab 837,167 18,577 818,590
Bank of NY 375,704 (1,716) 377,420
Nuveen 304,979 (12,039) 317,018
UMB Bank N A MO 300,092 140 299,952
Swiss Nat'l Bank 270,600 6,000 264,600
First Western 233,598 233,598 0
LPL Fin 205,527 205,527 0
Advisory Services 194,866 194,866 0
Squarepoint 171,546 171,546 0
National Asset Management Inc. 152,926 152,926 0
Interesting ownership changes
30-Dec-22 inc/dec 30-Sep-22
BlackRock Inc. 5,117,381 (1,874,410) 6,991,791
Vanguard Group 3,474,662 (2,912,558) 6,387,220
FIL Ltd 1,150,976 1,150,976 0
State Street Corp 1,027,006 (1,176,836) 2,203,842
Dimens'l Fund 966,699 966,699 0
Disciplined Growth 791,400 791,400 0
Boston Partners 711,431 711,431 0
Renaissance 676,911 676,911 0
Boston Trust 615,013 615,013 0
Geode 561,714 (1,418,252) 1,979,966
Shannon River 491,748 491,748 0
B of N Y Mellon 446,559 69,139 377,420
Neumeirer 444,070 444,070 0
Capital Mgt 398,159 398,159 0
D. E. Shaw 393,159 93,207 299,952
Chas Schwab 386,379 (432,211) 818,590
Northern Trust 330,526 (665,308) 995,834
don't know
Anyone here ? Terrible conf call last night
BofA report out Underperform target 55
and this is after they start their question off with Great Qtr
Strong 4Q, yet long-term growth remains a concern
Solid 4Q results with revenues up 5% YoY to $117mn, above our $114mn, driven by
strength in recurring revenues, which reached $104mn and beat our expectations by
~$2mn. Gross and operating margins of 61%/33% came in above our 59%/31% from
lower-than-expected licensing and research and portfolio development costs. The margin
outperformance also drove EPS of $1.08c to beat our 93c estimates. Management
provided 1Q23 guidance for recurring revenues to decline -3% YoY to $96mn due to a
$15mn impact from expired agreements and an assumption of flat contribution from
Samsung, which is now in arbitration. We note that InterDigital’s stock is up ~50% YTD,
largely from the recent share buyback plan and the Dutch auction mechanism. Despite
the solid results, we reiterate our Underperform as we believe the long-term growth
outlook remains challenged. Even if smartphone recurring revenues reach management’s
$500mn target, the growth rate would then decline to low-single digits, as smartphones
account for 77% of total revenues. Higher estimates prompt a higher PO, up from $50
to $55, based on 16x 2024E EPS, vs. 16x 2023 EPS previously, as we roll our model
forward.
Weak smartphone revenues offset by non-handsets
Recurring revenues from smartphones fell -3% YoY to $89mn due to tough comps from
elevated revenue recognition in the final year of the prior Apple agreement. Ex-handsets,
IDCC is performing well, with Consumer Electronics (CE) and IoT/autos revenue up 50%
YoY in 4Q to $15mn and benefitting from new long-term agreements with Panasonic
and LG. Management also highlighted that 80% of all connected cars are currently
licensed under InterDigital’s 3G/4G portfolio, which contributed to CE and IoT/autos
reaching +$100mn in total FY22 revenues (recurring and non-recurring). However,
Smartphones account for the majority of recurring revenues, at 87% of total in FY22,
and while this segment grew 12% YoY in 2022, the growth could decline materially once
the company reaches 80-85% penetration after reaching licensing deals with Chinese
vendors Lenovo, Oppo, and Vivo. Lastly, InterDigital is in the process of reaching a new
agreement with Samsung through binding arbitration and management expects the
process to conclude around mid-2024.
February 10, 2023 00:00
Declaration
Document: 308
DECLARATION re 307 Reply Brief (of Leif Peterson) - by Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-3)(Smith, Rodger)
so action today in court
February 10, 2023 00:00
Declaration
Document: 308
DECLARATION re 307 Reply Brief (of Leif Peterson) - by Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-3)(Smith, Rodger)
February 10, 2023 00:00
Brief - Reply
Document: 307
REPLY BRIEF re 300 MOTION to Sever MOTION to Stay Interdigital's Patent Infringement Claims - filed by Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC. (Smith, Rodger)
What a bunch of amateurs
they just raised the auction price to 65.25 -75.00
fyi
Lenovo Loses Latest Bid To Invalidate InterDigital 3G Patent
By Alex Baldwin · Listen to article
Law360, London (January 31, 2023, 8:01 PM GMT) -- A London court ruled Tuesday that a telecommunications patent held by U.S. wireless tech
company InterDigital is both valid and essential to the 3G technology standard, rebuffing yet another attempt from Chinese tech giant Lenovo to nix
several of its telecom patents.
