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.
olddog967, I thought that ZTE dropped FRAND.
I don't see how ZTE can be 'looking forward' to the damages
phase even if it buys them some more time.
<<On March 18, 2016, the court denied ZTE’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative for a new trial, with respect to the ’966 and ’847 patents. The court postponed its ruling on ZTE’s motion as to the ’244 patent pending the Federal Circuit’s decision on InterDigital’s appeal of the September 14, 2015 PTAB ruling and administratively closed that portion of the motion. On April 8, 2016, the court set a new schedule for the FRAND/damages portion of the ZTE case with a target trial date in February 2018.
On April 18, 2016, ZTE filed a stipulated request for dismissal with prejudice of its counterclaims for breach of contract and patent unenforceability based on FRAND and withdrew its corresponding FRAND-related affirmative defenses. The court granted this request the same day. Also on April 18, 2016, ZTE filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) seeking certification of partial final judgment on the claims for infringement of the ’966 and ’847 patents to allow ZTE to file an immediate appeal as to those patents. The motion was granted on June 7, 2016, and a partial final judgment was entered on June 20, 2016. On July 18, 2016, ZTE filed its notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit regarding the Delaware District Court’s judgment against ZTE with respect to the ’966 and ’847 patents. Oral argument on ZTE’s appeal was heard on October 4, 2017, and a decision remains pending. As a result, InterDigital’s damages claims are currently effectively stayed pending the appeal.>>
I was busy today - I just noticed the good news.
Unfortunately, I see that InterDigital was down 55 cents today.
The only thing that I can think of is that most market participants
didn't notice the news today.
If anyone did know, how could the stock possibly go down on this news?
I do see that the volume was a little higher than average.
<<surprise, surprise a downgrade I am sure more will be issued shortly>>
First of all, are you sure it was a downgrade?
The Barclays analyst has it at equal weight - it might have been
the same thing before (equal weight), but the price target was
just ratcheted down a little - from $90 to $85.
And personally, I don't think that $85 is a bad price at all
in the intermediate term - hopefully more longer term.
<<I am not an accountant, but I have not heard any other company comment on it impact, particularly..>>
I think that IDCC price move has more to do with the growth rate
slowing down. For example, Merritt said that there may be more
licenses signed in the coming quarters - that's not good enough
for Wall Street right now.
In my view, that's good for for longer term investors, but not shorter
term traders.
Here's another company (Rambus) commenting on the impact of FASB in
their 10-Q that was filed the other day:
<<In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“Standard”). The core principle of the Standard is for a company to recognize revenue for goods or services transferred to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which it expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. To do so, a company will be required to exercise more judgment and make more estimates than under current guidance, including in identifying the performance obligations included in the arrangement, estimating and revising the variable consideration, if any, to be included in the transaction price and allocating the transaction price to distinct performance obligations. The FASB further clarified the Standard by issuing ASU No. 2016-10 (Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing); ASU No. 2016-12 (Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients); and ASU No. 2016-20 (Technical Corrections and Improvements).
The Standard may be applied retrospectively to each prior period presented (full retrospective method) or retrospectively with the cumulative effect recognized as of the date of initial application (modified retrospective method). The Standard, as amended, is effective for the Company on January 1, 2018. The Company has yet to make a final decision regarding the adoption method it will use but believes it will adopt the Standard on a full retrospective basis, with a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings on January 1, 2016 determined on the basis of the impact of the Standard on the accounting for contracts that are not completed as of that date.
Although the Company has yet to finalize its evaluation and quantification of the effects that the Standard will have on its consolidated financial statements, and to finalize the design and implementation of related changes to its policies, procedures and controls, the Company expects the Standard to materially impact the timing of revenue recognition for its fixed-fee intellectual property (IP) licensing arrangements (including certain fixed-fee agreements that license the Company's existing IP portfolio as well as IP added to this portfolio during the license term) as a majority of such revenue would be recognized at inception of the license term, as opposed to over time as is the case under current U.S. GAAP, and the Company will be required to compute and recognize interest income over time as control over the IP generally transfers significantly in advance of cash being received from customers. In addition, the Company is currently assessing its minimum guarantee contracts to determine whether, under the Standard, revenue should be recognized at contract inception or over the contract term. The Company expects that any change to current revenue recognition practices may significantly increase volatility in its quarterly revenue trends.
