is... buying more shares
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.
There was a report of $31.7 million in cash at the end of June. And an additional $2.3 million deposited with various international courts for injunction enforcement.
Common shares outstanding is approx 87.2 million. There are approx 115 million shares on a fully diluted basis. But because 17.4 million of them are related to warrants (at $1.76 and $5.06) it probably doesn't make sense to count them when we have a market closing price per share of $0.88.
There are 12 million more shares related to the employee incentive plan.
So using the most favorable metrics, I believe it would be approximately $0.39 cash per share. But I don't know the cash burn the last two and half months. I am sure it is more than zero.
I think many of the answers will be found in this document:
REDEFINING EN BANC REVIEW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS
Much of what they do is behind closed doors, so I don't want to guess at what I am not 100% sure of.
I think it will be a high hurdle to just to get this reviewed at all en banc.
Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head.
It's who has the power and/or final decision authority. In almost aspects of the system, the courts trump the USPTO. And the CAFC trumps all other courts except the Supremes. Of course, Baxter/Frenius is an outlier...
The point I have always made is that there is always some unknown, intangible information that has the potential to alter patent litigation, especially at the highest levels and in the biggest cases. We just never know.... until we know.
I've seen the CAFC get it wrong so many times now (VRNG, IDCC, RMBS, etc) over the last 25 years that it never surprises me when they change the game on the fly. Joe Retail and small patent companies usually are the ones that take it on the chin.
its only granted if - after the petition for en banc is received - one of the active judges on the fed circuit calls for a vote.....
and then a majority of active judges on the circuit vote to grant the petition and have the case reviewed by all of them
from what I have read, it is not a transparent process and sometimes there is no explanation for why one case is granted en banc while another denied
VRNG can petition for en banc review, which probably won't be granted but it may. I don't know the odds of it being reviewed by all of the CAFC judges.
It can also petition to the Supremes. Not likely to get a SCOTUS appeal, but who knows.
The CAFC has a history of killing patent investors hopes and dreams and severely damaging their net worth (See: RMBS, IDCC).
I forgot how many times I have posted that litigation is unpredictable. Some times people have to experience it first hand to truly understand it. Who woulda thunk they reversed on patent invalidation after all the hurdles VRNG had previously jumped over?
Yeah. Lots of opportunities going forward!
the software looks awesome
You nailed it, flyers!
Marathon Patent Group, Inc. Announces Second Quarter 2014 Financial Results
Download PDF
ALEXANDRIA, VA -- (Marketwired) -- 08/14/14 -- Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) ("Marathon" or "The Company"), a patent licensing company, announced today financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2014. Highlights included:
* Revenues of $3.8 million, up 38% from prior quarter and 151% year-over-year
* GAAP net loss of $1.6 million or ($0.29) per share, as compared to a GAAP net loss of $0.3 million or ($0.05) per share in the prior quarter and a GAAP net loss of $0.8 million or ($0.19) per share in the comparable year-ago time period
* Non-GAAP net income of $1.2 million, or $0.21 per share, up from Non-GAAP net income of $0.9 million, or $0.16 per share in the prior quarter and Non-GAAP net income of $0.5 million, or $0.11 per share in the comparable year-ago time period
* Cash and cash equivalents of $6.5 million as of June 30, 2014, compared to $5.4 million as of March 31, 2014 and $3.6 million as of December 31, 2013
* Acquired three companies each with active patent portfolios as well as one additional company with revenue rights associated with two active patent portfolios
* Completed $6.5 million gross equity financing during the quarter
* Expanded strategic relationship with IPNav, including the unveiling of Opus Analytics. More details at opus.marathonpg.com.
* Subsequent to the end of the quarter, the Company announced that its shares of common stock were approved for uplisting to The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC effective July 28, 2014
Commenting on the Company's second quarter financial results, Doug Croxall, Founder & CEO of Marathon Patent Group, stated, "I am very pleased with our second quarter financial results, particularly our accelerating quarterly revenue and non-GAAP net income performance. At the top line, revenues of $3.8 million were a record for a single quarter and were generated from settlement and licensing agreements associated with our CRFD Research, CyberFone, IP Liquidity, Selene Communication and Vantage Point subsidiaries."
Mr. Croxall continued, "In addition to the strong financial performance, there were several additional highlights during the quarter including the acquisition of three companies each with active patent portfolios as well as one additional company with revenue rights associated with two active patent portfolios. To help fund these acquisitions we also completed a $6.5 million gross equity financing. We anticipate the patent assets we acquired will contribute meaningfully to Marathon's future revenues."
