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.
redviking: Good find. BMW sold 2.23 million vehicles through November of this year, so annual sales should be in the 2.4 million vehicle range. Since BMW is considered to be a premier car manufacturer, if we assume that all vehicles will be licensed at the $15/vehicle maximum royalty, Avanci will be receiving approximately $36 million/year if sales remain at the same rate. The problem is that we have no idea how that royalty will be divided among all the current and possibly future companies in the pool.
FISH: I agree "I just don't see the numbers that support what you are saying."
Did you see my possible explanation posted artier today?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=136947462
mickey: If you are willing to have your mandatory IRA withdrawal amount taxed at a 50% rate, instead of your normal rate, don't make the required withdrawal.
"What happens if a person does not take a RMD by the required deadline?
If an account owner fails to withdraw a RMD, fails to withdraw the full amount of the RMD, or fails to withdraw the RMD by the applicable deadline, the amount not withdrawn is taxed at 50%. The account owner should file Form 5329, Additional Taxes on Qualified Plans (Including IRAs) and Other Tax-Favored Accounts, with his or her federal tax return for the year in which the full amount of the RMD was not taken."
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions#8
mickey: If I am reading you right, from this and your previous posts on the subject, you apparently are under the erroneous impression that the total number of shares under the new 2017 bonus program will be awarded as a bonus this year.
The 3.9 million shares available under the program, (2.4 million from the current program + 1.5 million carryover from the 2009 program) is the total number of shares authorized to be issued over the indefinite life of the program. The actual number of shares that will be issued for 2017, and subsequent years, will depend on the meeting of goals set for each award period.
mickey: Instead of complaining about IDCC, why can't you just say you were wrong.
The problem is not with the company, as they issued a press release in September (below) summarizing the status of the stock repurchase program. The details are the same as I posted from the subsequent 10-Q. The problem is that apparently you were in China at the time of the press release, and you failed to do some research before posting.
InterDigital Announces Increases of Regular Quarterly Cash Dividend and Stock Buyback Authorization
Company Release - 9/14/2017 5:19 PM ET
WILMINGTON, Del., Sept. 14, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced that its Board of Directors has approved an increase in the company's quarterly cash dividend to $0.35 per share ($1.40 per share on an annual basis), as well as increased its existing stock repurchase program by $100 million.
The increase in the regular quarterly cash dividend will take effect beginning with the dividend to be paid in fourth quarter 2017. The Board of Directors also declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $.35 per share on its common stock, payable on October 25, 2017 to shareholders of record at the close of business on October 11, 2017.
The company’s Board of Directors authorized a $300 million stock repurchase program in June 2014, and in June 2015 increased the authorization to $400 million. Today’s increase brings the total authorization under the program to $500 million. From June 2014 through today, InterDigital has bought back 6.7 million shares for approximately $314 million, leaving a total of approximately $186 million remaining under the authorization.
mickey: You need to revise your calculations.
IDCC's current (2014) share repurchase program has a $500 million authorization; however, after accounting for stock repurchases since the inception of the program, the balance available as of 30 September 2017 was only approximately $186 million.
From the 3rd qtr 10-Q:
Repurchase of Common Stock
In June 2014, our Board of Directors authorized a $300 million share repurchase program (the “2014 Repurchase Program”). In June 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a $100 million increase to the program, and in September 2017, our Board of Directors authorized another $100 million increase to the program, bringing the total amount of the 2014 Repurchase Program to $500 million. The Company may repurchase shares under the 2014 Repurchase Program through open market purchases, pre-arranged trading plans or privately negotiated purchases.
The Company did not repurchase any shares of its common stock during third quarter 2017. As of September 30, 2017, there was approximately $186 million remaining under the Company's stock repurchase authorization.
gejebr3: It might be a while before Hillcrest adds to IDCC's bottom line.
Based on available information I would say that Hillcrest is probably adding around $10 million to IDCC’s annual revenues. However, it also looks like Hillcrest was/is operating at a loss, rather than adding to earnings.
The following are two comments from the 2017 3rd quarter 10-Q results of nine months operations:
“Current technology solutions revenue increased by $8.9 million primarily due to increased shipments by one of our technology solutions customers and the inclusion of revenue from Hillcrest.”