In accordance with existing U.S. GAAP, the Company currently recognizes revenue from per-unit royalty-based IP licenses in the period the licensee reports its sales, generally in the quarter after the underlying sales by the licensee occurred. On adoption of the Standard, such royalties will be recognized as revenue during the period in which the licensee's sales are estimated to have occurred, which will result in an adjustment to revenue when actual amounts are subsequently reported by the Company's licensees. As part of the Company’s assessment and implementation plan, the Company is evaluating and implementing changes to its policies, procedures and controls.>>
<<If the FASB rules were published in 2014, it seems as though the adjustment should have been made at the end of 2015, unless the rules specifically state that they would not go into effect until Jan 1, 2018,>>
The FASB rules on IP revenue recognition started being
drafted in 2014.
They take effect January 1, 2018.
Barclays cuts price target to $85 from $90 - equal
weight.
I don't have a link - just saw it in a lengthy
upgrade and downgrade list from Reuters.
<< I wonder whether the following comment about new revenue accounting guidance caused the selloff.>>
olddog967, that's a good point.
But for those who don't know by now about the FASB rules that started
to be formed back in 2014, they're not paying attention.
If IDCC and other IP companies can't be valued on cash flow (as they
should be) what good are the analysts?
There's been plenty of commentary in the 10-Q's about these new rules - this isn't IDCC's fault, it's FASB's for mandating them.
I hope that IDCC (and my other IP investments) can also show pro forma
revenue tables that compare the old rules with the new rules for simplicity.
I believe that the cash flow should remain the same.
<<I thought they said they didn't repurchase anything in first 9 months...could they have been buying in OCT?>>
felix7, good question.
But, to the best of my understanding, that would show up in
"subsequent events" in the 10-Q that was filed today. That's
to show if anything happened between then end of the quarter
and the filing. But today's 10-Q has no subsequent events listed,
so it's safe to say that IDCC hasn't repurchased any stock this year.
<<Regarding share buyback: avg stock price paid in 2014 was $42.94, in 2015 $52.51, in 2016 $49.61. When they added $100M recently, must have anticipated paying significantly more per share.>>
redviking, thanks for the info.
But just so the board knows, they haven't repurchased anything in 2017:
<<Repurchase of Common Stock
In June 2014, our Board of Directors authorized a $300 million share repurchase program (the “2014 Repurchase Program”). In June 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a $100 million increase to the program, and in September 2017, our Board of Directors authorized another $100 million increase to the program, bringing the total amount of the 2014 Repurchase Program to $500 million. The Company may repurchase shares under the 2014 Repurchase Program through open market purchases, pre-arranged trading plans or privately negotiated purchases.
The table below sets forth the number of shares repurchased and the dollar value of shares repurchased under the 2014 Repurchase Program during 2016, 2015 and 2014, in thousands. We did not repurchase any shares of common stock in first nine months 2017.>>
<< i spoke for hours with a man who has 4 phd's in different types of engineering and who spent hours with dr. blair (i think his name is) going over the formulas and testing before slater signed on---then this phd bought a sh t load of stock and my latest conversation (last week) he could not be happier.>>
less than zero:
Since this man with four PhD's evidently bought
the stock in the summer of 2016, how could he be "happy" since
his stock has been slammed to the tune of almost 2/3's?
He's DOWN just about 66% since then!
Maybe another PhD will help him make better decisions?
But, then again, since I don't believe anything you say (you
show up here out of nowhere and then leave because you're
researching something that's "too good to be true" AND you tease
us with some prominent name dropping but don't deliver) I don't
believe that anything can help this current situation.
