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.
22nd Century Group (XXII) Announces U.S. Distribution Partnerships with Core-Mark and Eby-Brown
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/22nd-century-group-xxii-announces-142500749.html
FWIW, On the IAM platform this week, we reported on the latest development in Nokia and Oppo’s global litigation spat. A ruling from the English High Court found that the UK section of Nokia’s European Patent EP2981103 is standard essential, infringed and valid, we said, adding that this clears the path for judges to proceed with a FRAND hearing,
FDA's Proposed Menthol Ban Advances to Final Rule Status, Greatly Benefits 22nd Century (XXII) by Affirming the Need for VLN(R) Menthol King as a Critical Off-Ramp for Adult Menthol Smokers
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fdas-proposed-menthol-ban-advances-140000806.html
Dockets
January 13, 2023 00:00
Declaration
Document: 302
DECLARATION re 300 MOTION to Sever MOTION to Stay Interdigital's Patent Infringement Claims -- Declaration of Leif Peterson -- by Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A - 5G Extended License Offer, # 2 Ex. B - One Blue, Order-re Bifurcation of FRAND-and-liability-issues)(Smith, Rodger)
January 13, 2023 00:00
Brief - Opening Brief in Support
Document: 301
OPENING BRIEF in Support 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.Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 1/27/2023. (Smith, Rodger)
January 13, 2023 00:00
Sever Stay
Document: 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. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Smith, Rodger)
January 13, 2023 00:00
Letter
Document: 299
Letter to The Honorable Joshua D. Wolson from Neal C. Belgam regarding Trial Scheduling. (Belgam, Neal)
anyone have the link for today's presentations
I doubt Apple wants to get in the licensing business, especially against some of its competitors, jmho
Short interest may have increased by a small amount, but the cost to borrow has gone down to next than nothing, there is no fear out there
from Law 360
FRAND Cases
The U.K.'s status as the go-to jurisdiction for setting fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, rates for global patents of standard-essential patents was established by the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Unwired Planet International Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
However, since then there has been no SEP dispute culminating in a rate-setting judgment. That looks set to change in 2023 with two FRAND rate setting judgments currently outstanding. FRAND judgments in InterDigital Technology Corp. v. Lenovo Inc. and Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple Inc. are expected imminently. The decisions are likely to be significant for SEP licensing negotiations and future SEP litigation.
The Nokia Technologies Oy v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. patent litigation is also expected to continue in 2023 following the Supreme Court's decision in November to refuse OnePlus, a Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. subsidiary, permission to further appeal its unsuccessful jurisdiction challenge.
The Court of Appeal has determined that England is an appropriate forum for resolving the patent infringement cases brought by Nokia and that a stay is not warranted despite Oppo having requested the People's Court of Chongqing in China to determine a global FRAND license for Nokia's portfolio.
Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1561130/a-look-ahead-at-key-uk-intellectual-property-cases?copied=1
Nasty IDCC sued again - anyone want to read the suit let me know
InterDigital Sued Again Over Cellular Tech Licensing Rates
By Andrew Karpan · case 23CV0002
Law360 (January 4, 2023, 8:16 PM EST) -- A Swiss chipmaker is going to federal court in California all over again with accusations that InterDigital Inc. is breaking antitrust laws by demanding unfairly high royalty rates to license patents considered essential to 3G and 4G cellular tech standards.
The latest lawsuit from the Zurich company U-blox AG was entered on Tuesday and accuses InterDigital of breaking commitments to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, a standards-setting organization, by failing to license its patents to U-blox on "fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory," or FRAND, conditions.
According to the suit, the Wilmington, Delaware-based InterDigital has collected "approximately 2,400 U.S. patents and 11,500 non-U.S. patents" and is now demanding "royalties that are discriminatory and far higher than FRAND rates."
U-blox, which makes microchips for wireless mobile devices, now wants a court in California to set what a fair licensing rate would be, and to issue an injunction "stopping InterDigital from wrongfully interfering with U-blox's customers and downstream manufacturers."
