Thanks JWG for your technical insight. One of the best on the web.
Gap fill at QQQ 34.38 /1383 NDX could provide a small bounce IMO.

Mschere, wishfull thinking?....
I suspect it's more like distribution. I'll be watching for an entry point.EOM

Next stop = @24.35 IMO. /EOM

I think people here need to lighten up. GEJIM is correct. ITS JUST A MESSAGE BOARD!

My,My,My,
Any real need for the nastiness that has been infesting this board lately?

2 cents...
Loved that little dip a few minutes after the 11:40 news release.
Made for a great purchase point.
Personally pleased with outcome of #2. That should give our execs. a better understanding of what aligning interests is supposed to mean.
Congrats to all! It has been a watershed year so far.

Art,
NEVER fall in love with a stock.

B-trade, Good Post.EOM

I suspect the pressure came from F & J, who understood the precarious legal position we were in going into trial. Let's face it folks, the Markman impaired us in a big way, MSJ'S had already turned some patent claims into toast (wouldn't we all love to have access to those sealed files!), and our good buddies at NOK would have been oh so sympathetic if we had gone down in flames at trial. I imagine their devastated by the nuisance type payoff for past infringement and the relatively low forward rate. NOT.
IDCC made the correct business decision IMO. Adjust your expectations, and look to the future.

JKJ,Great idea! eom.

IDCC just reported on CNBC.

Revlis, I haven't seen it. Lets say a quick prayer for the unfortunate shorts today. NOT

YEEEEEHAAAAAAA EOM>

JKJ,
What is virtually certain is that "The Judge has ruled on portions of the pre-trial motions of both parties, removing certain patent claims from further consideration with regard to the infringement issues in the District Court case, the effect of which is to narrow the issues remaining for trial."
In other words there are fewer claims remaining to be tried.
I don't regard this as particulary good news for myself as a stockholder, but it is far from the end of the world, or our chances. (IMO it only takes one).I accept it and mold my expections to fit the additional information.
There are other highly intelligent people who, because they don't wan't to accept the apparent, will attempt to avoid it and instead may seek to mold the information to their expectations. For them the obvious may be hiding in plain site. This is symptomatic of a common condition among investors. I can tell you from personal experience that a stock certificate can make for a very dangerous girlfriend!

JKJ,
IMO the '450 is the strongest patent on my list at this time.

JKJ,
My turn to thank you for being such a valuable asset to the board.
I also believe that trying to determine which claims are removed (as well as which are our strongest) may prove useful.
However, in ordering our patent lists we have come to somewhat different conclusions. I hope you will take some constructive critisism in the spirit in which they are given.

You appear to have drawn your conclusions based largely on two premises; one is false and the other is simply unreliable.

You said, "It's probably unlikely that the Judge ruled out any '089 claims - given that these were revalidated. That leaves '358 and '194 as the most likely candidates for claim removal.
It is important here to remember to recognize the distinction between validity and infringement. While it is true that the '089 was revalidated IDCC has told us that claims were removed for the purposes of determining INFRINGEMENT issues. It follows then that in this regard revalidation is not a relevant criteria from which to draw a conclusion.

You also said, "The positives are that the PR notice didn't say 'patents removed' (so there's a strong possibility that all 6 patents are still in the suit) and it didn't say that the Judge ruled the claims invalid; just removed from the suit.
The single claim patents are '705, '420, and '450 and are probably still in the suit. The patents with multiple claims are '089 (8 and 11), '358 (9 and 11), and '194 (1, 2, 4, and 7)".

It is true that in the company's P.R. the used lowest common denominator term "claims" and so one cannot rule out the possibility that all 6 patents are still in play. But does this in and of itself constitute highly reliable criteria from which to draw a conclusion? Speaking for myself, I would want to be able test my criteria against other known and relevent facts (unfortunately, I don't know of any) before I would feel confident about drawing any conclusions based on it.

Again JMO

L2V,
IMO you are overanalyzing again. Why reach for the remotely possible when the virtually certain is hiding in plain site, and provides a much more useful and reliable analitycal tool?

Dagrinch, You speak for me just fine.EOM

M3S,
No intent on my part to offend you.
Originally you said, "Did anyone ever think the claims limited by the court in its ruling "ONLY" affected the additional claims IDCC added when the patents went back for re-examination. As we all know the patents were re-issued and passed muster with the additional claims at the patent office.