<<Mickey, you are aloud to go to the meeting. You could even ask questions online which you choose to do neither>>
Paullee, good points:
<<TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF INTERDIGITAL, INC.:
We are pleased to invite you to attend our 2017 annual meeting of shareholders, which will be held on Wednesday, June 14, 2017, at 11:00 AM Eastern Time. This year’s annual meeting will be held as a virtual meeting. You will be able to attend and participate in the annual meeting online via a live webcast by visiting IDCC.onlineshareholdermeeting.com. In addition to voting by submitting your proxy prior to the annual meeting, you also will be able to vote your shares electronically during the annual meeting. Further details regarding the virtual meeting are included in the accompanying proxy statement. At the annual meeting, the holders of our outstanding common stock will act on the following matters....>>
https://seekingalpha.com/filing/3520052
8,009,636 (issued August 30, 2011)
If one goes into the USPTO's PAIR
website below (put the in the patent
number and go to "image file wrapper"),
they can see the '636 patent went through
claim amendments in the 2010 and 2011 time
frame:
http://tinyurl.com/a5ff6cs
This patent is from the same power ramp-up family
that expired in 2016 and they're the subject of last
week's oral arguments.
The above link shows that the claims were tweaked
with the knowledge of the unfavorable ITC
decision in the original 337-TA-613 case back
in 2009:
http://www.itcblog.com/itc-decides-to-review-and-affirm-initial-determination-in-certain-3g-mobile-handsets-337-ta-613
Of course the loss in 2009 was overturned by the CAFC in 2012.
So the complications between the tweaked pre 2012 CAFC power
ramp-up patents and the original '966 and '847 patents (issued
in 2007) is causing the discrepancy in front of the CAFC right now.
That's because, just in case, InterDigital was preparing for
filing a new lawsuit in preparation for losing at the CAFC in 2012.
But they won at the CAFC in 2012, so the original power ramp-up
patents ('966 and'847) were actually 'better' than the tweaked
power ramp-up patents. This is what's causing the claims
discrepancy that was argued last week.
As InterDigital's lawyer said last week, although the patents
are from the same family, they're different patents and different
claims. So they're construed differently. And since the CAFC
ruled in 2012 that the original power ramp-up patent's (the ones
issued in 2007) claims were construed in favor of InterDigital,
they should prevail on those.
Here's some info on IDCC's lawyer at last week's oral hearings - it's an
American Lawyer Article on Max Grant:
<<Mr. Grant served as lead counsel in a significant victory for client C.R. Bard. In late 2007, after a six-week trial in the US District Court of Arizona, the jury found that W.L. Gore & Associates willfully infringed Bard’s patent, upheld the patent’s validity and awarded US$185 million in past damages. In 2009, the trial court enhanced the damages award and awarded attorney fees and prejudgment interest. In 2010, the court awarded supplemental damages and initial compulsory license fees. The total award was more than US$1.1 billion and the win was featured in a cover article in the November 2009 issue of The American Lawyer.>>
https://www.lw.com/mediaCoverage/blood-money-american-lawyer-article
https://www.lw.com/people/maximilian-grant
Judge Taranto - I think that's it's good that Judge Taranto was on
the panel for the oral arguments last week. He was the judge that
asked the most questions and he appeared on top of the issues. The
reason why I say that it's good to have him on the panel is because
he was an excellent patent attorney who ran his own firm that
specialized in arguing in front of the CAFC.
I know this because he was instrumental in saving Rambus' patent rights
after a federal judge in Virginia (Judge Payne) decimated them by
butchering the Markman and getting many other things wrong as well.
This was back in the 2000 - 2003 timeframe and he even represented
Rambus after that into 2010 - check the second link below.
I think it's important to have him as a judge because he's well aware
of how small and innovative patent companies can often get the short
end of the stick. He knows that it's important to have good legal
representation and knowledgeable and ethical judges on the panel. He
was very well prepared last week and he was very inquisitive. He also
let InterDigital's Max Grant explain things in detail without
continually interrupting him like he did with the ITC's attorney.
Here's the big win that attorney Taranto got for Rambus back in 2003:
United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit.
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, Infineon Technologies North America Corp., and Infineon Technologies Holding North America Inc., Defendants-Cross Appellants.
