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 think you answered your own question.
very nice! eom
Gmoney, thanks for posting.
That says everything. Cheers!
great post and perspective, OWK2M
If MARA continues to execute and continues to report sizable earnings, the stock will ultimately achieve higher valuations. Period.
Good question. Perhaps the potential deal/opportunity that the money was slotted for simply hasn't closed in time. Perhaps something happened at the last minute to delay it. Without being on the inside, all we can do is speculate. For my money, I trust Doug in what he decides and the actions MARA takes. He hasn't really faltered yet, has been executing since day one, and my initial investments in MARA are up multiples of the capital outlay.
What I do know about this patent business is that you can never have enough liquid cash on the books. When it comes to negotiating, and sitting down at the table to discuss deals with your adversaries/potential customers, there is no bigger strategic advantage than being flush with cash. Period. So while I never get excited about financing deals - especially since the market can react negatively over time - I do sleep well knowing MARA can speak softly and carry a big stick when approaching companies that intersect its patent portfolio(s).
I've been eagerly awaiting an announcement on the deal related to the financing.
Seems overdue, and hopefully disclosure coming soon.
it was just a simple typo (PR stated 2014 instead of the current year)
"In the press release issued earlier today under the same headline by InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), please note that the second quarter revenue year referred to on the first paragraph is 2015, not 2014 as originally stated."
CORRECTING and REPLACING -- InterDigital Issues Revenue Guidance for Second Quarter 2015
WILMINGTON, Del., May 11, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In the press release issued earlier today under the same headline by InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), please note that the second quarter revenue year referred to on the first paragraph is 2015, not 2014 as originally stated. The full and corrected release follows:
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced that it expects its total second quarter 2015 revenue to be between $89 million and $91 million.
"We are very pleased to announce that we expect to record total revenue in the range of $89 million to $91 million in second quarter 2015, comprised almost entirely of recurring revenue," noted Richard J. Brezski, Chief Financial Officer. "As expected, our guidance is below the record level of recurring revenue we reported for first quarter 2015, when we benefited from the first full quarter of royalties on major product introductions in late 2014."
This revenue guidance is based primarily on royalty reports received to date, and does not include the potential impact of any new patent license, technology solutions or patent sale agreements that may be signed, or any arbitration or dispute resolutions that may occur, during the balance of second quarter 2015.
http://ir.interdigital.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=912428
InterDigital Issues Revenue Guidance for Second Quarter 2015
WILMINGTON, Del., May 11, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced that it expects its total second quarter 2014 revenue to be between $89 million and $91 million.
"We are very pleased to announce that we expect to record total revenue in the range of $89 million to $91 million in second quarter 2015, comprised almost entirely of recurring revenue," noted Richard J. Brezski, Chief Financial Officer. "As expected, our guidance is below the record level of recurring revenue we reported for first quarter 2015, when we benefited from the first full quarter of royalties on major product introductions in late 2014."
This revenue guidance is based primarily on royalty reports received to date, and does not include the potential impact of any new patent license, technology solutions or patent sale agreements that may be signed, or any arbitration or dispute resolutions that may occur, during the balance of second quarter 2015.
http://ir.interdigital.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=912407
Doc Title: Initial Determination on Remand
Inv Title: Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-613 (Remand)
Date: April 27, 2015
ALJ Essex: Initial Determination on Remand (PDF file, 71 pages)
"Based upon the anticipated outcome of the transaction, Hipcricket’s assets are expected to be insufficient to satisfy all its obligations to creditors. Accordingly, as provided under applicable law, it is expected that no distributions will be made to holders of the Company’s common stock and the common stock will be extinguished upon consummation of the Chapter 11 plan."
You've been saying this for over two months and have been dead wrong in all 144 posts made.
This info goes back many, many, many years:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/20/does-apple-enjoy-a-licensing-loophole-on-iphone/ (article from 2009)
It might have added weakness to some patent names today, because the market in general is uninformed when it comes to this niche asset class and responds to noise.
From what I have read of GOOG's endeavor, it is nothing more than a patent marketplace that is going to be open for only a mere two weeks. After the 2 weeks has passed, it may never be live again.
