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.
I would hope it would be a little easier, but I don't think anyone can quantify it.
Pimco, I don't think there "has to be more" to this deal. There could be more to it. But based on what I am seeing, it seems unlikely that there is more to the ZTE deal.
Hope I'm wrong and also hope VRNG gets paid bazillions from ZTE going forward. But it seems fairly clear there is just going to be a one time payment for past & future use of the asserted patents. The market agrees. We can't ignore VRNG's stock price in the two trading days we have had since the news came down. If there was more to the ZTE deal, the smart money hasn't sniffed it out.
Now, could VRNG have other players lined up (like Huawei, HonHai, Fujitsu, et al) ? Sure. Maybe the ZTE settlement gets the ball rolling on the other fronts. But those will be separate actions/negotiations and aren't directly tied to ZTE.
1) Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) is one of the most respected publications covering the patent space
2) neither ZTE or VRNG will be able to comment based on non-disclosure language, even if the author had attempted to contact them for clarity it almost certainly would have been a fruitless endeavor
3) If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Unless, of course, one is on a message board, then the duck somehow is considered to be a golden Swan that miraculously turns water into Dom Perignon.
Vringo's $21.5 million global settlement with ZTE reflects the IP market's new realities
http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=16c03b05-cd13-46c3-9e55-eb0a57c99a57
US PIPCO Vringo announced late yesterday that its Vringo Infrastructure subsidiary had reached a litigation settlement and licence agreement with Chinese telecoms major ZTE, bringing to an end a sprawling, multi-jurisdictional and at times acrimonious web of patent infringement disputes between the two companies.
More details will be clarified once Vringo files its 2015 financial report, but for now we know that under the terms of the settlement ZTE has agreed to pay the US company a lump sum of $21.5 million in return for a perpetual, non-exclusive licence to the patents in dispute – which were acquired from Nokia in 2012 – and an end to lawsuits between the two parties. All current and pending litigation will be dismissed 10 days after Vringo has received the agreed payment.
When you look at some of the predictions made by investors and pundits over the past few years – some of whom were expecting any eventual deal with ZTE to run well into the hundreds of million of dollars – then you can understand why some will receive the news of the settlement with disappointment; particularly once the costs of actually launching and running all of those lawsuits in the United States and elsewhere is taken into account (you can get some idea of those costs here). Even seasoned PIPCO investor and commentator David Hoff of the IP Hawk blog writes over at Seeking Alpha that he expected Vringo to get as much as $120 million, though he is positive about the final result.
Nevertheless, when you consider that ZTE’s payout is equal to almost 60% of Vringo’s current market cap, $21.5 million isn’t at all a bad result. More to the point, the fact that the firm has agreed to settle at that figure is perhaps indicative of the patent market that we find ourselves in currently. Without a doubt, it is more difficult for a patent owner to enforce its rights – and, by extension, to have confidence in getting returns from patent monetisation campaigns – in the United States today that it has been for decades.
As a result of legislative changes, tough-on-patentee jurisprudence and a general anti-patent environment, asking prices for patent assets on the open market are down and it is harder for rights holders to get judges and juries on side. All of this is spooking IP investors, many – if not most – of whom struggled to get to grips with the highly binary characteristics of the patent market in the first place. Therefore, it is not a surprise that in the past couple of years, some PIPCOs have made clear efforts to move away from a pure-play patent assertion and licensing model, to one which incorporates elements of the product and service offerings of the operating company model.
Vringo had been planning for this new reality long before its settlement with ZTE. Speaking back in June 2013 at IPBC Global in Boston, the firm’s chief IP and legal counsel David Cohen told delegates that the NPE was exploring opportunities for business model diversification by becoming more involved in R&D activities and potentially acquiring an operating business.
In March of that year, Vringo had announced a collaboration with Virginia Tech surrounding telecoms infrastructure technology for disaster relief situations that was being developed at the university. In February the following year, it went further down that route when it entered into partnership with UK firm InfoMedia, which acquired Vringo’s legacy mobile services business including a portfolio of internally developed patents. In return, the NPE took an 8% equity stake in the UK company, as well as certain rights to license its intellectual property and provide it with assistance to identify and protect new potential IP assets.
More recently, in June this year Vringo announced the creation of a joint venture focused on developing technologies in the mobile payments and digital currency space; while in October it dived headfirst into the products market when it acquired International Development Group, which holds operating companies in the fields of wireless charging technology and ‘rugged’ computers, mobile devices and accessories.