Decided: January 29, 2003
Before RADER, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges. Richard G. Taranto,Farr & Taranto, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1361689.html
https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=553846&pt=msg&mid=9603705
<<thanks for the opinion Loop. The varied decisions on the same patent is a head scratcher.>>
my3sons87, I agree.
It's clear that the discrepancies within the same patents (and patent
family) that were helpfully pointed out by loophle73 is a tangled
web that needs to be addressed.
That's why I think that the CAFC's oral argument recording (that's
due to be posted next week) should be illuminating. Some might
think that the court doesn't telegraph things, but I've noticed
that they do hint at the way they'll vote. It's not all of the time,
but in something like this one or two of the three judges could
hint at how something like this needs to be solved.
valeria123, I agree that Slater's bio is impressive.
But Lt General Hertling's bio was also impressive but he
jumped ship because he realized that ALLM was up to no good.
And Chanasanoff (in the press release below) left as well.
About Lt. General Mark Hertling:
Retiring from the US Army in January 2013, Lieutenant General (retired) Mark Hertling is now leading programs for Global Partnering, Physician Leadership and Health Performance Strategy at the innovative Florida Hospital in Orlando.
Mark served for almost four decades in the US Army. At the time of his retirement, he was Commanding General of US Army Europe, where he led over 40,000 soldiers, cared for over 100,000 family members, and partnered with the armies of 50 countries in the European theater. During his military career, LTG Hertling commanded at every level from Platoon to Army, and he also commanded training organizations at the Army's National Training Center (Ft Irwin, California) and the Joint Multi-National Training Center in Grafenwoehr, Germany. He was an assistant Division Commander in Baghdad in 2003-4. Later he commanded the Army's 1st Armored Division (1AD) in Germany and for over fifteen months in combat in Northern Iraq in 2007-8.
Receiving a Bachelor of Science from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1975, LTG Hertling is a graduate of the Army's Staff College, the School of Advanced Military Studies, and the National War College; he holds Masters Degrees in History and International Relations from these institutions, and he also earned a Master's Degree in Exercise Physiology from Indiana University, which he gained prior to teaching in the Department of Physical Education at West Point.
LTG Hertling's multiple military honors include 3 awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, six awards of the Legion of Merit, five Bronze Stars, the Purple Heart, and the Army Commendation Medal for Valor. He also received the Gold Cross of Honor of the German Army, the Romanian Land Forces Emblem of Honor, and the Polish Soldier's Medal. He is a life member of the Purple Heart Association, Phi Kappa Phi, and he is a Distinguished Eagle Scout.
Mark was appointed by President Obama to be one of 25 members of the President's Council on Fitness, Sport and Nutrition. He also serves as an advisor to the non-profit organizations "Mission: Readiness," "World T.E.A.M. Sport," and "Operation Gratitude." He also acts as a military analyst for CNN. Mark speaks and acts passionately on the subjects of leadership, national security, and health trends.
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/03/04/712369/10123190/en/Alliance-BioEnergy-Plus-Inc-Announces-the-Addition-of-Lt-General-Mark-Hertling-and-David-Matthews-to-Its-Board-of-Directors-and-Ted-Chasanoff-to-Chairman-of-the-Board.html
CS&L, what's going on with ALLM's patent application?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=135151500
Please explain how this FUBAR above can happen to a company that's
on the cusp of greatness.
Two claims have been cancelled and the other two (there's only four)
aren't even supported by the written description.
To add insult to injury, ALLM's patent attorney couldn't even
see the PTO's rejection letter because his address isn't even
valid anymore. What the heck is that all about?
Only an insider would defend what these clowns are doing.
<<And Warren Buffett lives in the same modest home that he bought in 1958. Your point is what exactly with that statement? >>
Why didn't you mention Buffett's vacation home that he had in
Laguna Beach, CA that was worth $5.45 million?
Why didn't you mention that he flies on a jet whenever he wants
because he owns NetJets??
I didn't even want to bring up Slager until I was forced to.