"Subsequent to the end of the quarter, we were approved for uplisting to The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and began trading on NASDAQ on July 28, 2014. We believe that this is a significant milestone for Marathon that should provide the Company with greater visibility in the marketplace, help generate interest from a broader base of institutional and retail investors and improve the liquidity in the trading of our common stock. I believe our NASDAQ listing will result in increased shareholder value as we continue to execute our strategic growth initiatives," Mr. Croxall concluded.
Second Quarter 2014 Results
Revenue for the second quarter of 2014 totaled $3.8 million, an increase of 151% from roughly $1.5 million in the second quarter of 2013 and up 38% from $2.8 million in Q1 2014. The growth in revenues was due to an increase in the value of license and settlement agreements associated with patent enforcement activities. Five license and settlement agreements with a total of twelve defendants accounted for the revenue during the second quarter of 2014.
Direct costs of revenues for the second quarter of 2014 totaled $1.8 million, an increase of approximately $1.5 million from the second quarter 2013 and $0.6 million, sequentially. Direct costs of revenues includes contingent payments to patent litigation attorneys, licensing advisors and previous patent owners along with non-contingent costs, principally legal fees and costs for technical experts, associated with enforcing the Company's patent rights and entering into settlement and licensing agreements. The increase in direct costs of revenues can be attributed to both higher revenues generating associated contingent fee payments to patent litigators, licensing advisors, and previous patent owners and the higher level of patent enforcement activity in the quarter.
Gross profit for the quarter totaled $2.1 million, or 54% of revenues, as compared to $1.2 million, or 81% of revenues, in the comparable year-ago time period and $1.7 million, or 60% of revenues, in Q1 2014.
Operating expenses for the second quarter of 2014, including amortization of patents, compensation and related taxes, consulting and professional fees and other general and administrative fees were $2.4 million, compared with $2.1 million in the second quarter of 2013. On a cash basis, expenses increased by approximately $130,000 during the second quarter of 2014 versus the second quarter of 2013. Total non-cash operating expenses for the second quarter of 2014 was $1.5 million. Further, the Company had an increase in non-cash patent amortization expenses of $0.5 million, offset by a decrease in non-cash equity compensation expenses of $0.3 million during Q2 2014.
Relative to the first quarter of 2014, operating expenses increased from $2.0 million, an increase of 22%. Included in this increase was an increase in non-cash patent amortization expenses of $0.5 million and a decrease in non-cash equity compensation of $0.1 million. On a cash basis, expenses increased by approximately $77,000 during the second quarter of 2014 versus the first quarter of 2014.
GAAP net loss for the second quarter of 2014 was $1.6 million, or a loss of $0.29 per share, compared with a net loss of $0.8 million, or a loss of $0.19 per share, in the second quarter of 2013 and a net loss of $0.3 million, or a loss of $0.05 per share, in the first quarter of 2014. Included in the GAAP net loss for this quarter is a $1.3 million one-time, non-cash expense resulting from the beneficial conversion feature associated with the issuance of the Series A Preferred Stock.
On a non-GAAP basis, net income for the quarter totaled $1.2 million, or $0.21 per share, compared to non-GAAP net income of $0.5 million, or $0.11 per share, in the comparable year-ago time period, and non-GAAP net income of $0.9 million, or $0.16 per share, in the first quarter of 2014. A reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financials can be found in the financial tables at the end of this press release.
As of June 30, 2014, cash and cash equivalents totaled $6.5 million as compared to $3.6 million as of December 31, 2013.
Acquisition of Patents
During the quarter, Marathon acquired three companies each with active patent portfolios as well as one additional company with revenue rights associated with two active patent portfolios. Under the terms of the transaction, Marathon paid $5 million in cash, issued 391,000 restricted shares of the Company's convertible Series B preferred stock, and has agreed to make additional deferred cash payments of up to $6 million, as well as potential earn-out payments based on net revenues realized by Marathon in excess of its investment and expenses associated with the acquired assets. All of the subject patent portfolios are in various stages of monetization. The patents cover diverse fundamental technologies in the following areas: life sciences; natural language processing and search query; automotive-related sensors; network intrusion, detection and protection; and medical device technology.
Equity Financing
During the quarter, the Company raised gross proceeds of $6.5 million through the sale of 1,023,579 units with each unit comprised of one share of the Company's Series A Convertible Preferred Stock that are convertible into the Company's common stock at a fixed price of $6.50 and a two year warrant to acquire 0.25 shares of the Company's common stock at an exercise price of $7.50 per share. The net offering proceeds, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering costs payable by the Company, were approximately $6.3 million.
Subsequent Events
On July 23, 2014, the Company announced that its shares of common stock had been approved for uplisting to The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC. Effective at the opening of trading on Monday, July 28th the Company's stock began trading on The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC under its existing symbol "MARA". The stock had previously traded on the OTC Bulletin Board.