“The $7.6 million increase in costs associated with commercial initiatives and the $3.7 million increase in depreciation and amortization were primarily related to the acquisition of Hillcrest during fourth quarter 2016.”
As described, revenues increased $8.9 million because of the inclusion of Hillcrest revenues and increased revenues from other tech solutions customers; therefore, the Hillcrest revenues were probably a few million under the $8.9 million amount. On the other hand, increased costs of $11.3 million were primarily attributable to Hillcrest, thus indicating that the Hillcrest operation was operating at a loss.
The foregoing amounts and conclusion are in general agreement with an analysis of the Hillcrest acquisition that was included in the recent 10-K. In commenting on the Hillcrest acquisition IDCC made a pro forma analysis of what their revenues and earnings would have been in 2015 and 2016 if Hillcrest had been acquired effective January 1, 2015. The analysis found that revenues would have increased by $10.5 million in 2015, and $6.8 million in 2016; and, the earnings would have decreased by $9.4* million in 2015, and decreased by $3.8 million in 2016.
* The 2015 earnings calculation included $7.7 million in transaction costs, which should be considered as non recurring costs.
squingebob: From a more recent (March 2017) report announcement on “Motion Sensors Market (Microwave, Infrared, Ultrasonic, Dual Technology & Tomographic) for Automotive, Consumer Electronics, Industrial, Healthcare, and Aerospace & Defense and Other Applications and Other Applications: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2014-2022”. Same companies from the older report plus some new ones. Apparently Hillcrest is a minor player.
Global motion sensors market is expected to reach USD 8.17 billion in 2022, growing at a CAGR of 12.8% between 2017 and 2022.
SNIP
“The report covers detailed competitive outlook including the market share and company profiles of the key participants operating in the global motion sensors market include Freescale Semiconductor, Ltd., ST Microelectronics, Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Analog Devices, Inc., Honeywell International, Inc., Microchip Technology, Inc., Invensense, Inc., Kionix Inc, Bosch Sensortec GmbH and Memsic Inc are the major motion sensor suppliers.”
https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/motion-sensors-market
FISH: There is an assortment of different technologies in the motion sensor market with a lot of competition. Hillcrest apparently not considered to be a major player.
Motion Sensors Market worth 6.45 Billion USD by 2020
The report "Motion Sensors Market by Motion Sensor Technology (Infrared, Ultrasonic, Microwave, Dual Technology & Tomographic), Embedded Sensor Type (Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Magnetometer & Combos Sensor), Application & Region - Global Forecast to 2020", the global motion sensors market is expected to witness substantial growth, due to rising applications across various industry verticals. The market was valued at USD 3.10 Billion in 2014 and is projected to reach USD 6.45 Billion by 2020, at a CAGR of 12.93% from 2015 to 2020.
Browse 70 tables and 75 figures spread through 139 pages and in-depth TOC on "Motion Sensors Market - Global Forecast to 2020"
https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/Motion-Sensor-Market-614.html
Early buyers will receive 10% customization on reports.
Technological developments in the past decade have led to a considerable reduction in size of motion sensors, which played a major role in the growth of the market. The reduction in size and the penetration of MEMS technology into the motion sensor industry has enabled its applications in the field of consumer electronics, automotive, aerospace & defence, healthcare, and many more. In industries such as mobile devices, automotive, and healthcare, where there is a growing necessity for smaller form factor for sensors with improved performance, MEMS-based sensors have proven to be the perfect solution.
Another major factor driving the motion sensors market is the increased demand of accelerometers (a type of sensor) in the consumer electronics segment. Motion sensors have been an essential component in consumer goods for years, but new improvements and advancements have made them cost efficient and energy-efficient as well. Sensors such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers are used in smartphones, tablets, and notebook computers. Sensors also play a big role in remote-controlled planes and advanced aerial drones.
With the growing adoption of motion sensors in various sectors, the global motion sensors market is expected to witness high growth in the near future. The market size of smartphones & tablets was the highest and was valued at USD 981.33 Million in 2014 and is expected grow at a CAGR of 14.03% from 2015 to 2020.
The Asia-Pacific region is the fastest-growing market for consumer electronics application and is expected to register a CAGR of 15.14% during the forecast period. The motion sensors market in Europe and North America is also expected to register substantial growth rate.