I see it as a chance for GOOG to buy patents on the cheap. Very opportunistic of them. As it stands now, small patent owners are teaming with other entities (such as IPNav - MARA, Intellectual Ventures, WILN's Gladios, or any of a number of other profiteers) to monetize their patents. Whether it is netbooks, domain names, or wireless cell service, Google has shown a willingness to enter just about any marketplace where it thinks it can turn a profit or gain a competitive advantage. Patent buying might be slightly different than other endeavors - as theoretically some of the patents it could acquire would have otherwise been asserted against them or their partners - but to me it's just another outlet for GOOG to invest some of its resources for financial or strategic gains.
very, very, very nice!
thanks for sharing it with us
many patent settlement agreements include provisions which prevent either party from disclosure in any form, except when required by securities reporting laws
after following and investing in numerous publicly traded patent companies since the early 1990s, I have come to expect that a great deal of patent litigation settlements (as well as licensing agreements not stemming from legal action) will never disclose anything more than a modicum of detail, and some may never be publicly disclosed at all
historically, MARA has reported that less than 1% of its patent enforcement campaigns have gone to trial... with the clear majority of these ending in settlement
more recently (Q4 - 2014), the company had over 80 active cases...
some of which have since been settled
I don't think it's possible to track them all in real time since we are dealing with global fora and there isn't an equivalent of "PACER" to track all international venues (at least it's not possible for most people)
Public PAE Report - Q4 2014
very good info in this report, IDCC shows why it is best in class
http://www.rpxcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/RPX-Q4-2014-Public-PAE-Report.pdf
I have to admit I was chuckling quite a bit reading the complaint. Specifically citing the Chinese court as well as comparing the '08 Asus deal with the terms IDCC signed with the largest mobile vendor in the world six years later.
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv-01716-JCS
U.S. District Court, California Northern District (San Francisco)
(scroll to bottom for PDF files of the complaint and case mngmt schedule)
ASUS Computer International et al v. InterDigital, Inc. et al
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
Cause: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation
Date Filed: 04/15/2015
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 410 Anti-Trust
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Date Filed # Docket Text
04/15/2015 1 COMPLAINT; Jury Trial Demanded against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400.00, receipt number 0971-9445708.). Filed by ASUS Computer International, ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-7, # 2 Exhibit 8-11, # 3 Exhibit 12-14, # 4 Exhibit 15, # 5 Exhibit 16 - Part 1, # 6 Exhibit 16 - Part 2, # 7 Exhibit 17-19, # 8 Exhibit 20, # 9 Exhibit 21-26, # 10 Exhibit 27-29, # 11 Exhibit 30-32, # 12 Exhibit 33-40, # 13 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rauscher, Ezekiel) (Filed on 4/15/2015) Modified on 4/16/2015 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/15/2015)
04/15/2015 2 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Unredacted Complaint and Exhibits Thereto filed by ASUS Computer International, ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ezekiel Rauscher, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Proposed Order)(Rauscher, Ezekiel) (Filed on 4/15/2015) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
04/15/2015 3 Proposed Summons. (Rauscher, Ezekiel) (Filed on 4/15/2015) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
04/15/2015 4 Certificate of Interested Entities by ASUS Computer International, ASUSTeK Computer Inc identifying Other Affiliate ASUS Computer International for ASUSTeK Computer Inc; Corporate Parent ASUSTeK Computer Inc for ASUS Computer International. (Rauscher, Ezekiel) (Filed on 4/15/2015) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
04/15/2015 5 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Brian R. Nester ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-9445777.) filed by ASUS Computer International, ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Rauscher, Ezekiel) (Filed on 4/15/2015) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
04/15/2015 6 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for David C. Giardina ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-9445779.) filed by ASUS Computer International, ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Rauscher, Ezekiel) (Filed on 4/15/2015) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
04/15/2015 7 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Anna Weinberg ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-9445781.) filed by ASUS Computer International, ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Rauscher, Ezekiel) (Filed on 4/15/2015) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
04/16/2015 8 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at "cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening".
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2015) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
04/16/2015 9 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 7/17/2015. Case Management Conference set for 7/24/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2015) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
04/16/2015 10 Summons Issued as to IPR Licensing, Inc., InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital, Inc.. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2015) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
__________________________________________________________
Download PDF versions:
Doc #1: COMPLAINT - Jury Trial Demanded against All Defendants - Filed by ASUS (34 pages)
Doc #9: Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines (2 pages)
Doc #9 ex.1: Civil Standing Orders for Magistrate Judge JCS (6 pages)
Asus Accuses InterDigital Of Exploiting Essential Tech Patents
By Michael Lipkin
Law360, San Diego (April 16, 2015, 5:01 PM ET) -- Smartphone and computer maker Asus Computer International on Wednesday accused InterDigital Inc. in California federal court of monopolizing the cellular and wireless markets by helping steer industry standards toward technology it controls and then reneging on promises to license its patents fairly.