There is NO way that he's worth $100 million - he drives a
Ford Mustang and where can you show any of the above for him
to support your counterpart's comments of a massive net worth?
<<slater temporarily moved from europe to southern florida-my guess. for a 3 year hitch---i would assume based on his track record his net worth is north of $100 million>>
You're full of it - if his net worth was $100 million or more he wouldn't
have sold his condo in Port St Lucie for $335,000.
Guess what the mortgage was on that?
He's probably struggling because something probably went south in his career.
Slater lived in Port St. Lucie for a while in a modest condo.
He moved to Delray Beach and he looks like he's renting - unless
you can prove otherwise.
So there's no evidence of wealth at all. Maybe he had it at
one point and now it's gone? That happens A LOT.
He's in his mid 50's. What the heck is he doing with these ALLMers?
Something might have turned south in his life to get mixed up with
them.
my3sons87, thanks for the information.
So it sounds like the oral arguments should be available
next week on the CAFC's website at the latest.
loophole73, I don't know if this is good because today's InterDigital
panel was argued in Manhattan's Second Circuit courthouse.
It looks like the only recordings that are available were done
in Washington DC's CAFC - check panels K & L:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/argument/upcoming-oral-arguments
Maybe a transcript is the only way to find out what happened?
loophole73, thanks for returning.
Here are today's oral arguments - I don't see IDCC:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings
Magmar, I find it interesting that the patent application
that you cited (US 13/799,432) claims 1 & 3 were cancelled
and claims 2 & 4 were rejected.
And since that patent application only has four claims, it
looks like it's not going to be granted at all unless there's
some serious amendments to claims 2 & 4. However, one of
those claims' weaknesses is that they're not supported by
the written description. That's a violation of fundamental
patent law - the claims must be supported by the written
description.
Check the PTO's PAIR to see what I mean - search under application
# 13/799,432 and follow the communications with the examiner
under "image file wrapper":
https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
I also found it interesting that the last communication between
the patent office and ALLM's attorney was "returned to sender."
It was sent back to the PTO because it was undeliverable!
What is this amateur hour?
Magmar, thanks for putting some sunlight into De Leige's schemes.
This is a pretty scathing discrepancy - this is from your post:
<<And there...CSL... is the difference. Not once did I trash or try to disprove Dr. Blair on the science. Rather, I used his documented and proven science to disprove and discredit Daniel and his false claims on how long it takes and the cost to make. It can be done, but in hours not minutes which requires more energy. That also means sugars are not made at 5 cents a pound or ethanol at less than a dollar a gallon. >>
<<I posted earlier, that there were 3 milling types available with rolling mill being the least efficient from energy perspective. Turns out rolling mill (which is what ALLM just built for new plant reactor) has worst contact rate of the 3 and it took 96 hours to achieve a solubility rate of 13.2% for plant material! What's worse is 30 RPM showed no catalytic activity,100 RPM only 13.2%. That's almost 2 revolutions per second of that huge washer drum in ALLM's picture of it. How much energy will that consume to run? BTW, entry [117] of this patent tells you why they must go with roller mill on industrial scale even though its the worst of the 3. While shaker and attrition mills are quicker and more effective at lab scale, they build up high levels of pressure during the reaction, making them dangerous at the industrial level, so the rolling mill is the only safe option, but takes an enormously longer time to solubilize material. >>
This is from an ALLM press release two years ago:
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Sept. 30, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Alliance
BioEnergy Plus, Inc. (OTCQB:ALLM) (the "Company"), announced today that its’ subsidiary Ek Laboratories in Longwood, Florida, under the direction of Dr. Richard Blair, Dr. Peter Cohen and Dr. Zhilin Xie, achieved 63% conversion of Coastal Hay, at commercial scale, into fermentable sugars in less than 30 minutes, using its licensed and patented mechanical/chemical CTS (Cellulose to Sugar) process.>>
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/09/30/772281/0/en/Alliance-BioEnergy-Plus-Inc-Announces-a-Breakthrough-in-Cellulose-to-Sugar-Conversion-Rates-and-Efficiencies.html
<<As for the PhD reference, Daniel isn't one, so where does that put your faith in him? As far as I can tell, he doesn't have a bachelors, but that does not define success. If memory serves, Warren Buffet doesn't have a degree, but I'll bet you would take his investment advise. One sees only what they want to see.>>
Magmar, thanks for your insights.