Investor Conference Call
The Company will host a conference call to discuss the results with Chief Executive Officer Doug Croxall and Chief Financial Officer Frank Knuettel II today at 4:30 PM ET/1:30 PM PT on August 14, 2014. To participate in the conference call, investors from the U.S. and Canada should dial (877) 407-0784 ten minutes prior to the scheduled start time. International calls should dial (201) 689-8560.
In addition, the call will be broadcast live over the Internet hosted at the Investor Relations section of the Company's website at www.marathonpg.com and will be archived online upon completion of the conference call. A telephonic replay of the conference call will also be available until 11:59 p.m. ET on Thursday, August 21, 2014 by dialing (877) 870-5176 in the U.S. and Canada and (858) 384-5517 internationally and entering the passcode: 13586313.
It doesn't mean much because it's not even a real AH trade you are referring to. Trades that print AH with 4 digits after the decimal are usually a Guaranteed Volume Weighted Average Price Order (what we call VWAPs) or an algo print that took place during the regular trading session.
Not to mention the $ 42.1312 trade was for an odd-lot (1,063 shs). So not worth discussing.
No. It was a Nokia patent (#6,288,641) invented by Eduardo Casais who was working for NOK at the time. It was assigned to NOK and sold to VRNG as part of the NOK patent purchase.
I have followed dozens of patent licensing companies for a long time.
It is not uncommon for licensing deals to be structured in such a manner that a one time-payment is made for past damages while the agreement is still royalty bearing going forward. That means the companies agree to a structure whereby future payments will begin at a specified point in the future. This happens.
Nothing in the reporting is prohibitive of such a structure. Conversely, nothing in the reporting points to this being the case. We simply do not know.
Is it possible that the payment of $800K was a one time payment that represents a fully-paid up license and no further payments will ever be made? Yes, quite certainly it is possible.
But it's not impossible.
Your "facts" aren't all factual. You are making a number of assumptions that we simply can't make with any certainty. Most notably, that any ongoing per unit (per subscriber) royalties would begin immediately. There are many components and elements of modern day licensing deals and almost all contain many advanced provisions that are impossible to "guess" at due to the confidential nature of the contracts.
In short, your assessment is flawed when it makes unequivocal statements that one simply cannot make with the limited information available. Anyone who reviews the licensing history of companies such as IDCC, WILN, ACTG, etc. can see there are many instances where one time payments are made, accounted for in identical fashion as VRNG's one time payment has been, and still an ongoing royalty bearing component existed with regards to future licensing royalties.
I'm not saying that VRNG's agreement is royalty bearing going forward. I am saying it is impossible to make that determination based on the limited information publicly available. My hunch is that it is probably not royalty bearing going forward, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue is speaking in absolute terms when the information doesn't support such statements.
As to VRNG "failing", that's a matter of individual perspective. I never thought ADT/TYCO opportunities were significant in the first place. I believe it is great that they recovered anything from such a small, niche area of the market and proves that Nokia patents that were purchased can be monetized in many ways that most would have never imagined.
Here is the full document:
Commission Investigative Staff’s Response to Complainants’ Motion for a Protective Order Regarding the Scope of Discovery (PDF file, 10 pages)
{snip}
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Staff supports InterDigital’s motion for a protective order pursuant to Commission Rule 210.34(a) ordering that InterDigital need not respond to the interrogatories and requests for production identified in Exhibit A to Motion Docket No.613-090, or to any other such discovery requests beyond the limited scope of this remand proceeding.
{/snip}
$730K net income. Nice quarter!
Actually, there is a way.
Upfront payments would most likely not be recognized as revenue in the current period. Rather, they would be recognized in the future period(s) where the actual sales occur.
So VRNG reporting $800,000 revenue for the quarter ending 6/30/2014 and simultaneously stating that this revenue "was due to a one-time payment" pretty much clears the issue up. It was not an upfront payment to offset future use.
Therefore, it is almost guaranteed to be a one-time payment for past usage.
All the way back.
Technically, we have no way of knowing the exact details of "how far back". All that matters is that there is one payment for past usage and there won't be any more payments for past usage. So as far as VRNG is concerned, the licensee is covered for all past usage. Whether or not the negotiated inclusion period goes 1 year or 6 years, it matters not.
One time payment was for past usage. It's not a pre-payment to offset future usage or it would have been accounted for differently.
Whether or not the license is still royalty bearing going forward is unknown. We need more information.
Already are more shares.
The offering of the Series J preferred convertibles at the end of May has SPEX up to 35 million shares outstanding, on a fully diluted basis.
Link to 8K filing: http://bit.ly/1p6fYEx
Jokes like that don't go over well on serious message boards.
Too many adults here who simply just toss someone to the Iggy list.