The research study is aimed at identifying emerging trends and opportunities in the global motion sensor market and analyzes the market with explicit focus on high-growth applications and the fastest-growing market segments. The study also includes analysis of the future of the global motion sensor market and market opportunities till 2020. This report also makes use of the Porter’s Five Forces Analysis, which provides an in-depth analysis of the market providing a detailed process flow diagram and market dynamics, such as drivers, restraints, and opportunities. The research study strategically profiles key players and comprehensively analyzes their market share and core competencies, along with detailing the competitive landscape for market leaders.
This report also profiles the major companies operational in the global motion sensors market. They include Bosch Sensortec GmbH (Germany), Freescale Semiconductor Ltd. (U.S.), STMicroelectronics (Switzerland), MEMSIC, Inc. (U.S.), Microchip Technology, Inc. (U.S.), InvenSense, Inc. (U.S.), Kionix, Inc (U.S.), Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S.), Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Japan), and Analog Devices, Inc. (U.S.).
https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/motion-sensor.
LTE: I previously acknowledged that my post was in error.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=136729619
my3sons: As I posted last week, ZTE filed with CAFC for a panel rehearing. Until that is acted upon, and a mandate issued by CAFC, the Delaware District Court case is still basically in a holding status.
mickey: This all happened before my interest in IDCC. I wouldn't say that IDCC was run by idiots; but, as with many new technologies, they bet on the wrong horse. The following comment in IDCC's FORM 10-Q For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2000, is a pretty good summary of what happened with IDCC an BCDMA.
"As a result of the decline in the rural fixed and wireless access market and the anticipated emergence of 3G standards in 1999, we ceased further development and sales activities with regard to WLL equipment. In 1999, Siemens withdrew from the B-CDMA Alliance. In April 1999, Alcatel informed us that it was also withdrawing from our B-CDMA technology development project, on the same basis. As a result of Alcatel's and Siemens' decisions as well as our own assessment of the WLL market, we decided to reduce our resource commitment to B- CDMA technology development
.
In 1999, we also decided to discontinue the manufacture of the UltraPhone system. We sustained significant losses over the life of the UltraPhone product line due to our inability to achieve sufficient sales volumes and the need to continue to consistently upgrade and re- engineer the product, at significant expense. We expect final shipments will be completed by June 2000 at which point we expect to fully exit the business."
http://ir.interdigital.com/Cache/1500085324.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1500085324&iid=4103938
mickey: Your apparent attempt at sarcasm shows that you have no concept regarding Qualcomm's patents and their licensing. Simply put your so called “damn fools” are not paying for expired patents, but are paying for the thousands of patents that Qualcomm has covering newer standards.
The following is a year 2000 Q and A post that was written in non technical or legal language so it is easy to understand. It is still applicable.
“Can any one help with information regarding the time frame for expiration of Qualcomm's claim on CDMA?
canesman: There really isn't an easy answer to this question. There is no one "CDMA patent" to expire soon. QCOM has over 400 CDMA-related patents dating back to 1990, and 600 more patents pending. So, while the first patents will begin expiring around 2007, there will be many more in play for decades beyond that, as new patents keep being applied for and granted.
I don't know how much experience you have with patent licensing, but typically with big companies like this it isn't a matter of QCOM saying "Patent #1234567 will cost $1.50, #2345678 will cost $2.23, and ...."
They tend to work on a portfolio basis, where they say "To license all of these related patents will cost xxx", where xxx may be a fixed amount, or a percentage of some benchmark (perhaps the list price of the finished goods).
So even if the original 100 patents expire by 2010, there will probably be 500 more in effect that comprise the "CDMA portfolio". And the next year when 50 more (or whatever) expire there may be 60 new ones to take their place. Thus, as long as someone wants *any* of QCOM's CDMA patents, they basically pay for them all as a bundle.
And because some of the patents pending relate to both CDMA2000 and W-CDMA, whichever way the handset and infrastructure manufacturers choose to go, they will need some of QCOM's patents. Undoubtedly there will come a point when all of the "essential" CDMA patents (those that can't be worked around) will have expired, but that may be 15-20 years from now, and in the meantime QCOM will likely have received patents on newer "gotta have" technologies for 3.5G or 4G.