Ericy may have cried those claims did not apply at the time of the original infringement and therefore the judge removed those new claims from the case. That is why IDCC stated that while the issues and claims for trial were narrowed but did not change their case or outlook of the outcome."

My response was,"I don't believe the added claims are at issue for trial here nor did the SM "construct" them and so it would be illogical to assume that the judge would make rulings on them specifically."

We know that prior to June of last year there were 11 claims from 6 patents at issue here. We know that there are no more than 9 claims remaining at issue today. We know that during the process of revalidation ('089,'701&'420)some claims were removed and some claims were added and that each claim has a number assigned to it. We know that the 2 claims from the '089, and the one claim from '701(I cannot recollect offhand about the one claim from the '420)were survivors of the MOT trial.
No, it is not "illogical to think the Judge may have ruled on additional claims added to the patents that were re-validated" to the extent that IDCC may have "tried to get those new claims in to the case".

The point I was trying to make is that since they are not claims at issue nor have they undergone any "construction" there would be no reason, and probably little legal basis, for the judge to make a ruling "limiting" them, "ONLY" or at all. Furthermore, at the end of the day we still have fewer claims still at issue for trial. Since the "additional claims" were not part of the aforementioned 11 they cannot account for the claims no longer at issue,and so your original thought simply cannot be correct.

Peace

M3S,
You wrote
"Did anyone ever think the claims limited by the court in its ruling only affected the additional claims IDCC added when the patents went back for re-examination. As we all know the patents were re-issued and passed muster with the additional claims at the patent office."
I don't believe the added claims are at issue for trial here nor did the SM "construct" them and so it would be illogical to assume that the judge would make rulings on them specifically.

Dagrinch,
Nice post. One more wrinkle to consider though. Some claims in some patents are interrelated in a way that requires "all the elements of both of the claims must be utilized (or equivalents thereof)".

L2V,
I respect you as a longtime quality poster, but in this case I think you are overanalizing.
Ask yourself this question: If ERICY infinged just one essential patent, could they have manufactured to the standards?
Answer.... NO! This is where the lions share of the damages and royalty rate lie; the rest is gravy. This explains mngmnts assertion that the MSJ's have not effected releif sought.
If you can drop 6 safes on someones head ala QCOM you make a statement (and get a 5% royalty rate). The reality is that just one will do!
JMO

L2V,
My take...
It is the finding of infringement of the first essential patent that would carry the bulk of the damages value. Each additional essential patent infringed would be of only marginal additional $ value. At some point in such a process there would be no additional value at all. (For example, what would be the difference in damages for infringement of 49 essential patents as opposed to 50?)
IMO we only need to drop one safe on ERICY's head!
P.S. I'm not going to debate anyone about my use of the term "we" here. Feel free to exclude yourself from the collective if you so desire. HEHEHE

Mschere,
Jaykay said
"mschere: extending your bolding...

'...removing certain patent claims from further consideration with regard to the infringement issues'

The fact that 'infringement' is mentioned specifically means, IMO, that the validity of these patent claims has not been compromised; just that Ericy's implementation didn't infringe.

Further, E asked for an MSJ on invalidity of all patents and didn't get any, which is good news for IDCC, IMO. JK"

Yesterday I said,
"

I believe this to be true because probability suggests that the claims decided by MSJ favored ERICY and that based on SM claim construction some if not all of the system patents (9,11 of the '089 + 1 of the '705) (which I feel are the most valuable) are probably toast. Not invalid, but uninfringed.

Ulurider, Agreed, but the more favorable the better! e/

Mschere,
Of the 6 patents,some have (or had) only 1 claim ('705 for example)at issue for trial. If MSJ eliminates that claim, then that patent is no longer at issue. Some patents have more than one claim but those claims are "dependent" on another claim that is not at issue in itself(claims 8 & 11 of the '089 are dependent upon claim 1)If MSJ went went against IDCC on the basestation issue re: Claim 1 then all of the rest of the SM decision re: claims 8,11 are likely immaterial, as by definition they would not be infringed.
Gotta go now.
BTW, I'm not invested here for masochistic reasons. I post to TC when I feel that urge! HEHEHE

Mschere, I'm not sure I understand your question?

TC,
You are a classless clown.