Asus claims that InterDigital used its position in two groups, the European Telecommunications Standardization Institute and the Institute of Electrical Engineers Standards Association, to determine what technologies are required industrywide for 2G and 3G cellular service and 802 wireless. The chosen technology lines up with thousands of InterDigital patents, according to the suit, and the company is allegedly using its position to charge exorbitant licensing fees.
InterDigital allegedly pledged to license these essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, but Asus claims the company’s demands for high royalties violate that commitment.
“IDC embedded itself within IEEE and ETSI and concealed its intent to engage in hold-up and to charge supra-competitive royalty rates and other licensing conditions for its declared essential patents,” Asus said. “Indeed, IDC provided what have proved to be hollow FRAND declarations so that the [groups] would adopt technology over which IDC claimed patent rights rather and alternative technology that would have been available for use, fairly.”
InterDigital’s specific demands and its promises in 2008 leading up to Asus’ patent license were redacted in the complaint, but Asus alleges that InterDigital’s own recent litigation efforts have exposed that its conduct was knowingly misleading and fraudulent.
Asus pointed to InterDigital’s settlement with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in June, indicating that the licensing terms may have been more favorable than those offered to Asus, and the Guangdong High Court of China’s 2013 ruling that IDC violated its FRAND commitments and demanded royalty-free cross licenses.
“Despite IDC’s best effort to maintain a shroud of secrecy over its licensing terms with others, it has become clear to Asus that IDC’s licensing terms in the 2008 [agreement] and those IDC demands by amendments improperly exploit IDC’s declarations that the patents are essential to the respective standards,” Asus said.
Asus further claims that InterDigital threatens action before the U.S. International Trade Commission in order to force acceptance of its unreasonable terms, another violation of its promises.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.
Asus is represented by M. Patricia Thayer, Ezekiel L. Rauscher, Brian R. Nester, Anna M. Weinberg, Richard A. Cederoth and David C. Giardina of Sidley Austin LLP.
Counsel information for InterDigital was not immediately available.
The case is Asus Computer International et al. v. InterDigital Inc. et al., case number 5:15-cv-01716, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
--Editing by Jeremy Barker.
There was less than $400 real U.S. Dollars traded in HIPPQ today based on reported trading volume of 325,355 shares and a daily price range between $0.0008 and $0.0011 per share.
Any effort made to grab shares today was a frugal one.
I strongly hope MARA does not look to acquire DSS or VRNG or any other publicly traded IP company that has a primary presence in telecom patents. It's a mature patent marketplace and one doesn't just jump into it on a major scale.
It makes sense that MARA would offer insultingly small, lowball offers for distressed assets (e.g. SPEX). But it's a stretch to think that it's even a possibility MARA is targeting these kind of companies. Any existing "rumors" to the contrary reek of cross-over shareholder desperation.
New Docs out for VRNG vs ZTE
Southern District of New York Case #1:14-cv-04988-LAK
Doc #90 (PDF file, 3 pages)
Doc #91 (PDF file, 2 pages)
Date Filed # Docket Text
04/06/2015 Transmission to Judgments and Orders Clerk. Transmitted re: 91 Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,,,, to the Judgments and Orders Clerk. (ama) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
04/06/2015 91 ORDER granting 60 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings [DI 60] is granted tothe extent that the Court determines that the parties entered into the NDA, the terms of which are set forth in the pleadings, and that defendants' actions in disclosing the protected material referred to in paragraphs 40 and 44 of the answer to the amended complaint breached defendants' obligations under the NDA and is denied in all other respects. This leaves for further determination, perhaps among other things, the sufficiency of the fourth defense and the issue of damages, which was not included in plaintiffs' motion. SO ORDERED.(Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 4/06/2015) (ama) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
04/06/2015 Transmission to Judgments and Orders Clerk. Transmitted re: 90 Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,,, to the Judgments and Orders Clerk. (ama) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
04/06/2015 90 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiffs' unfair competition claim is insufficient, substantially for the reasons asserted by defendants. The Court has considered all of defendants' other arguments and concluded that they lack merit. Accordingly, defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the first amended complaint [DI 66] is granted to the extent that plaintiff's fourth cause of action (unfair competition) is dismissed and denied in all other respects. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 4/06/2015) (ama) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
ZTE Response filed on Pacer.gov website:
04/01/2015 (docket#) 86 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan from Paul A. Straus dated 4/1/2015 re: 85 LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan from Karl Geercken dated March 31, 2015. . Document filed by ZTE Corporation, ZTE USA Inc.. (Straus, Paul) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
Download/View: Docket #86 (PDF file, 2 pages)
<<< Someone knows something >>>
If true, whoever it is that is in the know is only willing to spend less than two hundred dollars on that info.