So I wouldn't worry too much about QCOM losing their Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) anytime soon….”
http://boards.fool.com/gtgtgtgtcan-any-one-help-with-information-13171302.aspx
To expand on the year 2000 comment that “QCOM will likely have received patents on newer "gotta have" technologies for 3.5G or 4G”, at the time of the above comment it stated that “QCOM has over 400 CDMA-related patents dating back to 1990, and 600 more patents pending”. Compare that with the number of patents in Qualcomm’s current portfolio which is what licensees are now paying for:
5 Jul 2017
Qualcomm has a total of 46,489 granted patents and 106,500 patent applications distributed into 28,730 patent families. Based on the countries of patent applications, the key markets for Qualcomm are USA, WIPO(PCT) and European Patent Office. The main technology areas are wireless communication networks, transmission of digital information and transmission.
http://www.patsnap.com/resources/innovation/qualcomm
Mickey: I don’t know why you are again bringing up the subject of the 1994 IDCC-Qualcomm agreement. Any IDCC patents that may have been included in the agreement, or specifically excluded from the agreement, have long since expired and are now in the public domain for anybody to use. In addition, as IDCC stated 14 years ago in the 2003 10-K:
“The proportion of essential Company patents under which Qualcomm is licensed has diminished substantially over time as the Company has been inventing and acquiring technology at an accelerating rate since early 1995.”
For your info, when talking about the term (i.e. life) of a patent, US patents are referred to as “twenty-year term” patents. Twenty years would be the maximum term, depending on the date when the patent was issued, and or the when the application was filed, the actual patent term is often less than 20 years. For more specific info see:
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2701.html
jeffree: You are correct, I forgot about the previous announcement.
InterDigital Announces Increases of Regular Quarterly Cash Dividend and Stock Buyback Authorization
Company Release - 9/14/2017 5:19 PM ET
WILMINGTON, Del., Sept. 14, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced that its Board of Directors has approved an increase in the company's quarterly cash dividend to $0.35 per share ($1.40 per share on an annual basis), as well as increased its existing stock repurchase program by $100 million.
That's a poorly written announcement. There is no mention that there was an increase in the regular dividend from $0.30 to $0.35.
my3sons/loophole: What happened, is that both IDCC and Pegatron filed a new set of claims, and in effect it is as if the case will start all over again. The following is the Judge’s order:
An initial case management conference was held on December 6, 2017. A further case management conference is set for May 23, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file their joint case management statement by May 16, 2018.
The Court lifted the stay.
The Court referred the parties to private mediation with a deadline of January 25, 2019
.
The Court set the following limits on discovery:
40 interrogatories per side;
200 requests for production per side;
150 requests for admission per side;
10 depositions per side, not including expert witness depositions;
Each deposition shall be no longer than 7 hours long, except for depositions where translators are used, in which case the limit is 12 hours.
Each side may take up to 7 hours of deposition testimony of each testifying expert for each report on a separate subject.
The Court set the following case schedule:
Scheduled Event …Date
Deadline to Exchange Initial Disclosures …January 5, 2018
Deadline to File Stipulated Protective Order …January 12, 2018
Last Day to File Stipulation or Motion to Amend the Pleadings/Add Parties …May 15, 2018
Further Case Management Conference …May 23, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
Close of Fact Discovery …October 25, 2018
Opening Expert Reports …November 21, 2018
Rebuttal Expert Reports …December 20, 2018
Close of Expert Discovery …January 17, 2019
Deadline to Complete Private Mediation …January 25, 2019
Last Day to File Dispositive Motions
(one per side in the entire case) and Daubert Motions …Opening: February 7, 2019 Responsive: March 7, 2019 Reply: March 28, 2019
Hearing on Dispositive Motions …April 25, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.
Final Pretrial Conference ….June 20, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.
Jury Trial …July 8, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
Length of Trial …8 days
my3sons: My comment was in regard to District Court infringement case, not the PTAB.
From CAFC Rules of Procedure:
"ACTION BY THE COURT. When a petition for panel rehearing is filed, the clerk of court will transmit copies to the panel that decided the case. The clerk of court will enter an order denying the petition unless a majority of the panel agrees to rehear the case. Rehearing before the panel may take place with or without further briefing or oral argument by the parties as the court directs."