Much of the language in the lawsuit describing InterDigital's licensing practices was largely identical to language in an earlier lawsuit that the same U-blox lawyers at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP filed against InterDigital in 2019.
Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division had quickly weighed in to that suit, telling the court that the agency planned to argue that the Swiss company's reading of antitrust laws would "unhelpfully distort licensing negotiations" and "risks undermining the incentives for innovation."
But the two companies settled later that year, before the agency's lawyers could file an official statement with the court arguing that U-blox's allegations didn't trigger their reading of antitrust law.
In the years since, leadership at the DOJ has changed.
Since taking office, Biden administration officials there have discarded a number of the Trump-era policy statements that either endorsed or discouraged seeking injunctions based on standard-essential patents, which some say has now given courts more flexibility to weigh those antitrust issues in each case.
Details about the terms or length of the deal that ended the first lawsuit were largely redacted in U-blox's complaint, but the lawsuit claims that those terms nonetheless demonstrated "to InterDigital that U-blox is ready and willing to enter into a FRAND license with InterDigital on similar terms as the previous license."
"Unfortunately, however, InterDigital is again refusing to negotiate in good faith with U-blox for a license on FRAND terms," the suit says.
Representatives for both companies did not return a request for comment.
U-blox is represented by Martin Bader, Ryan Patrick Cunningham, Stephen S. Korniczky, Ericka Jacobs Schulz and Mona Solouki of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
Counsel information for InterDigital was not currently available.
The case is u-blox AG et al. v. InterDigital, Inc. et al., case number 3:23-cv-00002, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
--Additional reporting by Bryan Koenig and Ryan Davis. Editing by Melissa Treolo.
Case No. COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Breach Of Contract; (2) Declaratory Judgment; (3) Antitrust Monopolization In Violation Of Section 2 Of The Sherman Act; and (4) Declaratory Judgment of NonInfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,067. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED '23CV0002 BEN DEB
Our crack licensing team did it again ! Really, any reason we have one????
And will we be collecting any money at all for the next 18 months. They can't even write an 8 k that makes sense!
"On January 1, 2023, InterDigital, Inc. (the “Company”) and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Samsung”) agreed to have a panel of arbitrators establish the royalties to be paid by Samsung for a worldwide license to certain of the Company’s patents from and after January 1, 2023, as well as any other terms to a patent license agreement on which the parties are unable to agree. The determination by the panel will be in the form of a patent license agreement and will be final, binding and non-appealable, subject to certain limited exceptions. The parties have agreed to conduct the arbitration in a diligent manner. The Company expects the arbitration to conclude within approximately 18 months.
Each of the parties has also agreed not to initiate certain claims against the other party during the arbitration. Any licenses under our joint licensing program with Sony relating to digital televisions and standalone computer display monitors will not be included in the scope of the arbitration."
Well, today is Dec 29 :)
Smells like they may be having some trouble with Samsung
and the borrow rate is under 1/2 of 1%. Guess there are lots of shares available.
just think during last year the rate was above 40% at times
Cramer just did a minute and half on LWLG, said nothing more than you would expect from someone who doesn't understand the company. Will be on Youtube soon.
Cramer on LWLG
probably will comment on it tonight or Monday
I'm afraid it will be ugly- he will note a 20 year company with no revenue
I know, the question is, what does IDCC want
So if IDCC has turned down 80 -100 mil from Lenova, what do you think they are asking ?
Lenovo Fights To Invalidate InterDigital 4G Patent On Appeal
By Sophia Dourou · Listen to article
Law360, London (December 14, 2022, 6:30 PM GMT) -- Lenovo asked an appeals court Wednesday to find an InterDigital patent for technology used in 4G is invalid, arguing an earlier judge took the wrong approach in deciding whether the invention would be obvious given earlier technical developments.