But just FYI, Warren Buffett has a Master of Science degree in Economics from Columbia University.
Getting onto the PhD part, I don't think that's necessary. But
when you're in high-tech field you better have a degree in science
or technology from a respected accredited college or university. There are some exceptions to that like Bill Gates, but he got into Harvard and he dropped out because he was keenly paying attention to what was going on with the computer revolution. He felt that if he didn't leave, he would miss the window of opportunity. Secondly, just the fact that he got into Harvard probably means that he has an IQ of above 120 - so he's smart!
On the other hand, I believe that De Liege might have a community college
degree, at best. Or did he drop out?
<<Asus should have to pay and sign a new license.>>
I agree. But unfortunately, that's not what the arbitration
was about. This is from the 2016 10-K:
<<In response, on May 30, 2015, InterDigital filed an Arbitration Demand with the ICDR. InterDigital claimed that Asus breached the 2008 Asus PLA’s dispute resolution provision by filing its CA Northern District Court lawsuit and sought declaratory relief that it is not liable for any of the claims in Asus’s complaint. On June 2, 2015, InterDigital filed in the CA Northern District Court a motion to compel arbitration on each of Asus’s claims. On August 25, 2015, the court granted InterDigital’s motion for all of Asus’s claims except its claim for breach of contract resulting from ongoing negotiations. Aside from this claim, the court ruled that the issue of arbitrability should be decided by an arbitrator, and stayed the proceedings pending that determination.
Asus asserted counterclaims in the arbitration that mirrored its CA Northern District Court claims, except that it did not assert the breach of contract claim that the court determined was not arbitrable and it added a claim of violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. Asus also contended that its counterclaims were not arbitrable. InterDigital added a claim for breach of the 2008 Asus PLA’s confidentiality provision.
On July 14, 2016, Asus filed a motion to lift the stay in the CA Northern District Court proceeding along with a notice of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on arbitrability, informing the court of the arbitrators’ decision that, other than InterDigital’s breach of contract claims and Asus’s fraudulent inducement claim, no other claim or counterclaim is arbitrable. Asus then filed in the CA Northern District Court an amended complaint on August 18, 2016. This amended complaint includes all of the claims in Asus’s first CA Northern District Court complaint except fraudulent inducement and adds a claim of violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks the same relief as its first CA Northern District Court complaint, but also seeks a ruling that each of InterDigital’s patents “declared [to standards-setting organizations] to be essential or potentially essential” is unenforceable and any contracts InterDigital entered into in furtherance of its unlawful conduct are void. On September 8, 2016, InterDigital filed its answer and counterclaims to Asus’ amended complaint. It denied Asus’s claims and filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment that Asus’s tort claims are invalid or preempted as applied under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and Title 35 of the U.S. Code. On September 28, 2016, Asus answered and denied InterDigital’s counterclaims. On December 16, 2016, the court set a case schedule that includes a May 2019 trial date.
With respect to its arbitration counterclaim for fraudulent inducement, Asus stated in its recent pleadings that it was seeking return of excess royalties of close to $63 million, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees as of the time of the filing. The evidentiary hearing in the arbitration was held in January 2017. InterDigital has not yet received the arbitrators’ decision.
The Company has not recorded any accrual at December 31, 2016, for contingent losses associated with these matters. While a material loss is reasonably possible, the Company cannot estimate the potential range of loss with respect to the arbitration matter given the range of possible outcomes, nor with respect to the CA Northern District Court proceeding, as this matter is not at a sufficiently advanced stage to allow for such an estimate>>
<<Yesterdsay, Paullee posted fwiw, I spoke to the company and they indicated that it had been resolved but it was not material enough to warrant an 8k. It would be addressed in the Q. Draw your own conclusion. >>
FISH21049, thanks - that helps a lot.