Apple is sued more than any other company. (see: Lex Machina's 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review)
Of course they win some and they lose some.
Apple lost a $368.16 million dollar verdict to VirnetX (VHC) in November 2012. VHC is a company many of us have owned (still own) in the the IP space. For a timeline perspective, both VHC and VRNG won their lawsuits (against Apple and Google, respectively) in November 2012 and both are now waiting for a CAFC decision - as oral arguments were held earlier this year. So it's more or less a two year window from that standpoint.
As we all know, each case is different. Some will go the distance. Some will settle early. And for those that do go to trial, each post-verdict strategy will be different. For those cases that get appealed to Federal Circuit before being resolved, sometimes the CAFC will act swiftly while other times it will take a long, long time. CAFC has been known to take outrageous actions (such as Sua Sponte en banc reviews).
So there is not much we can infer other than the possibility exists that Apple will defend itself with the utmost vigor, and investors should always be prepared to be patient when waiting for litigation to resolve. Patent litigation, by nature, is unpredictable.
Here are the two files from today:
Document Title: Summary of InterDigital's Response to Petitions for Review of the Final Initial Determination (PDF file, 14 pages)
Document Title: Complainant InterDigital's Response to the Respondents' and the Staff's Petitions for Review of the Final Initial Determination (PDF file, 124 pages)
Federal Circuit: WILN vs ERIC/ALU/Sony
CAFC affirms the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, No. 10-CV-0521.
CAFC rules the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 12-CV-23569 is REVERSED and REMANDED.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1485.Opinion.7-30-2014.1.PDF
From what I have been told, the company has done a major turnaround the last 3 months. They are profitable, have zero debt, and are well funded with a JV partner for drilling 8 new wells in CO.
So relying on outdated info might lead to inaccurate analysis.
Time will tell.
GLTA
looking forward to it
Personally, I think it is bullish they are having a CC for the obvious reasons (multiple).
I hope it becomes standard practice and they don't sporadically decide to have a CC one quarter and not the next (like some other PIPCOs who I shall not name).
I have been watching the spreads closely. It is quite interesting how quickly the spread will tighten when I place my orders... with my limit price becoming the new bid.
If what you say is correct, when more MMs get involved, this probably will no longer be the case. In the meantime, I am not minding the trading at all.
Took a starter position here today in DEJ on the recommendation of a trusted friend.
GLTA !
you can't link to fiction
it was obviously sarcasm and not legitimate news
Senator Gillibrand's Public Interest Statement
Kirsten Elizabeth Rutnik Gillibrand - Statement Relating to the Public Interest (PDF File, 2 pages)
Exactly. Some times it's in a company's best interest to have someone telling their story. The story doesn't have to be told perfectly, it just needs to reach market participants and create the initial exposure.
It's simply a starting point. No need to read more into this coverage than needs be.
$48 and climbing
Crushed it!
VHC has already overcome "Apple's influence". They now just need affirmance from the Federal Circuit.
The big money for VHC has always been related to advanced networking and secure domains in future wireless standards. Apple's money will be nice in the interim as we are still 2-3 years away from mainstream 4G+.
But as everyone knows, the CAFC needs to affirm.
Google and Samsung aren't going to need to license until they sell products that use VHC's patents. So the conventional thinking is wrong.
Apple has a proprietary ecosystem that is based on utilizing secure SIP. That system includes specific apps (like FT, iMessage) that connect its users securely utilizing VHC technology.
Samsung doesn't. Google doesn't.
Those companies are probably watching the litigation closely but nobody should be expecting them to "sign up" anytime soon.
Senator Toomey's Public Interest Statement
Patrick J. Toomey - Statement Relating to the Public Interest (PDF File, 1 page)
GOOG's reply brief:
GOOG's reply brief for Appeal Nos. 14-1233 and 14-1289 - public version (PDF file, 40 pages)
For the first appeal (#13-1307), where the briefs have all been submitted and oral arguments already made, and we are just waiting for a decision: Could be any day. While a decision could come soon, it could also take months longer. Nobody knows when we will hear from CAFC.
For the next appeal (#14-1233), which was appeals #2 and #3 consolidated, we are still at the briefing stage... GOOG submitted its final reply brief two days ago (on July 21st) and that document is not yet public as it is showing as restricted on PACER. In the near future, CAFC should be scheduling an oral argument hearing for this next appeal. Afterward, the parties will once again wait indefinitely for CAFC to make a decision and nobody knows how fast/slow they will do so.
And after each appeal receives a decision, the parties will have an opportunity to submit petitions for further review (en banc, scotus, etc.) and we will have no idea when those petitions will be responded to... it's just a long waiting game.
No matter how good JJS is at researching stocks and legal documents, he is better at real life.
Well done, JJS !