ZTE has requested a panel rehearing at CAFC,
12/04/2017 56 Petition for panel rehearing filed by Appellants ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation. Service: 12/04/2017 by email. The paper copies of the petition must be filed within two business days (see Fed. Cir. R. 35(c)(4).The required paper copies should be received by the court on or before 12/06/2017 [480139]
12/05/2017 57 3 paper copies of the petition for panel rehearing [56] received from Appellants ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corporation. [480319]
That $7.7 million in buyback must of happened during the current quarter, as there were no buybacks for the first three quarters of 2017.
From 3rd quarter 10-Q
"Repurchase of Common Stock
In June 2014, our Board of Directors authorized a $300 million share repurchase program (the “2014 Repurchase Program”). In June 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a $100 million increase to the program, and in September 2017, our Board of Directors authorized another $100 million increase to the program, bringing the total amount of the 2014 Repurchase Program to $500 million. The Company may repurchase shares under the 2014 Repurchase Program through open market purchases, pre-arranged trading plans or privately negotiated purchases.
The table below sets forth the number of shares repurchased and the dollar value of shares repurchased under the 2014 Repurchase Program during 2016, 2015 and 2014, in thousands. We did not repurchase any shares of common stock in first nine months 2017."
FISH: As stated the agreement ends all litigation between IDCC and LG. A request for dismissal should be filed with the District Court (not ITC) sometime this week.
dclarke: I believe the only outstanding litigation against LG was a companion case filed in District Court when IDCC filed against LG at the ITC. The case has been stayed and is classified as an inactive case. Rather than dropping the case, IDCC has been submitting periodic requests to the Court to extend the stay.
See my previous comments:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133347856&txt2find=LG
dclarke: The details on that cite require a paid subscription. If you dig through various other Statista cites, one shows
LG Electronics smartphone unit sales 2016....... 55m
LG's share of global smartphone shipments .......3.5%
https://www.statista.com/topics/2302/lg-electronics/
In comparison, according to a Gartner report, Samsung’s 2016 smartphone sales were 306.4 million units for a 20.5% market share.
https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3609817
Paullee: Great post. As you said an enjoyable read.
Another commentary on today's SC case,
Justices divided over challenge to patent reviews
BY LYDIA WHEELER - 11/27/17 03:34 PM EST
The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with whether Congress has the authority to shift how patent challenges are reviewed from the courts to a government board.
Oil States Energy Co., a Houston-based oilfield services company, is challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review process for patent disputes.
The process was created by Congress in the 2011 American Invents Act (AIA) and is known as an ‘inter partes review,” with the office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board hearing any challenges to existing patents.
The case stems from a dispute Oil States had with another oilfield services company Greene’s Energy Services LLC over a patent for wellheads used in hydraulic fracturing.
Allyson Ho, who argued on behalf of Oil States Energy, said the process Congress created violates the separation of powers because the government itself — through the patent office — is acting as the adjudicator between two private parties.
But Justice Stephen Breyer said agencies decide all kinds of matters through adjudicatory-type procedures often involving private parties.
“So what's special about this one, or do you want to say it isn't special and all the agency proceedings are unlawful?” he asked.
Christopher Kise, who argued on behalf of the other company, Greene’s Energy Group, said adjudications are not inherently judicial and businesses that accept patents do so knowing they are subject to these reviews.
Chief Justice John Roberts, though, asked Kise if his position is simply that “you’ve got to take the bitter with the sweet” meaning “if you want the sweet of having a patent, you've got to take the bitter that the government might reevaluate it at some subsequent point.”
When Kise agreed, Roberts argued that the court has repeatedly rejected that idea. “I'm thinking of the public employment cases, the welfare benefits cases,” Roberts said. “We've said you cannot put someone in that position. You cannot say, if you take public employment, we can terminate you in a way that's inconsistent with due process.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to suggest that if Congress can limit the life of a patent it can also require that reviews be done by an agency review board instead of a court.
"Doesn't that show that the patent owner has limited expectations as to the scope and the validity of the property right that he holds?" he asked.
Congress passed the AIA to improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs in response to concerns that questionable patents were too easy to obtain and too difficult to challenge in court, the government argued in its briefs.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the patent review process created by Congress. “There must be some means by which the patent office can correct the errors its made,” she argued.