My conclusion is that it's good. That's because if it's "not material"
than it's not too big of a deal.
ASUS was trying to get up to $63 million from InterDigital in arbitration -
I'm glad that's not the case because $63 million is definitely material.
I am guessing that IDCC might get only hit for the low single
digit millions, probably even less?
cockstockandloaded, what does that have to do with the dearth
monitization of university patents?
Did you know that most are worthless??
If Blair was at Stanford or MIT, his patents might be worth something!
<<A few weeks ago, administrators at Penn State University did something they believed had never been attempted in American academia: The school put about 70 engineering patents up for auction and tried to sell them to the highest bidder. They weren’t so successful—not many patents sold—but the project has disturbing implications.>>
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history_of_innovation/2014/05/patent_trolls_universities_sometimes_look_a_lot_like_trolls.html
Asus arbitration - does anyone know what's going on here?
<<With respect to its arbitration counterclaim for fraudulent inducement, Asus stated in its recent pleadings that it was seeking return of excess royalties of close to $63 million, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees as of the time of the filing. The evidentiary hearing in the arbitration was held in January 2017. InterDigital has not yet received the arbitrators’ decision.
The Company has not recorded any accrual at December 31, 2016, for contingent losses associated with these matters. While a material loss is reasonably possible, the Company cannot estimate the potential range of loss with respect to the arbitration matter given the range of possible outcomes, nor with respect to the CA Northern District Court proceeding, as this matter is not at a sufficiently advanced stage to allow for such an estimate.>>
<< i assume about december or january since the hurricane most likely pushed back the timetable>>
I think that comment is a joke.
The hurricane shouldn't affect what's going on in the 506 (c) offering.
The 506 (c) money raising was nonexistent before the hurricane, so it's just an excuse to use the hurricane as the reason for any delay.
All you penny stock people try to do is kick the can down the road.
Whether it's Naldogen, Earth's Renewable, the BS ColUmbia agreement,
it doesn't matter to you people - you just make something else up
and try to suck in more gullible mom & pops along the way.
<< i just went thru this same type of negative posting then the stock quietly went up 7x and the bad guys disappeared>>
If you're talking about ALLM, you're full of it - this stock is
about 1/10 its price since they first became a penny stock:
https://www.google.com/search?q=allm+stock+chart&oq=allm+stock+chart&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.3516j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
<<anyone is allowed to post and preach their opinion.>>
less than zero, so let's try to go beyond opinion - let's
stick to this fact.
The fact is that ALLM's recent quarterly report shows that
they raised NO money for the plant in Vero Beach - it's
been eight months already since the announcement:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alliance-bioenergy-plus-inc-makes-offer-to-acquire-ethanol-plant-in-vero-beach-fl-300411507.html
Do you wish to opine as to why this is so and do you think that
any money will show up as being raised in this month's quarterly
report?
<<Don’t you havr anything else to do?>>
valeria123, why can't you do something constructive instead of
only telling people like me and Magmar to go away?
For example, please contribute and tell the board how ALLM is
going to be paid millions by Earth's Renewable Energy. It's
only a one woman shop that's run out of a condo:
http://www.buzzfile.com/business/Earth!s-Renewable-Energy,-LLC-949-891-4022
http://tinyurl.com/y85w92nw
So please explain how that's possible.
Thanks in advance!
Magmar, De Liege might think that he's smooth - he probably thinks that
he can talk his way through anything.
But he's not fooling the market participants - it looks like he
can't talk his way out of the looming "death cross" stock chart
pattern.
Here's the definition:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deathcross.asp
Here's ALLM's chart that shows the looming "death cross":
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=allm
American Bulls says SELL.
If you don't believe me, check here:
https://www.americanbulls.com/SignalPage.aspx?lang=en&Ticker=ALLM
<<PTAB judges do not have a code of conductand at least one PTAB Judge was hearing cases and writing decisions favoring a former client. And now in a stunning act of corruption, the USPTO admits to stacking the panel of judges in PTAB trials to get the invalidation decision the USPTO Director wants.>>
Paullee, thanks for the article.
