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.
Mickey: Except for the introduction, the rest of my post was a direct copy of an article put out by the US Government to help explain the Court system, and in this particular instance what the Fourth Amendment means.
The cases noted were not mine, but were listed in the article to help explain how the Fourth Amendment works in various situations. So for you to just come out and claim that most of them "are in violation of the constitution" illustrates that you have no idea how the legal system works and how complicated it is.
BTW, the Fourth Amendment is written as a single sentence. While there are arguments about how individual words or phrases can be interpreted, it must be looked at in its entirety to understand the intent.
mickey: You keep writing about the Fourth Amendment. I believe the Fourth Amendment has no relationship at all to the actions of the PTAB .
What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.
The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).
Home
Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
A Person
When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
Schools
School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances.
New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
Cars
Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),
An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot.
Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984),
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).
An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).
The use of a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop does not require reasonable, explainable suspicion.
Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without any individualized suspicion.
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).
An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and searches.
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating drunk driving.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
A state may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief and seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred on that highway.
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).
However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0
For anyone who wants to review the proposed rule change today instead of waiting untill tomorrow it is available at:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-09821.pdf
For some reason the file opens with Safari, but not Firefox. I don't know about other browsers.
Gamco: IDCC has two agreements that include 5G. From the 10-K:
During fourth quarter 2017, we entered into a multi-year, worldwide, non-exclusive patent license with LG (the “LG PLA”), a global leader and technology innovator in consumer electronics, mobile communications and home appliances. The LG PLA covers the 3G, 4G and 5G terminal unit products of LG and its affiliates and sets forth a royalty of cash payments to InterDigital as well as a process for the transfer of patents from LG to InterDigital. The deal also commits the parties to explore cooperation for projects related to the research and development of video and sensor technology for connected and autonomous vehicles. In addition, the parties also agreed to terms for dismissal by InterDigital of the outstanding litigation among the parties and their affiliates.
Convida Wireless
On September 26, 2015, we renewed and expanded our joint venture with Sony, Convida Wireless, to include 5G technologies. Convida Wireless was launched in 2013 to combine Sony's consumer electronics expertise with our pioneering IoT expertise to drive IoT communications and connectivity. Based on the terms of the agreement, the parties will contribute funding and resources for additional research and platform development, which we will perform. SCP IP Investment LLC, an affiliate of Stephens Inc., is a minority investor in Convida Wireless.
my3sons: You are correct. I missed that:
Jun 12 2017 Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Paulee: While both cases are related to the use of administrative law judges, the issue(s) involved that the Court will rule on are different.
Richard Lucia case:
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.
Oil States case:
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether inter partes review—an adversarial
process used by the Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents—
violates the Constitution by extinguishing private
property rights through a non-Article III forum without
a jury.
2. Whether the amendment process implemented
by the PTO in inter partes review conflicts with
this Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies,
LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016), and congressional
direction.
3. Whether the “broadest reasonable interpretation”
of patent claims—upheld in Cuozzo for use
in inter partes review—requires the application of
traditional claim construction principles, including
disclaimer by disparagement of prior art and reading
claims in light of the patent’s specification.
Sammdogg: A couple of announcements that could tie in IDCC with the NYC projects (note highlighted).
Breaking Wireless Boundaries: What a City-Wide 5G Testbed Means to NYU
Posted April 9th, 2018
The National Science Foundation today announced a $22.5 million grant including private partner contributions to New York City and a team of researchers including faculty from the NYU Tandon Department of Electrical Engineering and NYU Wireless, along with Rutgers and Columbia, to design and build COSMOS: an experimental testbed for developing 5G wireless networking technologies. 5G promises to transform the wireless landscape, utilizing millimeter-wave (mmWave) spectrum to enable unimaginably fast data transmission — one gigabit per second— and usher in a host of new capabilities in smart cities and infrastructure, augmented reality, media, and healthcare.
http://engineering.nyu.edu/news/2018/04/09/breaking-wireless-boundaries-what-city-wide-5g-testbed-means-nyu
InterDigital Joins NYU WIRELESS as an Industrial Affiliate
October 8th, 2012
InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDCC) today announced that the company has joined NYU WIRELESS as an Industrial Affiliate. The company joins National Instruments (NASDAQ: NATI) and Samsung as members of the new research center that was announced in August.
http://engineering.nyu.edu/press-releases/2012/10/08/interdigital-joins-nyu-wireless-industrial-affiliate
Hydro gen:
I doubt that IDCC reports any information directly to FINRA. I assume that the FINRA reported data about a bond issue comes from companies SEC filings. So until IDCC makes a filing, FINRA's reported outstanding amount will most likely remain unchanged.