High Court Judge James Mellor upheld InterDigital's patent, rejecting Lenovo's arguments that prior art anticipated the telephone patent, in the latest
chapter in an ongoing licensing dispute between the two companies currently underway in the London courts.
InterDigital initially sued Lenovo for purportedly infringing several of its telecommunication patents and claiming that the company was illegally
using the technology without taking a license to its patent portfolio. Lenovo fired back by challenging the validity of the patents, including the one at
issue in Tuesday's ruling.
That patent, EP(UK) 2,421,318B1, relates to the sending of scheduling information "in the context" of an enhanced uplink system, according to the
judgment.
InterDigital said that whether the patent was essential to the 3G standard "stands or falls" depending on the interpretation of the terms "in response to"
found in the first claim of the patent, according to the judgment.
1/31/23, 10:39 PM Lenovo Loses Latest Bid To Invalidate InterDigital 3G Patent - Law360
https://www.law360.com/articles/1571024/lenovo-loses-latest-bid-to-invalidate-interdigital-3g-patent 4/8
Lenovo, meanwhile, argued that there were scenarios where the system would not necessarily trigger the sending of scheduling information "in
response" that undermined the claim that the method was essential to 3G technology.
But the High Court sided with InterDigital's reading of the claim and ruled that it was essential to the standard.
The expert witness for Lenovo also argued that the first claim of the patent was invalid as a specialist in the field would be able to eventually arrive at
the solution described in the claim through "routine work" by running into a "transmission blocking problem" posed by the 3G network.
While the High Court said that this was a "powerful analysis," Judge Mellor was ultimately unpersuaded by the argument, agreeing with InterDigital
that the path to overcoming the transmission blocking problem was only obvious "in hindsight."
"If you know the end point you are trying to reach, it is easy to direct the questioning with a laserlike focus to lead to that end point," the judge wrote.
The High Court also dismissed a key piece of prior art put forward by Lenovo referred to as "Kim," that the Chinese tech company argued proved that
InterDigital's patent protected technology was already known.
While the court accepted that a specialist in the field would be able to "take the central idea" of Kim and apply it to other communications systems,
such as the system detailed in the InterDigital patent, this was not reason enough to claim that Kim "anticipates" the patent, Judge Mellor concluded.
Lenovo has until Feb. 25 to appeal the decision, according to the judgment.
"This is another excellent win for InterDigital, particularly as it follows our recent victory in the U.K. Court of Appeal in another proceeding against
Lenovo," said Josh Schmidt, chief legal officer at InterDigital.
Representatives for Lenovo did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
This judgment comes shortly after a Jan. 19 Court of Appeal judgment that dismissed Lenovo's bid to reconsider a High Court ruling upholding the
validity of another InterDigital patent.
This marked the first in a series of trials before the Court of Appeal that will consider the validity of several InterDigital patents and later go on to
determine whether Lenovo infringed and should accept a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, or FRAND, license for them.
One of the patents InterDigital accused Lenovo of infringing was axed by Judge Mellor last year. He later denied InterDigital's bid to appeal the
ruling.
The patent-in-suit is European Patent (UK) No. 2,421,318B1
It seems as our brilliant management team has outdone their self with their brilliant dutch auction. With the price at 71 they will get no shares. Of course they could have been buying shares back for weeks and the stock would not be here. hmmmmmmm!!
I think Sonny boy is holding back information
UK litigation gets complicated
InterDigital Fights To Restore Wireless Patent In Appeal
By Sophia Dourou · Listen to article
Law360, London (January 31, 2023, 7:23 PM GMT) -- Technology giant InterDigital asked an appeals court on Tuesday to reinstate one of its wireless technology patents, arguing an earlier decision that the standard-essential patent lacks novelty was based on too narrow of an interpretation.
Counsel for InterDigital told a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal that one of its standard-essential patents for 3G wireless technology did indeed contain an invention and was infringed by Chinese tech giant Lenovo.
Adrian Speck KC, representing the U.S. research and development company, told the court that the High Court judge hearing the case used the wrong construction of the patent's claims when assessing whether it was obvious given the prior art in the field.
The patent covers the way data blocks of specified sizes are transmitted by mobile phones.
InterDigital is seeking to overturn an April 2022 High Court decision holding that its patent was invalid and tossing out its infringement suit against Lenovo.
Speck said that the judge was wrong in his approach to an earlier 2005 invention known as Filiatrault, which aims to improve the performance of 3G mobile transmissions to reduce delays. The prior art did not anticipate the patent-in-suit, which included an apparatus to ensure that the technology was fully functional, Speck argued.
"It couldn't be clearer that the judge proceeding on the basis that this is a requirement and gave its absence in Filiatrault as a reason it didn't anticipate," Speck said, outlining his argument that the judge included two constructions in his analysis, despite his ruling that the patent was anticipated.