The more liberal justices argued that decisions following an inter partes review can be appealed to a federal appeals court."I mean, for me, what saves this [is] even a patent invalidity finding can be appealed to a court," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
Many of the justices, however, seemed to create more questions for themselves during the hour-long argument.
The court’s newest member, Justice Neil Gorsuch, appeared bothered by how far the government could go in putting conditions on patents. He asked if the government could even stack the agency review board with judges it likes.
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/361999-justices-divided-over-challenge-to-patent-reviews
An interesting read which could affect IDCC.
Broadcom eyes big changes for Qualcomm's patent practices
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/broadcom-eyes-big-changes-qualcomms-patent-practices-060600292--finance.html
my3sons: The CAFC decision has not yet been mandated back to the Delaware District Court.
The mandate will normally issue following the decision of the case or the denial of rehearing, whichever is later. Since a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment, it might be while before it gets back to the District Court.
ia-idcc-fan: I assume what you call a fixed price license is IDCC's fixed fee type of license. Since IDCC's accounting for fixed fee licenses called for amortizing the total amount of the license over the contract term, there would be no balance remaining when the license expired. Therefore RIM's license must be on some type of per unit royalty basis.
vegas options: You are still confused.
In your previous post you stated that "What I deduced the $70+M comes from $63M ASUS and $7-8M Pegatron."
You apparently picked up the $63 million from ASUS from the following comment in last quarter's 10-Q. As described that was a claim made by ASUS for what they called excess royalties paid under their existing license. They lost. It had nothing to do with any prepayments.
"With respect to its arbitration counterclaim for fraudulent inducement, Asus stated in its pleadings that it was seeking return of excess royalties (which totaled close to $63 million as of the August 2016 date referenced in the pleadings and has increased with additional royalty payments made by Asus since such time), plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. The evidentiary hearing in the arbitration was held in January 2017, and the parties presented oral closing arguments on March 22, 2017. On August 2, 2017, the arbitral tribunal issued its Final Award. The tribunal fully rejected Asus’s counterclaim, finding that InterDigital did not fraudulently induce Asus to enter into the 2008 Asus PLA. Accordingly, the tribunal dismissed Asus’s fraudulent inducement counterclaim in its entirety."
I don't know where you got the $7-$8 million for Pegatron, except as a balancing amount to come up with your $70+ million. Again, the Pegatron litigation has nothing to do with prepayments.
As far as your comment about "giving up their frand defense", the ZTE infringement case is the only one where a company dropped their FRAND defenses.
my3sons: Are you thinking about a special dividend in regard to the $71 million additional revenue? If so, I would say forget it. The actual cash for that revenue was a prepayment that was most likely received within a year or so of the license signing. All that is happening now is an accounting entry to clear the used balance amount from Deferred Revenue.
Even the signing of a new license would be relatively insignificant. Below is a forecast of the event, from his year's 10-K. As noted the total revenue during 2016 for the two licenses scheduled to expire during 2017 was only17.7 million.
"Our patent license agreements with two licensees are scheduled to expire in whole or in part during 2017. Collectively, these agreements accounted for $17.7 million, or approximately 3%, of our total revenue in 2016. One of these agreements has a non-refundable prepaid balance of $71.6 million, which is included in short-term deferred revenue, as of December 31, 2016. In the event this agreement is not renewed or amended during 2017, we will recognize any portion of the prepaid balance remaining at year-end as revenue in fourth quarter 2017 in connection with the scheduled expiration of the agreement."
vegas options: As described the $71 million is related to a license (most likely RIMs) that is due to to expire by year end. It has nothing to do with ASUS and Pegatron, whose licenses do not expire.
Gamco: I agree that the licensee in question was RIM (Blackberry).
As you posted, IDCC announced their license renewal in January 2013. Based on a normal 5 year term, the license would expire in December 2017.
Since the license signing, RIM suffered a continuing major collapse in their mobile device hardware sales. As described below in their FY (ending March) annual reports, hardware sales dropped from $6.6 billion in 2013 FY to only $409 million in FY2017. Apparently the prepayment was based on much higher sales estimates than actually occurred, therefore, the company could not use the full prepayment amount.