Hydro gen: To clarify about an 8-K filing,Item 8.01 Other Events, is an "optional disclosure of any event that the issuer deems of importance to security-holders not otherwise called for by another Form 8-K Item." So they mayor may not report the results.
In any event, if the results are not noted in the 10-Q for the 1st quarter, it would be in the 2nd quarter's 10-Q.
Hydro gen: I dpn't think there is a mandatory requirement to provide this information. For example, last week, AT&T reported the results of a debt exchange offer by a press release and a SEC 8-K Item 8.01 (Other Event) filing.
Press Release
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/t-inc-announces-final-results-161000459.html
Item 8.01
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732717/000119312518113051/d544612d8k.htm
dndodd: I believe you are referring to following rule regarding infringement. However, as noted it is a two way street.
"Recall that a patent usually contains one or more claims. The claims of the patent define the patentee's invention. Hence, infringement of any one claim is considered infringement of the patent. In order for infringement to exist every element or limitation of the claim must exist in the accused product or process."
[PDF]Patent Infringement- the Basics - Evans & Dixon LLC
https://www.evans-dixon.com/DMS-%232761740-v2-Website_Article_Patent_Infring...
felix: It also means that unless the latest PTAB decision on the '244 patent is overturned, IDCC can only collect damages in regard to two infringed patents, rather than three.
felix: It means that there is no telling when the ZTE court case will finally come to a conclusion.
IDCC HAS LOST THE '244 REMAND CASE AT THE PTAB, WILL AGAIN APPEAL.
The following is from the Parties status report to the Delaware District Court Judge regarding the '244 patent.
April 13, 2018
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801-3555
Re: InterDigital Communications, Inc. et al. v. ZTE et al.; C.A. No. 13-0009 RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
I write on behalf of Plaintiffs InterDigital Communications, Inc. InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc. and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively “InterDigital”) and Defendants ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc. (collectively “ZTE”) (all collectively “the parties”) to provide the Court with a further status report in the above-referenced action (which is currently administratively closed) pursuant to the Court’s January 17 and January 26, 2018 Orders (D.I. 595, 596) regarding proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on U.S. Patent No. 8,380,244 (“the ’244 patent”).
On March 6, 2018, the PTAB entered its Decision on Remand determining that claim 8 of the ’224 patent is unpatentable. On April 10, 2018, InterDigital filed a notice of appeal seeking reversal of the PTAB’s decision. Because proceedings relating to the PTAB proceedings on the ’244 patent are ongoing and have not yet been finally resolved, the parties request that the Court extend the stay previously granted in light of these proceedings.
InterDigital further notes that on November 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Green’s Energy Group, LLC, Case No. 16-712, which challenges whether inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the PTAB (such as the IPR proceeding on the ’244 patent) are constitutional. InterDigital currently has a pending petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in relation to the ’244 PTAB proceedings, seeking dismissal of the PTAB proceedings on the same constitutionality grounds raised in the Oil States case. A decision in Oil States is expected by the end of June 2018, and possibly sooner. If the IPR framework is held unconstitutional, InterDigital believes this would nullify the PTAB proceedings on the ’244 patent, allowing InterDigital’s case on that patent to go forward in this Court in the near future.
Regardless of the outcome in Oil States, in the event InterDigital prevails in its appeal of the PTAB’s latest decision and the validity of claim 8 of the ’244 patent is confirmed, the parties believe it would be more efficient for the ’244 patent to proceed in conjunction with the currently pending case on the two “power ramp up” patents, avoiding the potential need for two separate damages trials.
Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA Document 597 Filed 04/13/18
The Judge approved the request to extend the stay of the case.
my3sons: Based on the following comment in the recent 10-K, it appears that the Supreme Court's decision as to whether to grant certiorari to IDCC's appeal of CAFC's '244 decision is on hold pending the Court's decision in the Oil States case. That differs from the District Court's stay of the case.
"On July 28, 2017, IPR Licensing, Inc., filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to appeal the Federal Circuit decision, arguing that the petition should be held pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, which will determine whether the IPR process as a whole is unconstitutional. On October 2, 2017, ZTE filed a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari in which ZTE agreed that the petition should be held pending the Court’s decision in Oil States and then disposed of as appropriate in light of that decision. The petition for a writ of certiorari remains pending.
scooby: According to the 10-K:
"On April 20, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that most of the challenged claims of the ’244 patent are unpatentable as obvious. However, the court vacated and remanded the PTAB’s obviousness finding as to claim 8, which returned the matter to the PTAB for further proceedings as to that claim."