Of course, all this doesn’t mean that Vringo is on the cusp of exiting the patent assertion area; in fact, the biggest potential benefit arising from the ZTE settlement will be an improved ability to seek licences from other major telecoms players the world over. While the company’s campaign to assert its web search-related patents was ultimately nixed by the US Federal Circuit, it is already engaged in litigation with Taiwan’s Asus concerning the Infrastructure portfolio.
Nonetheless, it would seem that a future in which Vringo and other PIPCOs are able to have a better shot at long-term survival and retaining investor interest is one in which they are involved in making and selling products and services, as opposed to solely pursuing infringement damages and licence fees from other companies that do the same.
Another aspect of the Vringo-ZTE dispute that makes it an exemplar of its era is its geographic reach. This was the first time that a US-based NPE launched major litigation on multiple fronts worldwide with the United States being just one theatre – and arguably, not even the main one. Vringo’s adversary ZTE has its major presence in Asia, South America and eastern Europe, rather than in the United States where national security hurdles have complicated its efforts to set up shop. As such, Vringo had to adopt a multijurisdictional approach to asserting its portfolio. It could serve as somehing of a template for other monetisers, especially with the European Union's unitary patent and Unified Patent Court on the horizon and the growing importance of the Chinese and Indian markets.
The $21.5 million it must now pay to Vringo will not make much of a dent in ZTE's coffers; the Shenzhen-based company had revenues approaching $12.7 billion last year. However, it is now well aware that it is a target for other patent owners that believe it may be infringing its rights; and those with the resources and the pluck to do so will pursue it not just in the United States, but in other territories too. That is a warning sign not just for ZTE, but also for other large multinationals as well - and especially for those from China that are looking to expand their businesses beyond their home soil.
Danburydude, you seem to not know how patent licensing works. Why would anyone license a patent forever? Patents expire. Common sense dude.
Contracts have many provisions. Length of time is a very important part.
Please do some research.
Almost all patent license deals/settlements are confidential. Regardless of the terms.
This is common. The companies only tend to disclose what they are required based on certain reporting guidelines and thresholds.
I'm not providing any insight into "why" but only into "what" ...
This is not the deal most wanted, obviously, but unless VRNG adds more info and clarifies things to investors, it is prudent for those monitoring VRNG to accept the deal at face value and it appears to be a lifetime license granted to ZTE for $21.5 million.
Does VRNG have other targets lined up that will result in new licenses on the heels of this settlement? Maybe, or maybe not. Only time will tell.
Today's patent licensing landscape is much different than it was a few years ago, even just a year ago. It is harder for patent holders to achieve the same type of results as in the past, especially the smaller patent owners.
The important thing for most people is to take with a grain of salt all the amazing, pie-in-the-sky predictions posted on the internet from desperate speculators. Reality is what it is, and one should not ignore it.
Most forward looking licenses that are royalty-bearing are for a set period of time.
To me the give away here is the word perpetual. I've never seen a license in the telecom sector that was both 1) lifetime (perpetual) and 2) royalty bearing.
I would be inclined to believe that the license included ongoing royalties if is was a set term (i.e., 3 years, 5 years, etc).
The fact that there is a lump sum payment means nothing. It is common for past damages/past usage to be settled for a one time lump sum payment and then for ongoing royalties to begin in addition to the past usage payment. But this almost always is attached to a finite set of parameters that includes a specified period of time. In other words, the perpetual license is screaming to the public that there is most likely no ongoing royalties or any further compensation owed to VRNG by ZTE.
All IMHO, which is usually right on the mark.
still here, just hasn't been much to say... the sector has been so out of favor it has been pointless to comment until something happens to change the momentum
But this qtr's results could be the start of a turn around for MARA. But much depends on the Uniloc deal and getting more details. Historically, these deals take time to consummate so it's no surprise we are still in limbo.
I still have faith in Doug and his team. They know what they are doing, and my bet has been placed that they will continue to execute going forward.
the link works if the user copy/pastes it into their web browser (to repair the carriage return that got inserted into the formatting)... Here is your link without the formatting issue:
http://ipwatchdog.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6ee129932f5c7fc87034903d8&id=df994d94e6&e=20a7503da9
This one also works:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/11/12/will-scotus-provide-guidance-on-judicial-review-and-claim-construction-ipr-proceedings/
Here it is:
Barclays Capital report: Strong 3Q Results Driven by Sony & Impressive Expense Management; Outlook Solid Given Huawei & Others (10/30/15)
there's no magical FRAND rate
different patents command different market values when licensing negotiations take place -- the stronger the patents, the stronger the negotiation leverage for the patent owner and, thus, leads to higher royalty rates
VRNG's patent portfolio in telecom is related mainly to infrastructure (the company even named this segment of their business and "Vringo Infrastructure"). Historically, standards essential infrastructure patent portfolios that are deep have yielded royalty rates in the 30 to 50 basis point range. Converted to percentage, that is 0.30% to 0.50%.