Counsel for Lenovo told the Court of Appeal that the patent in question — which covers a way to use a non-contention-based channel allocated for use by a single device — failed to state any advantage over prior art and was therefore obvious rather than inventive.
Lenovo's counsel Thomas Hinchliffe KC said the patent, which involves reducing a message to a 1-bit size and transmitting it using an "on-off key," should have been obvious based on prior art, including a technical document submitted by Samsung in a 2005 working group meeting during the development of LTE technology.
Lenovo is appealing a June 2021 High Court ruling that the patent in question was valid and essential, and had been infringed by the Chinese tech giant.
Hinchliffe rejected the suggestion that the patent was not obvious because it used the on-off key technology previously thought to be "impractical" for cellular networks. He stressed that a skilled person would have been aware of any potential problems and tradeoffs involved in using that technology, but it would have been part of his or her common general knowledge.
But Judge Colin Birss, leading the three-judge panel, disputed the assertion that the on-off key would have been "at the forefront" of a skilled person's mind.
"If it was a technique that was part of their toolkit, it was right at the bottom of it, right under a rusty screwdriver," Judge Birss remarked.
Douglas Campbell KC, representing InterDigital, told the court that Lenovo lacked any real legal ground to mount a challenge, and said it was merely attempting to overturn the earlier judge's findings of fact on the on-off key technology. Cambell pointed out that while Lenovo relied heavily on the patent's lack of stated advantage over prior art, it did not dispute that the invention did, in fact, offer an actual advantage.
Campbell said in his written submissions there was nothing in the Samsung document suggesting using the on-off key technology, which remains "the beginning and end" of Lenovo's case as to obviousness. Campbell further accused Lenovo of relying on a partial account of the evidence given by experts over the course of the trial in his appeal.
This appeal is the latest development in a long-running battle between the two technology companies over standard-essential patents used in cellular phones. InterDigital and Lenovo have been in talks since 2009 to license InterDigital's patent portfolio covering 3G and 4G standards, with no success.
In January, Lenovo scored a victory after a judge invalidated a pattern held by InterDigital in the second of five trials. That same month, Lenovo offered to pay its rival a lump sum of $80 million to end the ongoing dispute over fair and reasonable licensing terms for mobile phone patents.
The hearing before Judges Colin Birss, Mark Warby and Sarah Falk is set to continue Thursday.
The patent-in-suit is European Patent (UK) No. 2 485 558.
InterDigital is represented by Douglas Campbell KC and Joe Delaney of Three New Square, instructed by Alex Brodie of Gowling WLG (UK) LLP.
Lenovo is represented by Thomas Hinchliffe KC and Jeremy Heald of Three New Square, instructed by Nicola Dagg of Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.
The case is InterDigital Technology Corporation & Ors v. Lenovo Group Ltd & Ors, case number CA-2021-003431, in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
Is this still a real company (was it ever) Is it really trading where ?
should be a winner
Great buying opportunity this am! Anyone else buy?
Remember at 9/30 LWLG had 25 mil on the balance sheet, that's 1 1/2 years worth of running time, so why did they register to have ROTH have the ability to raise 35 mil, at will ? Interesting question, but it doesn't seem to be that they would be diluting anytime soon
a little more color from Jefferies
InterDigital has near-term upside and a medium-term opportunity - Jefferies
Stock Markets Dec 09, 2022 04:11PM ET
By Sam Boughedda
Jefferies initiated coverage of InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC) with a Buy rating and $80 price target in a note to clients on Friday.
Analysts told investors in a note that the company has posted a three-year revenue CAGR of 11% as it expanded existing relationships and signed new licensees, and they model an 11% CAGR through 2027 that "delivers operating leverage and five-year EPS power of $6.75."