As noted, CAFC agreed with the PTAB, that except for one claim, the '244 patent was "unpatentable" i.e. invalid. Based on past statistics of PTAB action on remands, the odds are against IDCC.
scooby: Yes, the 90 days would be up o/a 16 April. Since there is no required time limit for the PTAB to act on remand cases, no telling when a decision will be given. If no decision before the stay expires, another stay will probably be requested and granted.
my3sons: To be specific, the ZTE case is on hold waiting PTAB action on the '244 patent CAFC remand. While the Oil States case could affect whatever action PTAB takes, it is not the reason the case has been stayed.
January 16, 2018
By ECF
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801-3555
Re: InterDigital Communications, Inc. et al. v. ZTE Corp., et al.; C.A. No. 13-0009 RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
I write on behalf of Plaintiffs InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology
Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc. and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively “InterDigital”) and
Defendants ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc. (collectively “ZTE”) (InterDigital and ZTE
are collectively referred to as “the Parties”) to provide the Court with a joint status report
pursuant to the Court’s January 9, 2018 Order (D.I. 593) concerning the manner in which the
remainder of this case should proceed.
In October 2014, the Court held a trial on the infringement and validity of U.S. Patent
No. 8,380,244 (“the ’244 patent”) and two power ramp-up (“PRU”) patents, U.S. Patent Nos.
7,190,966 (“the ’966 patent”) and 7,286,847 (“the ’847 patent”), which resulted in an October
28, 2014 verdict in InterDigital’s favor. (D.I. 431). ZTE filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit
regarding the PRU patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment and a mandate
recently issued. D.I. 592.
As for the ’244 patent, this case has been stayed pending proceedings at the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on that patent and post-trial motions remain pending. Those PTAB
proceedings are ongoing, but are anticipated to conclude in the near future.
Because the damages portion of this case would be more efficiently conducted in a
coordinated fashion, rather than piecemeal, on both the PRU patents and the ’244 patent, the
Parties agree and request that this case be stayed for an additional ninety (90) days.
The Parties will provide another status report within ninety (90) days and/or following
the conclusion of the PTAB proceedings.
Respectfully,
Bulldozer: Kyocera is one of IDCC's older licencees, going back to at least 2000 and maybe even earlier which is before my time.
From the 2000 10-K
"Kyocera Corporation’s license under certain of our patents is paid up for PHS and PDC products but not as to other TDMA-based products."
mickey: The key to replying to your question is the term "sensitive technology". The Government has established various controls and restrictions on the export of various categories of sensitive items. these restrictions include licenses. Below are a couple of abstracts from an article on the subject.
"Ensuring U.S. export compliance in IP licensing requires an understanding of what U.S. export regulations are and what issues should be evaluated. With the exception of certain goods and technologies, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) establishes U.S. export controls through the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which provides requirements and restrictions for IP licenses based specifically on a license’s commodity, software, or technology (Items) and the countries to which the items is being licensed."
"It is important to note that EAR does not regulate all export controls. Foreign embargoes establish export restrictions beyond EAR, which are governed by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC), and the Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Commerce may maintain their own individual export restrictions. As a result, it is important for licensors to work with their counsel and government authorities to determine whether their IP licensing is subject to these additional export restrictions."
https://theipexporter.com/2013/01/05/making-your-ip-licenses-u-s-export-compliant/
t
Jim: Here is what the latest (Mar 9, 2018) copy of InterDigital's Corporate Governance Principles says about contacting the Board:
Shareholder Communications with the Board
The Board believes that shareholders should have an opportunity to send communications to the Board. Shareholders and other parties interested in communicating directly with any individual director, including the Chairman, the Board as a whole or the non-employee directors as a group may do so by writing to Investor Relations, InterDigital, Inc., 9710 Scranton Road, Suite 250, San Diego, California 92121, or by sending an email to Directors@InterDigital.com. The Investor Relations Department reviews all such correspondence and, in consultation with appropriate directors and/or the Company’s Legal Department as necessary, generally screens communications from shareholders to identify communications that (i) are solicitations for products and services, (ii) relate to matters of a personal nature not relevant for the Company’s shareholders to act on or for the Board to consider or (iii) matters that are of a type that render them improper or irrelevant to the functioning of the Board or the Company. The Investor Relations department regularly forwards to the Board or specified director(s) a summary of all such correspondence and copies of all correspondence that deals with the functions of the Board or its committees or that otherwise requires their attention. Directors may, at any time, review a log of all correspondence the Company receives that is addressed to members of the Board and request copies of any such correspondence.