If we didn't witness it first hand, I might not believe it.
But I did witness it and felt the damage with some of my investments -
here's another example that badly affected one of my IP investments:
<<On January 24, 2012, a USPTO appeals board declared the third of three patents known as the "Barth patents" invalid. The first two had been declared invalid in September 2011. Rambus had used these patents to win infringement lawsuits against Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ.N).[17]
On June 28, 2013, The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the USPTO and the '109 Barth patent's validity was reinstated:
"In conclusion, the Board’s determination that all 25 claims of the ’109 Patent are invalid as anticipated by Farmwald is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this court reverses."
http://www.mololamken.com/assets/htmldocuments/Rambus%20109%20Opinion.pdf.PDF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus
Also, this author is getting support from the former Chief
Judge at the CAFC which gives him even more legitimacy:
<<These bleak statistics have lead Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader to at the AIPLA annual meeting in October 2013 call the PTAB “death squads killing property rights.” Then again on Friday, March 21, 2014, at a conference hosted by the George Mason University School of Law, Chief Judge Rader said he was “troubled” by the many differences between proceedings at the PTAB and in the district courts, particularly pointing to the disparities in the treatment of the same evidence concerning the same claims. Rader mentioned that his recent comments about the Board being a “death squad” for patents in contested proceedings may be more accurate than some originally thought, considering the dismal track record for survivability of challenged claims in the first wave of final written decisions.>>
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/03/24/ptab-death-squads-are-all-commercially-viable-patents-invalid/id=48642/
Here's a little more:
<<115. Qualcomm denies the allegations in Paragraph 115, except states that
(i) in 2015, Qualcomm offered to license to Apple a portfolio of Qualcomm’s
Chinese 3G and 4G standard-essential patents on terms consistent with
Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments to ETSI and with the decision and order of
China’s NDRC; and (ii) Apple rejected that offer. >>
Gamco, here's more from Qualcomm's countercomplaint:
<<184. Qualcomm first proposed arbitration several months before the
licensing negotiations resumed in earnest. During the course of the negotiations, Qualcomm made a series of offers in an attempt to find a mutually agreeable arbitration framework. Qualcomm even offered to arbitrate under the arbitration procedures endorsed by the U.S. FTC in its consent order with Google in 2013.
Consistent with the U.S. FTC’s framework, Qualcomm’s proposal did not mandate any particular valuation methodology and permitted the parties to make whatever arguments they wished to the arbitral panel. By contrast, Apple wanted to place significant constraints on what arguments the parties could raise in arbitration.
185. Qualcomm was willing to arbitrate any license for any portfolio of
patents in which Apple was interested, including the portfolio of patents for which Apple made a counteroffer.
186. But Apple refused every arbitration proposal and put forth an entirely one-sided, unreasonable proposal of its own. Apple’s arbitration proposal, like its negotiating position, required a patent-by-patent analysis and imposed other unfair or unreasonable conditions that attempted to dictate how Qualcomm must present its patents, always in ways that favored Apple. Apple’s repeated insistence on imposing unfair conditions on an arbitration, which it knew Qualcomm could not
accept, demonstrates that Apple has been angling for litigation from the outset and is, in fact, an unwilling licensee.>>
Gamco:
Thanks but it's a typical one sided article.
Qualcomm offered Apple a license on China's NDRC terms - they rejected.
Qualcomm offered Apple arbitration - they rejected.
And if a California jury gets to hear this, hopefully Apple will be nailed with even higher royalties:
<<We have a strong track record of establishing and defending the value of our technologies that have played an important role in enabling the entire mobile ecosystem, including the incredible smartphone experience. We have freely negotiated and entered into more than 300 license agreements over many years, including with the largest and most sophisticated companies in our industry.
The offers we have made to Apple for a direct license to QUALCOMM cellular standard essential patents are consistent with the value of our patent technologies established by these more than 300 arm’s length license agreements and are fully compliant with QUALCOMM's FRAND commitments. It is unfortunate that Apple has rejected these fair and reasonable offers.>>
seekingalpha.com