TC,
The fact remains that there are fewer patents remaining at issue for trial that a Texas jury will get to decide. It would be naive to believe that ERICY attourneys will not hammer them with those specific portions of the SM report that are most favorable to their position, nor do I believe the judge is going to allow a jury verdict that flies in the face of claim construction to set her court up for any humiliating JMOL reversal upon appeal.
I believe we are not going to go home empty handed here, but I am trying to get a handle on the relative value of what may remain and the implications for liscencing agreements which may very well be tied to the outcome here.

Witchhollow,
You posted,
"jakay: Per your post from Judge Lynn:

"I'm going to instruct the jury that the patent maybe broader than the inventors intended or more narrow. And the interpretation of the claims is going to be what the Court found the claims to mean..."

Could a statement like that from her be a potential bombshell in ERICY/IDCC with regard to the single versus multiple basestation issue? From my recollections, it sounded like the special master sat on the fence with regard to that issue.."

In fact, the SM did "sit on the fence" with regard to the basestation issue on claims 1 & 2 of the 194 patent. In respect to other claims in which the basestation issue is an issue (7 others?) the SM was anything but ambiguous. In fact, the basis for his decision greatly impaired (IMO) the possibility of a DOE argument by IDCC on several claims.
The basestation issue is the 600 lb. gorilla in all of this and probability suggests (to me)that it was at the core of the MSJ's that effectively reduced the number of claims at issue for trial.
P.S. I think anyone who has not read the SM's report at least 3 times but has a strong understanding of it and its implications must be brilliant!

Sorry you feel that way. I rarely have shared my thoughts here. I have however read many thousands of others posts and am always interested in anyones interpretation of the facts.

Teecee,
Not pegged, but an educated guess. How much? Beats me, but I doubt IDCC would refuse a 500 mil settlement offer and a worldwide 2G liscence or agree to 100 mil w/liscence so I would speculate somewhere in the middle? I could live with that.

Thanks for your reply,
Personally, I think we are either going to trial or will settle out of court for an amount significantly less than many here believe. I believe this to be true because probability suggests that the claims decided by MSJ favored ERICY and that based on SM claim construction some if not all of the system patents (9,11 of the '089 + 1 of the '705) (which I feel are the most valuable) are probably toast. Not invalid, but uninfringed.
I do believe we have a strong case for infringement on a couple of the other claims originally at suit. I also believe that in any WORLDWIDE settlement agreement for 2G, ERICY can and will leverage the fact that this is a U.S. only suit which does not oblige them to agree to settle for infringement that occurred anywhere else but here in the U.S.

I am surprised at how little discussion is occurring here regarding the upcoming trial. Does anyone care to express there opinion about which patents are still at suit, the relative value of these patents, the probability of settlement vs. trial based on the facts available to us. Anybody reading between the lines on this?

Teecee,
here is a clue... there are only 9 possible answers to the 99 possible two-digit combinations ...9,18,27,36,45,54,63,72,81....observe that although the program changes the symbols of all the 99 "answers" after each mouse click on the answer circle, each time the same symbol appears for the 9 possible answers shown above...thus the symbol is always correct... no recognition software required.....
the claim that it doesnt work if you do the math but dont stare at the answer can only mean one thing......HEHEHE

Bulldzer,
Statistics are easily manipulated. Your math is really no better than rmarchma's, and , in fact, Firerocket is roughly correct in his statement. Even though one may argue that full current dilution is "only" @ 28% it would take @40% increase in earnings at any fixed p/e to have the market value of the stock return to the undiluted share value. Coversely, if a stock undergoes @ 28% dilution at any fixed p/e the stock is will be valued at @40% less per share. Thus " they have gobbled 40 % of our future money..." is not statistically inaccurate, in fact, 40% more accurately reflects the impact on current shareholders than your 28% figure.
Do the math and see for yourself.

Question,
Considering the fact that IDCC has hundreds of TDMA patents that have been granted, many since the 1993 filing of the ERICY action and the 1995 MOT trial, I have to wonder why we are not able to acheive 2G liscensing based on our patent portfolio outside the 8 or so claims currently at issue in ERICY?

Anybody see that 39.9k block that just went by?

Jimlur or Anyone Else,
I am doing some research on the Markman decision.
I was wondering if you know where I can access a copy of the text of the Motorola trial transcripts and/or the judges order upon the jury verdict?
TIA

Mickey,
Huh?
I appreciate the fact that you responded, however, you did not address a single question in my post.