Shareholder communications with respect to director nominations and proposals of business to be considered at the annual meeting of shareholders should be directed to the Secretary of the Company pursuant to the requirements and procedures set forth in the Company’s Bylaws and described in the Company’s annual proxy statement. Concerns relating to accounting, internal control, auditing or federal securities law matters may also be submitted by writing to our Secretary at InterDigital, Inc., 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, Delaware 19809- 3727. All correspondence relating to such concerns will be brought to the attention of the chair of the Audit Committee and handled in accordance with procedures established by the Audit Committee with respect to these matters.
http://ir.interdigital.com/Cache/1500108398.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1500108398&iid=4103938
From the 2006 10-K:
In December 2004, we entered into an agreement with General Dynamics C4 Systems (formerly known as, General Dynamics Decision Systems, Inc.) (General Dynamics), to serve as a subcontractor on the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) program for the U.S. military. MUOS is an advanced tactical terrestrial and satellite communications system utilizing 3G commercial cellular technology to provide significantly improved high data rate and assured communications for U.S. warfighters. The Software License Agreement (SLA) requires us to deliver to General Dynamics standards-compliant WCDMA modem technology, originating from the technology we developed under our agreement with Infineon Technologies AG, for incorporation into handheld terminals. We have also provided product training under the SLA and will provide maintenance for a period of three years, beginning January 1, 2006.
We are accounting for portions of these and other technology solution agreements using the percentage-of-completion method. From the inception of these agreements through March 31, 2006, we recognized related revenue of approximately $20.6 million using the percentage-of- completion method, including $1.8 million in first quarter 2006. Our accounts receivable at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005 included unbilled amounts of $5.1 million and $4.1 million, respectively.
Most of the posts this weekend were in regard to IDCC and IoT, here are my thoughts on the subject.
I believe IDCC expects the IoT to provide monetary returns through (1) patent licensing, and (2) specific platform software development .
1. PATENT LICENSING
In regard to patent licensing, apparently that will be done through the Avanci patent licensing platform which covers wireless standard patents and will will receive royalties based on a fixed amount paid for each unit produced or sold. Different fixed per unit prices will be based on the type of device involved. We don’t know how the royalties received by Avanci will be split between the platform contributors.
I don’t know where Mickey got his projected number of 25 trillion devices by 2025 . Based on my reading, in 2016 the most often projected number of devices by 2025 was around 75 billion, For example:
“The Internet of Things (IoT) market is forecast to grow from an installed base of 15.4 billion devices in 2015 to 30.7 billion devices in 2020 and 75.4 billion in 2025, according to “IoT Platforms: Enabling the Internet of Things,” a new white paper available from IHS Inc.”
https://www.rs-online.com/designspark/eleven-internet-of-things-iot-protocols-you-need-to-know-about
The latest (2/15/2018) reported device estimate I have seen is:
“IDC: 80 billion Connected Devices in 2025 for generating 180 trillion GB of Data and IoT Opportunities”
http://www.vebuso.com/2018/02/idc-80-billion-connected-devices-2025-generating-180-trillion-gb-data-iot-opportunities/
While 80 billion is a large number, the problem is that based on different functions and requirements there are many different connectivity technologies which these devices use to transmit data. Cellular technology, where IDCC’s patents are concentrated, is just one of the many. As one article summarized:
“The lone source for comprehensive coverage of the connectivity technologies used for IoT, covering more than 25 connectivity technologies in 34 IoT application segments.
https://technology.ihs.com/Services/507528/iot-devices-connectivity-intelligence-service
For a brief description of some of the most common connectivity technologies:
https://www.rs-online.com/designspark/eleven-internet-of-things-iot-protocols-you-need-to-know-about
As far as cellular connectivity, the following article summarizes a recent report by Ericsson. With the implementation of LTE and 5G, cellular connectivity will increase; however, the number of devices using cellular connectivity will still be relatively small. According to the article by 2023 the projected number of cellular connected devices will only be 1.8 billion. Applying the projected 26 percent compounded annual cellular growth rate results in 2.9 billion cellular connected devices by 2025, which is a small percentage of the 80 billion total estimated devices by 2025
“The number of IoT devices with cellular connections will nearly quadruple over the next five years with increasing LTE subscriptions and access to 5G networks, according to a new report from Ericsson.