"IDCC is a provider of leading cellular and video compression/streaming IP (>28k total patents and 50% increase in patent assets since '17) that it licenses into the smartphone, consumer electronics, auto, and IoT markets. It has decades-long relationships with Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), Samsung (KS:005930), LG and Sharp (OTC:SHCAY), multi-year relationships with SONY, Huawei, ZTE (HK:0763) and Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL), and more recently signed Xiaomi (OTC:XIACF) and Vizio. We view its fixed fee, multi-year license contracts with Apple, Samsung, and Xiaomi as providing a highly predictable stream of recurring revs and CFs," explained the analysts.
They went on to state that the company has a near-term upside from smartphone licensing and a medium-term opportunity from consumer electronics (CE).
"IDCC collects ~$350m in recurring revs from smartphone vendors today (primarily Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi, and Huawei), reflecting ~55% market share in smartphones units. Over the next 3 years, we expect additional smartphone revs of $150m, primarily driven by signing unlicensed Chinese vendors (Oppo, Lenovo, and Vivo)," the analysts wrote. "IDCC's annualized recurring revs from CE have more than doubled over the past 1.5 years, growing to ~$54m/yr from ~$23m/yr. We expect additional CE licensing opportunities to add another ~$100m of annual revs over the next 5 years, primarily driven by signing TV manufacturers like Samsung and LG."
On December 9, 2022, Lightwave Logic, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into a Sales Agreement (the “Sales Agreement”) with Roth Capital Partners, LLC, as agent (the “Sales Agent”). Pursuant to the Sales Agreement, the Company may offer and sell up to $35,000,000 in shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Shares”), from time to time through the Sales Agent. The Company is also filing a prospectus supplement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the offering (the “Offering”) of the Shares for aggregate gross sale proceeds of up to $35,000,000 (the “Prospectus Supplement”) under the Company’s shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333- 257670), which became effective on July 9, 2021 (the “Registration Statement”). Any Shares offered and sold in the Offering will be issued pursuant to such Registration Statement.
Upon delivery of a placement notice based on the Company’s instructions and subject to the terms and conditions of the Sales Agreement, the Sales Agent may sell the Shares by methods deemed to be an “at the market offering” as defined in Rule 415(a)(4) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), including sales made directly on or through The Nasdaq Capital Market (“Nasdaq”), on any other existing trading market for the Company’s common stock, in negotiated transactions at market prices prevailing at the time of sale or at prices related to such prevailing market prices, or by any other method permitted by law, including negotiated transactions, subject to the prior written consent of the Company.
The Company is not obligated to make any sales of Shares under the Agreement. The Company or the Sales Agent may suspend or terminate the offering of Shares upon notice to the other party, subject to certain conditions. The Sales Agent will act as sales agent on a commercially reasonable efforts basis consistent with its normal trading and sales practices and applicable state and federal law, rules and regulations and the rules of Nasdaq.
The Company has agreed to pay the Sales Agent commissions for its services of acting as agent of 3.0% of the gross proceeds from the sale of the Shares pursuant to the Sales Agreement. The Company has also agreed to provide the Sales Agent with customary indemnification and contribution rights.
A copy of the Sales Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1.1 hereto and is incorporated herein by reference. The foregoing description of the material terms of the Sales Agreement does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such exhibit.
Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Nevada counsel to the Company, has issued a legal opinion relating to the Shares. A copy of such legal opinion, including the consent included therein, is attached as Exhibit 5.1 hereto.
The Shares will be sold pursuant to the Registration Statement, and offerings of the Shares will be made only by means of the Prospectus Supplement. This Current Report on Form 8-K shall not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy these securities, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities law of such state or jurisdiction.
Don't get you knickers all tangled. Simple transaction. He had 125,000 warrants about to expired, so he so exercised them. To pay for them he exercised and sold 31,000 employee stock options. With the money from that he exercised the options, bought stock, paid his taxes and had enuf left over for a good dinner and some Xmas gifts. BTW, the guy is an uber multi-millionaire, this is all pocket change for him.