But James Abrahams KC, representing Lenovo, told the panel that the judge correctly read the prior art, urging the court to dismiss the appeal as a result.
"The main issue at trial…was the dispute of what the Filiatrault prior art described, what it meant in relation to the common general knowledge," Abrahams said. "Our case on Filiatrault is that it actually disclosed the detailed process that InterDigital now wants to write into [its claim.]"
Abrahams rejected Lenovo's arguments that the earlier judge had included two different interpretations in his judgment, arguing it would be "impossible" for him to forget. But he added that even if the appeals court did accept InterDigital's new construction of the patent, it couldn't conclude that Lenovo had infringed the patent because InterDigital didn't raise that argument at the High Court.
InterDigital and Lenovo have been in talks since 2009 to license the U.S. company's patent portfolio covering 3G and 4G standards in a number of different jurisdictions including the U.K., China and U.S. with no success, according to a related July 2021 decision.
The High Court ruled at that time that Lenovo had infringed another valid standard-essential patent of InterDigital's for 4G wireless technology. Lenovo is currently appealing that decision.
Separately, on Tuesday the High Court upheld the validity of yet another InterDigital telecommunication patent and ruled it essential to the 3G technology standard.
That dispute marks one of a series focusing on determining what FRAND – fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory – licensing terms would be for the telecommunications patents. It follows a landmark decision by the U.K. Supreme Court in 2020 that England's courts have the authority to set global rates for use of standard-essential patents.
The appeal before Justices Kim Lewison, Sarah Asplin and Richard Arnold is set to continue on Wednesday.
The patent-in-suit is European (UK) Patent No. 3,355,537.
Lenovo is represented by James Abrahams KC of 8 New Square and Kyra Nezami of 11 South Square, instructed by Kirkland and Ellis International LLP.
InterDigital is represented by Adrian Speck KC of 8 New Square, instructed by Gowling WLG (UK) LLP.
The case is InterDigital Technology Corp. and others v. Lenovo Group Ltd. and others, case number HP-2019-000032, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
--Additional reporting by Alex Baldwin, Lucia Osborne-Crowley, Silvia Martelli, Tiffany Hu and Bonnie Eslinger. Editing by Alex Hubbard.
I guess Lebby had nothing of interest to say yesterday ?????
On January 31, 2023, InterDigital, Inc. (the “Company”) received a judgment from the UK’s High Court that Lenovo has infringed one of the Company’s patents and that the patent-in-suit is valid and essential to the UMTS (3G) standard. This judgment relates to the Company’s third technical trial that commenced on May 10, 2022 and concluded on May 18, 2022.
Any word on the Lebby panel discussion today
You guys know if you want to read any of the documents you can get them on Pacer. Pacer doesn't charge you until you run up $30 in a qtr. If you coordinate you can get a lot of free documents
litigation update
January 27, 2023 00:00
Declaration
Document: 305
DECLARATION re 304 Answering Brief in Opposition, of Lucy Yen in Support of Plaintiffs Answering Brief in Opposition to Lenovos Motion to Sever and Stay Interdigitals Patent Infringement Claims by IPR Licensing, Inc., InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 - 2020-04-09 1 Compl Lenovo v. InterDigital (20-cv-493), # 2 Ex. 2 - 2020-06-22 8 InterDigital Motion to Dismiss Opening Brief, # 3 Ex. 3 - 2020-07-20 15 Lenovo Oppn to IDC Motion to Dismiss Opening Brief, # 4 Ex. 4 - 2021-03-24 41 Court's Memo Opinion- motion to consolidate, # 5 Ex. 5 - IDC-LEN-1590-0532950 - IDC-LEN-1590-0532970, # 6 Ex. 6 - 2013-11-18 24 Imation's Ltr Brief re FRAND issues Bifurcation, # 7 Ex. 7 - TQ Delta v. ZyXel 2019 EWCA Civ 1277 Judgment, # 8 Ex. 8 - 'You Can't Fire Me, I Quit' Is Now A FRAND Strategy - Law360, # 9 Ex. 9 - Oppo & OnePlus halt phone sales in Germany, # 10 Ex. 10 - 2019-03-14 943 Order Dismissing Motion as Premature TQ Delta v. Pace)(Ormerod, Eve)
January 27, 2023 00:00
Brief - Answering Brief in Opposition
Document: 304
ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re 300 MOTION to Sever MOTION to Stay Interdigital's Patent Infringement Claims filed by IPR Licensing, Inc., InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc..Reply Brief due date per Local Rules is 2/3/2023. (Ormerod, Eve)
Wake me when the auction is over zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
22nd Century acquires UK cannabis distributor RX Pharmatech for $650K