By year’s end, there will be half a billion devices with cellular connections, with that number expected to grow to 1.8 billion by 2023, according to the bi-annual “Ericsson Mobility Report.” Cellular IoT connectivity will increasingly dominate the so-called wide-area category, making up 75 percent by 2023 versus unlicensed low power technologies like Sigfox and LoRa, according to the report. The entire segment is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 26 percent. At the same time, devices connected through so-called short-range technologies like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and Zigbee will continue to grow, though at a slower compound annual growth rate of 18 percent, from 6.4 billion in 2017 to 17.4 billion in 2023, according to the report.”
http://www.ioti.com/infrastructure/cellular-iot-connectivity-surge-through-2023
———— —————-
2. PLATFORM SOFTWARE
in regard to IoT platform software development this is what the recent 10-K states:
“IoT Technology
In the field of IoT applications, we are developing technologies to enable seamless interconnection for multiple access types (cellular, WLAN, LPWA) and IoT service frameworks that can be managed by a customer and leveraged by a diverse set of vertical applications. These technologies build on our expertise in developing platforms and contributing technologies towards the advancement of global M2M and IoT standards. As part of, and in addition to, InterDigital’s standards-focused development, we have two solutions that are being made available commercially.
In October 2017, we launched our Smart City-focused Chordant™ business. The Chordant platform, which was originally introduced in 2015 as the oneMPOWER™ platform, enables interoperability and scalability focusing specifically on the Smart Cities industry segment. This secure and scalable horizontal platform helps businesses launch and manage IoT data and applications, and features a comprehensive suite of application enabling services that span connectivity, device, data, security, and transaction management. The Chordant platform is compliant with oneM2M, the global standard for horizontal IoT platforms, and is designed for interoperability across diverse vertical markets, networks, and devices. The solution is based on an open standard with a long-term features roadmap, which interworks with many existing industry protocols and alliances. In February 2018, we announced the launch in the U.K of the oneTRANSPORT™ data marketplace, which operates on the Chordant platform. This commercial service provides a common interface to multiple service providers, allowing public authorities to control and monetize, and companies to access, IoT data in a simpler fashion via a real-time, low-latency service-oriented architecture.”
As noted there are two platform solutions that have been made commercially available. According to the 10-K, these software platforms may be commercialized “through various methods including technology licensing, stand-alone commercial initiatives, joint ventures and partnerships.
The following are some of IDCC’s more detailed information regarding their IoT platforms:
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/10/02/1138671/0/en/InterDigital-Launches-Chordant-Business-a-Bridge-to-the-Smart-Future.html
InterDigital talks IoT platform, IoT automotive segments, and solving ...
tomcat: I don't know about a massive selloff, but I remember when the 2007 corporate reorganization occurred, for a short time frame IDCC was giving a new trading symbol "IDCCD" which resulted in a lot of confusion.
Gamco: Based on the announcement there appears to be two factors related to the note.
The first is the conversion rate change. As described, the rate change was due to dividend payments.
"In connection with the cash dividends previously announced by the Company and paid on July 26, 2017, October 25, 2017 and January 24, 2018, the conversion rate for the Notes has been increased to 13.9392 shares of the Company’s common stock (“Company Common Stock”) per $1,000 principal amount of Notes.”
According to the Note terms the original conversion rate was based on a regular dividend of $0.20 per share per quarter: therefore, when the dividend was increased to $0.30 a change in the conversion rate was necessary.
The second was the statement that:
“In connection with the Reorganization, the Notes will be convertible on or after March 6, 2018 until the 15th calendar day after the actual effective date of the Reorganization. The Reorganization is expected to be effected on April 3, 2018.”
The Note has various conditions under which conversions can be made prior to Note expiration. Apparently the reorganization is one of those conditions. It will be interesting to see whether any conversions are made during the approximately one month window.
,
Although there must be a reason, since Interdigital Inc, already is a holding company, I have no idea what the purpose of the announced reorganization is.
From the 2008 10-K:
Legal Entity Reorganization
On July 2, 2007, for the purpose of reorganizing into a holding Company structure, InterDigital Communications Corporation executed a Plan of Reorganization and an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Merger”) with InterDigital, Inc., a newly formed Pennsylvania corporation and another newly formed Pennsylvania corporation owned 100% by InterDigital, Inc. As a result of the Merger, InterDigital Communications Corporation became a wholly-owned subsidiary of InterDigital, Inc. These transactions are herein referred to collectively as the “Reorganization.” As a result of the Reorganization, neither the business conducted by InterDigital, Inc. and InterDigital Communications Corporation in the aggregate, nor the consolidated assets and liabilities of InterDigital, Inc. and InterDigital Communications Corporation, in the aggregate, changed.
By virtue of the Merger, each share of InterDigital Communications Corporation’s outstanding common stock has been converted, on a share-for-share basis, into a share of common stock of InterDigital, Inc. As a result, each shareholder of InterDigital Communications Corporation has become the owner of an identical number of shares of common stock of InterDigital, Inc.
Further, each outstanding stock option and restricted stock unit (RSU) with respect to the acquisition of shares of InterDigital Communications Corporation’s common stock now represents a stock option or RSU, as the case may be, with respect to the acquisition of an identical number of shares of InterDigital, Inc.’s common stock, upon the same terms and conditions as the original stock option or RSU.