That's the reality.
SEPs that are subject to FRAND-related obligations command much lower royalty rates than other commercially viable patent portfolios. FRAND obligations are a double edged sword.
The word FRAND gets thrown a lot on these boards and most of the time it is used without understanding of what the term means as it relates to real world licensing.
NEWS From IPHawk on Twitter -- VRNG filed suit against DirecTV today:
IPHawk @TheIpHawk
$VRNG Files a new lawsuit v DirecTV $T w/ streaming patents. Very good development. https://t.co/Tj1mSuoDIi https://t.co/jBAtsUR6TF
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100515zor_4f15.pdf
14-1358 I/P ENGINE, INC. V. AOL INC., ET AL.
14-1362 INTERVAL LICENSING LLC V. AOL INC., ET AL.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. The Chief
Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of these
petitions.
Case IPR2014-00525 (Case IPR2015-00074 has been joined with this proceeding)
Patent 8,380,244 B2
9/14/2015 Final Written Decision (PDF file, 34 pages)
SPEX and Verizon = settlement... based on what it looks like from Twitter:
From IPHawk
@TheIpHawk
SPEX appears they have settled with Verizon VZ with Dismissal document filed http://www.scribd.com/doc/277767556/SPEX-v-Verizon-Dismissal
7:50am · 2 Sep 2015
From dndodd:
IDCC sponsored White Paper
OPTIMIZING VIDEO DELIVERY: WHY THE VIEWING ENVIRONMENT MATTERS
Author: Colin Dixon, Founder and Chief Analyst, nScreenMedia | Date: 2015Q3
DOWNLOAD LINK (PDF file, 9 pages)
Here it is:
Investigation No. 337-TA-613 (Remand)
8/19/2015 Complainants' Response to Respondents' Notice of Supplemental Authority (PDF file, 5 pages)
Here they are:
Investigation No. 337-TA-613
8/14/2015 Microsoft Mobile Oy and Nokia Inc. Notice of Supplemental Authority (PDF file, 2 pages)
8/14/2015 Exhibit A (PDF file, 65 pages)
8/14/2015 Exhibit B (PDF file, 55 pages)
8/14/2015 Exhibit C (PDF file, 77 pages)
I don't know much about Uniloc other than what has been brought to light in the flurry of news and filings this afternoon.
On the surface, it seems like a real positive opportunity to unlock value in MARA that the market has been ignoring. But without all the details, it's just a statement.
I will say that I do have faith in Doug and his decisions and while some could make arguments saying such a move was the product of desperation, I tend to believe that this is not the case. And it seems logical that Doug sees the merger as a great step forward for his company and, as such, should be for us shareholders. Time will tell.
Jimlur, here is the link to your PDF:
Form 144 - July 29,2015
That case and those patents deals with video codec technology that is over a decade old.
Video compression/decompression is in a sector that nowhere relates to system architecture for advanced wireless/cellular telecommunications.
There are hundreds and hundreds of standards and many Standards Setting Organizations. Each technology belongs to its own marketplace and there will be many, many, many differences.
Patents are not widgets. And essential patents (SEPs) can not be compared, especially across different technology platforms.
The original ruling seemed to "punish" MMI for being somewhat unreasonable in their (F)RAND negotiations. Remember, when companies obligate themselves to offer RAND/FRAND licensing they can't hold manufacturers hostage with royalty demands that are unreasonable. I think its pretty clear that MMI was being somewhat unreasonable asking companies to license its standards-essential patent portfolio for hundreds of times established royalty rates for that particular market. Which again, is near worthless antiquated video compression/decompression.
It's not really relevant. Just a headline that some groups/persons are trying to sensationalize because the masses of readers are ignorant and will jump whenever someone says "Boo!".
they just have to keep doing what they have been doing... eventually the results should catch up, although these things never happen within the short-term timeframes of impatient longs...