It's always important to be aware of the volume, not just the price -- especially true when the lack of liquidity leads to huge spreads and big jumps/drops in reported trade prices.
but at least the level of accuracy is extremely consistent
HIPPQ today
last $0.0014
dollar loss of $0.0005
percentage loss of -26.32%-
less than $1,500 of actual real money has traded
less than $1,000 of real money has been traded today in HIPPQ
yup it sure could
but there hasn't been any meaningful volume in weeks and weeks
I think that's telling
<<< THIS WILL GO BOOM 1000%+++ TODAY!!! MARK THIS POST !! >>>
Been marking your posts for the last month.
A definite pattern has emerged. Good Luck!
New documents filed on Pacer.gov for VRNG vs ZTE in SDNY:
Date Filed # Docket Text
03/23/2015 81 DECLARATION of Amber Wessels-Yen in Support re: 79 MOTION to Seal Document 78 MOTION to Compel ZTE Corporation and ZTE USA, Inc. to Produce Discovery . .. Document filed by Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., Vringo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wessels-Yen, Amber) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
03/23/2015 80 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 79 MOTION to Seal Document 78 MOTION to Compel ZTE Corporation and ZTE USA, Inc. to Produce Discovery . . . Document filed by Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., Vringo, Inc.. (Wessels-Yen, Amber) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
03/23/2015 79 MOTION to Seal Document 78 MOTION to Compel ZTE Corporation and ZTE USA, Inc. to Produce Discovery . . Document filed by Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., Vringo, Inc..(Wessels-Yen, Amber) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
03/23/2015 78 MOTION to Compel ZTE Corporation and ZTE USA, Inc. to Produce Discovery . Document filed by Vringo Infrastructure, Inc., Vringo, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C (Redacted), # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F (Redacted))(Geercken, Karl) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
These docs can be downloaded/viewed here:
Doc #78 (PDF file, 5 pages)
Doc #79 (PDF file, 1 pages)
Doc #80 (PDF file, 5 pages)
Doc #81 (PDF file, 3 pages)
yes it's such HUGE NEWS that less than $75 in actual money value has been traded in the first hour of trading
Inv. No. 337-613 (Remand)
Commission Investigative Staff's Initial Post-Hearing Brief (PDF file, 84 pages)
Commission Investigative Staff's Remand Reply Brief (PDF file, 56 pages)
Date Filed # Docket Text
----------------------------------------
03/17/2015 15 STIPULATION FOR FOURTH EXTENSION FOR D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC. TO ANSWER COMPLAINT: D-Link Systems has requested, and Plaintiff has agreed, to extend this deadline by an additional twenty one (21) days so that D-Link Systems' response date shall be due by April 6, 2015. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 3/16/2015) (kko) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
03/17/2015 14 ORDER: The Court has been informed that the parties have reached a settlement in principle of this case. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed without costs and without prejudice to restoring the action to the Court's calendar, provided the application to restore the action is made within thirty days. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 3/16/2015) (kko) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
less than $5,000 USD being traded from what I see
If someone knows something, he is a poor person.
U.S. ITC Investigation Number 337—TA—613
Courtroom A Hearing before ALJ Essex
Monday, January 26, 2015
Transcript Pages 1-276: PDF file, 3.91 MB, 117 pages
Transcript Pages 277-498: PDF file, 5.11 MB, 160 pages
Transcript Pages 499-821: PDF file, 5.11 MB, 179 pages
U.S. ITC Investigation Number 337—TA—613
Courtroom A Hearing before ALJ Essex
Monday, January 26, 2015
Transcript Pages 1-276: PDF file, 3.91 MB, 117 pages
Transcript Pages 277-498: PDF file, 5.11 MB, 160 pages
Transcript Pages 499-821: (not yet available)