Immediately following the Merger, the provisions of the articles of incorporation and bylaws of InterDigital, Inc. were the same as those of InterDigital Communications Corporation prior to the Merger. Immediately following the Merger, the authorized capital stock of InterDigital, Inc., the designations, rights, powers and preferences of such capital stock and the qualifications, limitations and restrictions thereof were also the same as the capital stock of InterDigital Communications Corporation immediately prior to the Merger. Immediately following the Merger, the directors and executive officers of InterDigital, Inc., were the same individuals who were directors and executive officers, respectively, of InterDigital Communications Corporation immediately prior to the Merger.
In this document, the words “we,” “our,” “ours,” “us,” “the Company,” or “InterDigital” refer to InterDigital, Inc and its subsidiaries, indiv
tomcat: You ask "why". Mickey has a history of becoming all enthused about penny stocks, However he doesn't say anything after they go bankrupt or just stop trading with little or no value.
FISH: As described, the annual expense write off of the patents purchased is based on the purchase price and estimated useful life, According to the 10-K “The average estimated useful life of acquired patents is 9.8 years.”, so approximately 10% of the patents purchased price will be expensed yearly. The question then becomes what is the purchase price. While the total transaction price was estimated at $475 million, with all the various conditions the amount allocated to the patent assets could be less. Assuming a $400 million allocation, a 9.8 year write off would result in approximately $41 million of increased yearly amortization expense.
FISH: IDCC's accounting policies are spread thoughout the 10-K report when discussing individual items, in addition, summaries are at:
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates (pages 40-45)
New Accounting Guidance (pages 45-48)
NOTE 2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (pages 68-82)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1405495/000140549518000015/idcc-2017x10k.htm#sD410838ABCDC5420AA8AC1074F3C1EAE
Some more background on the Technicolor patent acquisition.
InterDigital more than doubles patent portfolio with acquisition of Technicolor licensing business
02 MAR 18
Richard Lloyd
InterDigital confirmed last night that it was buying Technicolor’s licensing business in a transaction valued at $475 million. Once completed the deal will draw a line under the French company’s licensing operation which has long been one of the most prominent in the IP value creation market.
According to the terms of the deal, InterDigital is paying $150 million upfront while Technicolor will also receive 42.5% of all future cash receipts from InterDigital’s new licensing efforts in the consumer electronics field. Here’s how a release broke down the other parts of the deal:
InterDigital will acquire Technicolor’s portfolio of more than 21,000 patents and applications across a broad range of technologies including over 2,500 worldwide video coding patents, which will complement InterDigital’s existing portfolio of approximately 19,000 patent assets in wireless, video and other technologies.
InterDigital will deploy the acquired assets into its existing mobile industry licensing efforts, and extend its licensing program to new activities in the consumer electronics field.
InterDigital will assume Technicolor’s role as the exclusive licensing agent for the joint licensing program with Sony related to display technology.
Technicolor’s global team of licensing experts, patent managers and support staff will join InterDigital and work with its existing licensing team to license the expanded patent portfolio.
As part of this transaction, InterDigital will also grant back to Technicolor a perpetual license for patents acquired in the transaction.
While the full value of the deal represents a decent return for Technicolor in the current climate the total is some way off what it might have been expected to receive a few years ago and the markets were clearly not impressed as the French company’s stock dropped throughout the course of today by more than 20%.
Technicolor announced last December that it was in advanced talks to sell its patent licensing function, opting to focus its efforts on its operating business. That came as the company faced strengthening headwinds in 2017 which saw revenue for the year drop by 6.8% and earnings by a little over 17%.
The Patent Investor reported earlier this year that a deal between the French tech company and InterDigital was imminent which was also what our sources were telling us. It’s not clear how many rival bidders there were although IAM understands that at least one well-known NPE was actively considering making an offer.
Technicolor’s patent business has gone through a period of significant change in recent years. Under IP Hall of Fame member Beatrix de Russe, it emerged as one of the leading licensing operations of any European business, generating hundreds of millions of dollars annually. In 2013, in a move that heralded a series of changes at the top, de Russe was replaced by former Apple IP executive and current Conversant CEO Boris Teksler, who then jumped to Unwired Planet in 2015 (at Technicolor he ran the technology group which included IP and licensing).
He was eventually replaced by Arvin Patel who, after a little less than two years in France, joined TiVo as its IP chief. Former IP Nav executive Deirdre Leane then replaced Patel and it’s not yet clear what her next move will be.