$3.30 right now, up nearly 14% and the board is quiet
that contrasts sharply with the noise level when the stock is off 3-5% on a given day
funny how that happens
Here they are:
Investigation No. 337-TA-868
7/23/2015 Letter to Secretary Lisa R. Barton Requesting Certification of Certain Public Documents for Filing with the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court in China (PDF file, 2 pages)
7/27/2015 Letter to the Office of Authentications U.S. State Department Transmitting Certified Copies of Certain Documents Filed in Inv. Nos. 337-TA-800 and 337-TA-868 (PDF file, 2 pages)
The article is here:
http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/jul/27/troll-toll/
I tried to sign up for a free account but the system didn't seem to cooperate with me.
Here it is plus one more doc not yet posted:
7/24/2015 Reply Brief of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations on Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (PDF file, 49 pages)
7/23/2015 Office of Unfair Import Investigations’ Response to Respondents Nokia Inc. and Microsoft Mobile Oy’s Motion to Strike Dr. Jackson’s Expert Report and Portions of Complainant InterDigital’s Response to the Notice of Commission to Review (PDF file, 7 pages)
Here they are:
7/21/2015 Nokia Inc. and Microsoft Mobile Oy's Motion to Strike Dr. Jackson's Expert Report and Portions of Complainant InterDigital's Response to the Notice of Commission to Review (PDF file, 9 pages)
7/21/2015 Complainant InterDigital's Reply Submission to the Notice of Commission to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination on Remand and Request for Written Submissions (PDF file, 91 pages)
Here they are:
7/21/2015 Nokia Corporation's Reply to InterDigital's Response to the Notice of Commission to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination on Remand (PDF file, 17 pages)
7/21/2015 Brief of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations on Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (PDF file, 98 pages)
7/21/2015 Reply Brief of Respondents Microsoft Mobile Oy and Nokia, Inc. Responding to Commission Questions on Review in Part of Final Initial Determination on Remand (PDF file, 68 pages)
Here they are:
7/20/2015 Reply Submission on the Public Interest of Federal Trade Commissioners Maureen K. Ohlhausen and Joshua D. Wright (PDF file, 9 pages)
7/20/2015 Reply of J. Gregory Sidak, Chairman, Criterion Economics, to the Written Submission of Chairwoman Edith Ramirez of the Federal Trade Commission on the Public Interest (PDF file, 12 pages)
- Reply of J. Gregory Sidak Attachment 1 of 3 – The Meaning of FRAND, Part I-Royalties (PDF file, 125 pages)
- Reply of J. Gregory Sidak Attachment 2 of 3 – The Meaning of FRAND, Part II-Injunctions (PDF file, 69 pages)
- Reply of J. Gregory Sidak Attachment 3 of 3 – The Antitrust Division's Devaluation of SEPs (PDF file, 26 pages)
Here it is:
7/14/2015 Brief of Respondents Microsoft Mobile Oy and Nokia Inc. Responding to Commission Questions on Review in Part of Final Initial Determination on Remand (PDF file, 86 pages)
The latest filing:
7/14/2015 Complainant InterDigital's Response to the Notice of Commission to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination on Remand and Request for Written Submissions (PDF file, 157 pages)
Here it is:
7/14/2015 Nokia Corporation's Response to the Notice of Commission to Review in Part a Final Initial Determination on Remand (PDF file, 48 pages)
there's always a decent chance of settlement after a Markman ruling, because now both parties have more clarity on the strength of certain patent claims...
but mediation in and of itself doesn't add anything to these types of disputes... the courts always mandate mediation sessions -- and the parties are just as likely to settle (or not settle) without mediation
I don't see any possible way to handicap the likelihood without being able to get inside the minds, offices, etc. of the principal players
(Markman Order) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on July 14, 2015. (jml) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
Case No. 6:12-cv-00486-JRG
Document #279
(Markman Order) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (PDF file, 44 pages)
you're beyond mistaken
Here they are:
7/13/2015 Federal Register Notice of Commission Decision to Review-in-Part a Final Initial Determination on Remand; Request for Written Submissions (PDF file, 3 pages)
7/13/2015 Written Submission on the Public Interest of Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez (PDF file, 14 pages)
Here they are:
7/10/2015 Ericsson's Statement Responding to the June 25, 2015 Notice that the USITC will Review the ALJ's Public-Interest Findings (PDF file, 5 pages)
7/10/2015 Response to the Commission's Notice to Review in Part the Final Initial Determination on Remand and Submission Regarding the Public Interest, Remedy and Bonding by Interested Parties Intel Corp., Dell Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Co. (PDF file, 32 pages)