Universal Display Corporation Announces Passing of Founder and Visionary Entrepreneur Sherwin I. Seligsohn
4:15 pm ET December 6, 2022 (BusinessWire) Print
Universal Display Corporation (Nasdaq: OLED) today announced that Founder Sherwin I. Seligsohn passed away on December 3, 2022. The entire UDC community mourns the loss of Sherwin, an esteemed visionary, leader and friend, and extends deepest condolences to his family and loved ones.
With an exceptional intellect and fervent curiosity, Sherwin leaves an indelible mark on the display and wireless industries. Born in 1935, Sherwin's immense drive for learning eclipsed conventional teaching methods, so he left high school and pursued his life's interests, including the stock market. Throughout his entire life, Sherwin loved the Jersey Shore and he would regularly spend time on the beach with his young children. Sherwin's curiosity to track the financial markets and get real-time stock quotation updates, without having to leave the beach, sparked the idea of a portable data machine. His pursuit and passion for wireless technology led Sherwin to form his first multi-billion dollar company in 1972, International Mobile Machines Corporation (IMM), now known as InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC). In 1990, Sherwin stepped down as Chairman of IMM and began to look for his next venture. After reading about novel research work by Drs. Forrest and Thompson in self-emissive organic materials in Nature magazine, Sherwin decided to explore this groundbreaking technology with a visit to the electrical engineering school at Princeton University. There, he observed a green dot, with a 9-volt battery hanging from it, light up for seconds before it expired. From that tiny organic green dot, Sherwin envisioned the future of display technology and founded Universal Display Corporation in June 1994. Fast forward to today, Universal Display has grown and evolved from an R&D start-up to a global leader in the OLED industry.
"Sherwin's extraordinary vision, entrepreneurial passion and unique leadership led to the creation of two of the most impactful enabling technology companies in the global OLED and digital cellular ecosystems," said Steven V. Abramson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Universal Display Corporation. "I had the privilege of working closely with Sherwin for more than 40 years. He was not only my brilliant mentor, but also my wonderful and generous friend. With a long-term strategic vision, Sherwin cultivated and nurtured UDC's guiding principles of curiosity, respect, humility and determination. His mindset of constantly 'thinking outside the box' and courageous conviction have been embedded into the Company's DNA and are key to UDC's remarkable success. Sherwin's incredible legacy will continue to drive the Company forward on its path of growth and innovation. We will miss him tremendously."
In addition to founding Universal Display Corporation, Sherwin I. Seligsohn served as its Chairman of the Board of Directors from June 1995 until June 2022 when he was named Chairman Emeritus. He also served as Chief Executive Officer of UDC from June 1995 through December 2007, and as President from June 1995 through May 1996. From June 1990 to October 1991, Sherwin was Chairman Emeritus of InterDigital, Inc., formerly International Mobile Machines Corporation. He founded InterDigital, and from August 1972 to June 1990 served as its Chairman of the Board of Directors. Sherwin was also a member of the Industrial Advisory Board of the Princeton Institute for the Science and Technology of Materials (PRISM) at Princeton University.
I doubt it, but you can always go into Pacer and see
Dockets
December 02, 2022 00:00
Redacted Document
Document: 291
REDACTED VERSION of 213 Opening Brief in Support, by Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC. (Smith, Rodger)
December 02, 2022 00:00
Redacted Document
Document: 290
REDACTED VERSION of 252 Exhibit to a Document,,,, [252-6] Exhibit 22 - 22-06-21 Corrected Expert Report RE Kennedy by IPR Licensing, Inc., InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc.. (Belgam, Neal)
December 02, 2022 00:00
Redacted Document
Document: 289
REDACTED VERSION of 252 Exhibit to a Document,,,, [252-3] Exhibit 8 - Email IDC-LEN-1590-0527284 by IPR Licensing, Inc., InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc.. (Belgam, Neal)
December 02, 2022 00:00
Redacted Document
Document: 288
REDACTED VERSION of 248 Answering Brief in Opposition, by IPR Licensing, Inc., InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc.. (Belgam, Neal)
December 02, 2022 00:00
Remark
Remark: Per the November 30, 2022, Judicial Order signed by the Honorable Joshua D. Wolson, D.I. #284 docket entry has been unsealed and Exhibit 1 to D.I. #284 (Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts) has been replaced with the redacted version sent by Counsel. (mkr)
Shorts are not having trouble finding shares, borrow rate is now un 2%
November 30, 2022 00:00
Order ~Util - Terminate Motions
Document: 287
ORDER, Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (D.I. 282 ) is GRANTED. On or before December 2, 2022, Plaintiffs shall supply to the Clerk of Court a redacted version of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (D.I. 284 -1), and the Clerk of Court shall substitute the redacted version for the version currently on the docket and unseal the docket entry. Signed by Judge Joshua D. Wolson on 11/30/2022. (apk)
old news
What was the purpose of your post. If you actually looked at the document posted you would have seen that Blockrock (the main Fund) still owns approximately 7,000,000 shs.