Questions have been raised before over Technicolor’s prospects as a combined business. A few years ago it came under pressure from Vector Capital, its largest shareholder at the time, to spin off its operating business so that it could focus on the IP arm. That standoff escalated significantly in late 2014 and early 2015 as the pair filed competing lawsuits against each other.
That spat ultimately ended in a settlement and now, by selling off the IP operation and retaining its product business, the company has opted to do the complete opposite of what Vector proposed.
From the handful of investors and interested observers that I spoke to this morning about the terms of the deal it’s fair to say that the response was mixed. “I feel that the price is not bad for the portfolio — the market had clearly overvalued the licensing business,” said one.
All were uncertain at just how the back-end of the deal might work out, such as how long it would take for Technicolor to see a full return from its 42.5% stake in InterDigital’s new licensing activities. Plus, with the French company giving up most of its IP and therefore its leverage in agreeing cross-licensing deals with competitors, new inbound licensing agreements could become a significant cost for the business.
For InterDigital the acquisition is the latest significant deal for the business following the acquisition of sensor business Hillcrest Labs. As CEO Bill Merritt told IAM last year, the company has been keenly aware of the benefits of size in the licensing business. In light of the Technicolor announcement it’s worth looking back on what Merritt told us:
I think the last few years have demonstrated to us that there is huge value to scale in this business. A few years ago there was this fork in the road where we had a lot of companies with portfolios of a greatly different size all carrying reasonably sized valuations. And what has happened is that the ones with the small portfolios have fallen off the map and the ones with the larger portfolios are doing well.
When asked if InterDigital itself might become a target Merritt responded:
If someone put the right number up there, sure, we’d be a seller — that’s my obligation to the current shareholders. But are we intending to be a buyer? Yes, because I think we can leverage our customer base, we can maintain our model and we can go back to the decision we made in 2009 [to focus on R&D and licensing]. This market is not going anywhere other than growing, particularly as IoT becomes a new growth driver. We’ll just do it in a bigger way.
Considering that the Technicolor purchase more than doubles InterDigital’s patent portfolio, it’s going to be doing it in a much bigger way.
http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=316c3980-b9bb-4373-88fd-334193ae1a59
M6: I should have said former chief patent licensing officer. In August last year he switched over to TIVO. As you said he would have been a good man for IDCC.
Mr. Arvin Patel has been an Executive Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Officer at TiVo Corporation since August 18, 2017. Mr. Patel is responsible for TiVo's patent and licensing business. He oversees the growth and integration of TiVo's intellectual property assets across strategic focus areas. Prior to joining TiVo, he served as Chief Intellectual Property Officer and Head of Patent Licensing at Technicolor SA since January 30, 2016, where he was widely recognized as an expert in intellectual property strategy. He served as Senior Vice President of IP and Licensing at Rovi Corporation. He served as the Global Head of IBM's IP strategy group, where he executed key patent licensing and divestiture deals worldwide. Mr. Patel has a B.A. in legal studies from the University of California, Berkeley, a doctorate in law from the California Western School of Law and received several certifications from Harvard Law School.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=324414330&privcapId=93471
M6: Based on the following press release comment, it would appear that Technicolor had a very successful licensing team
PARIS (France) and ERLANGEN (Germany), August 25, 2015 – Technicolor (Euronext Paris: TCH; OTCQX: TCLRY) and Fraunhofer IIS, today announce the formation of a licensing program as part of the market introduction of the next-generation TV audio system developed by the MPEG-H Audio Alliance. The MPEG-H Audio Alliance TV System is under consideration for the ATSC 3.0 standard.
The licensing program of the two companies’ standard essential patents for the MPEG-H Audio Alliance TV system will be administrated by Technicolor (through its subsidiary Thomson Licensing, SAS). The program will build upon the enormous success of Technicolor’s MP3 licensing program, and the company’s experience managing approximately 1,100 licensing agreements across 15 licensing programs focused on consumer electronics.
https://www.technicolor.com/news/technicolor-and-fraunhofer-iis-announce-licensing-program-mpeg-h-audio-alliance-tv-system
Here is another interesting article to read. It is a commentary by the chief of Technicolor's licensing program.
http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=353c0dad-4d43-46d9-8789-2e4605bccfee
For anyone who wants to see the 2017 details of Technicolor's financial results for their patent licensing operations they are in Note 12-Discontinued Operations (page 73 of their report).
https://www.technicolor.com/sites/default/files/2018-02/TCH-2017-12-FINANCIAL-REPORT-en-23-02-2018.pdf
Their 2017 results presentation contained an interesting comment regarding their patent licensing:
A very profitable business, but:
- Highly volatile and very lumpy
zdog: in regard to the $5 million dollar payments, according to Tecnicolor's press release apparently there are two $5 million payments.
"For this research cooperation, InterDigital will pay Technicolor $5 million annually. InterDigital will invest an additional $5 million annually in internal R&D projects that are aligned with the priorities of the research cooperation."
ziplock: The PTAB is not ""court" of last appeal". Alleged infringers will usually file with the PTAB to have a patent declared "unpatentable" while a district court infringement case is in progress. This will result in the district court infringement case being stayed until the PTAB case is finally resolved.
my3sons: While the Oil States case could affect the ZTE case, the actual cause of the ZTE case stay is waiting for the PTAB decision on the CAFC remand order. See
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138049443&txt2find=zte
Jim: As I previously posted a 4th quarter deferred tax write off was expected due to the lowering of rates under the new tax law. Below are a couple of abstracts from the 10-K discussing the charge. As noted the effective rate for the year was 41.6%; however since the full amount of the charge off was in the 4th qtr, the effective rate was much higher. The most important thing is that, as stated, most of IDCC's future income will only be subject to a 12.125% rate.
"As a result of the Tax Reform Act, we recorded a tax charge of approximately $42.6 million in 2017 due to a re-measurement of deferred tax assets and liabilities, and we do not expect a material repatriation tax liability to be owed. We will continue to monitor as additional guidance is released. The tax charge represents provisional amounts and the Company’s current best estimates. Any adjustments recorded to the provisional amounts through fourth quarter 2018 will be included in net income as an adjustment to tax expense. The provisional amounts incorporate assumptions made based upon our current interpretation of the Tax Reform Act and may change as the Company receives additional clarification and implementation guidance. On a go-forward basis, we currently expect a significant portion of our income to qualify as FDII and thus be subject to the 13.125% tax rate".
"Income Taxes
In 2017, our effective tax rate was approximately 41.6% as compared to 27.7% in 2016, based on the statutory federal tax rate net of discrete federal and state taxes. The increase in the effective tax rate was primarily attributable to the revaluation of our net deferred tax assets at the new statutory tax rate of 21% due to the Tax Reform Act signed into law in December 2017. The revaluation resulted in a 2017 charge of approximately $42.6 million….."
my3sons: My interpretation of the announcement is different.
The press release stated that IDCC, and the OPENAIRINTERFACE™ SOFTWARE ALLIANCE (“OSA”) announced the planned demonstration (IDCC is a member of OSA)
The OSA is an organization separate from 3GPP, the primary standard setting body for 5G.
According to the OSA website “The mission of the OpenAirInterfaceTM Software Alliance (OSA) is to provide software and tools for 5G Wireless Research and Product Development.
http://www.openairinterface.org/?page_id=72
There is no question that IDCC’s “tech is being incorporated into the 5G NR standard”; however, that is done through IDCC’s relationship with 3GPP, rather than through their OSA work which appears to be how companies interact with the 3GPP set standards.
For more on OSA:
http://www.openairinterface.org/?page_id=1098
For those complaining about today's deletion of posts by IHUB ( not the board moderators), IMO they were in violation of the TOS.
The initial post was basically a link to another site. Without debating the merits of the contents of the other site, the site ended in extra large print with the words “Sign Up For My Newsletter—Subscribe”
I would say the post is in violation of Para 5G of the TOS:
5. Conduct on our Site
(snip) you agree that you will not upload, share, post, or otherwise distribute or facilitate distribution of any content -- including text, communications, software, images, sounds, data, or other information that:
G. Contains any unauthorized advertising or promotion of any product or service, any form of unauthorized solicitation, or any form of lottery or gambling;
As far as deletion of posts that complain about deletions, that again is in violation of the TOS
6. Special Rules & Message Deletions
(Snip)
Should you have a post removed, and you object or desire an explanation, your sole recourse is to address this matter privately with an IH Admin as described on the “My Removed Posts” page. Discussion of post deletions and moderator/admin actions is not permitted on the message boards.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/terms.aspx
my 3sons: The following revised revenue guidance was issued just after the announcement of the LG license so I assume it includes LG.
InterDigital Updates Revenue Guidance for Fourth Quarter 2017
Company Release - 12/4/2017 9:00 AM ET
WILMINGTON, Del., Dec. 04, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced that it has updated its expectations for total fourth quarter 2017 revenue to be between $180 million and $210 million, including recurring revenue in the range of $90 million to $97 million. Total revenue guidance for the period includes non-recurring revenue attributable to the expected recognition of the remaining portion of the non-refundable prepaid balance on a patent license agreement scheduled to expire at the end of 2017.
12/4/2017
8:30 AM ET
PRESS RELEASE
InterDigital and LG Electronics, Inc. Sign Multi-Year Patent License Agreement