Do your homework !
Thanks for the tips, think I'll just forward to you first :)
cool, thx
can you explain how you did it ?
Interesting change of ownership-
(difficult to format on IHUB - I suggest you cut and paste and put it in a worksheet)
30-Sep-22 inc/dec 30-Jun-22 inc/dec 30-Sep-21
1 BlackRock Inc. 6,991,791 1,817,292 5,174,499 261,261 4,913,238
2 Vanguard Group 6,387,220 2,918,041 3,469,179 100,966 3,368,213
3 State Street Corp 2,203,842 1,106,387 1,097,455 (44,458) 1,141,913
4 Geode 1,979,966 1,423,993 555,973 27,032 528,941
5 Northern Trust 995,834 995,834 0 (412,063) 412,063
6 Chas Schwab 818,590 818,590 0 (326,399) 326,399
7 B of N Y Mellon 377,420 377,420 0 (505,211) 505,211
8 Nuveen 317,018 317,018 0 (205,067) 205,067
9 D. E. Shaw 299,952 299,952 0 (509,086) 509,086
10 Swiss Nat'l Bank 264,600 264,600 0 (423,299) 423,299
11 FIL Ltd 0 (1,175,759) 1,175,759 0 1,175,759
12 Dimens'l Fund 0 (949,595) 949,595 33,155 916,440
13 Renaissance 0 (833,757) 833,757 84,583 749,174
14 Disciplined Growth 0 (797,366) 797,366 9,840 787,526
15 Boston Partners 0 (734,886) 734,886 (8,903) 743,789
16 Boston Trust 0 (734,866) 734,866 339,844 395,022
17 Neumeirer 0 (614,190) 614,190 (30,560) 644,750
18 Goldman Sachs 0 (145,073) 145,073 (584,805) 729,878
Dockets
November 21, 2022 00:00
Declaration
Document: 285
DECLARATION re 283 Opening Brief in Support, of Brett Bachtell in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Document by InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc.. (Belgam, Neal)
November 21, 2022 00:00
Declaration
Document: 284
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 283 Opening Brief in Support, of Ryan Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Document by InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts In Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment)(Belgam, Neal)
November 21, 2022 00:00
Brief - Opening Brief in Support
Document: 283
[SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re 282 MOTION to Seal Document: Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts In Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment with Certificate of Service filed by InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 12/5/2022. (Belgam, Neal)
November 21, 2022 00:00
Seal Document
Document: 282
MOTION to Seal Document: Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts In Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment - filed by InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Belgam, Neal)
[SEALED] DECLARATION re 283<https://www.law360.com/dockets/documents?doc_url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.ded.uscourts.gov%2Fdoc1%2F04315828298> Opening Brief in Support, of Ryan Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Document by InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1<https://www.law360.com/dockets/documents?doc_url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.ded.uscourts.gov%2Fdoc1%2F04315828398> Exhibit A - Plaintiffs Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts In Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment)(Belgam, Neal)