FY 2013
Revenue from continuing operations for fiscal 2013 was $11.1 billion, a decrease of approximately $7.4 billion, or 39.9%, from $18.4 billion in fiscal 2012. Hardware revenue decreased by $7.1 billion, or 51.8%, to $6.6 billion, primarily due to lower shipment volumes and lower average selling prices. The lower shipment volumes were a result of the Company’s aging product portfolio in a very competitive environment in which multiple competitors introduced new devices beginning in early fiscal 2013. The lower average selling prices were due to the continuation of pricing initiatives to drive sell-through for BlackBerry 7 handheld devices, in advance of the launch of BlackBerry 10 smartphones. The number of BlackBerry handheld devices shipped decreased by approximately 20.9 million, or 42.7%, to approximately 28.1 million in fiscal 2013, compared to approximately 49.0 million in fiscal 2012.
FY 2017
Mobility Solutions segment revenue was $409 million, or 29.8% of segment revenue, in fiscal 2017 compared to $884 million, or 40.3% of segment revenue, in fiscal 2016, representing a decrease of $475 million, or 53.73%.
The $475 million decrease in Mobility Solutions segment revenue was primarily attributable to decreased demand and the Company’s aging product portfolio, which was partially offset by an increase in the average selling price of hardware.
jjff: As a bifurcated case, in April 2016, the court set a schedule for the FRAND/damages portion of the ZTE case with a target trial date in February 2018.
When ZTE dropped the FRAND portion of the case, and filed their appeal of the infringement finding, the Court stayed the rest of the case pending the results of the appeal. Since CAFC rejected ZTE's appeal the stay can be lifted. So far there has been no action at the District Court to lift the stay. Don't know if the previous February 2018 trial date for damages will hold, or a new new date will be set.
mickey: As you previously posted "I think I can read english, but often don't understand what I have read." Your current post is a perfect example.
Where did you come up with the statements that LG "quit paying on everything" and that LG " breached their contract which should negate the forgiveness of 2G sales." ?
Simply stated the LG license covered IDCC's 2G and 3G patents. It was a fixed fee license requiring LG to pay IDCC $285 million, and was in effect for a 5 year term. At the end of the 5 year term LG was to be given a fully paid up license in regard to 2G products.
Since LG paid in full the $285 million called for under the license, no additional payments were required; there was no breach of contract, and LG received a paid up 2G license.
As we all know, after the 5 year term of the license expired, LG claimed that under the license terms, in addition to the paid up license for 2G they were also somehow covered for the 3G patents. The dispute went to arbitration and LG's arguments were rejected. As stated in the 2016 10-K
" Rejecting LG’s arguments, the arbitration tribunal found that LG’s license with respect to 3G products under the 2006 LG PLA had terminated as of December 31, 2010, at the expiration of the 2006 LG PLA’s five-year term, and that only LG’s paid-up license with respect to 2G-only products survived the expiration of the term. On February 5, 2016, InterDigital filed a petition in the District Court for the Southern District of New York for an order confirming the arbitration award."
mickey: CDMA is an old technology that is currently being replaced with LTE technology. According to one mobile phone company:
"End of an Era for CDMA?
Seeing as all new phones aren’t using CDMA, it raises the question if CDMA will disappear once old CDMA phones aren’t active anymore? With an average cycle of replacing devices, pretty much all CDMA devices will be gone by 2020. Currently, just a fraction of Verizon and Sprint’s customers are utilizing the CDMA, as they’re mainly on LTE. Time will tell if and when Verizon and Sprint will get rid of CDMA altogether."
https://www.usmobile.com/blog/lte-gsm-vs-cdma/
What Ericsson apparently is working on is future 5g technology, beyond current 4G LTE.
LTE: To add to your comments, in addition to awarding past damages, courts also have been setting post judgment royalty rates to cover to cover future damages. However, for expired patents that would not apply. Here is a good article on the subject.
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=6354
jist: Although most of QCOM's revenue is from their chip segment (QCT), most of their earnings are from their licensing segment (QTL). For their latest FY ending 24 Sep 2017:
Revenues
...QCT $16.5 billion
...QTL 6.4 billion
Earnings Before Taxes
...QCT $ 2.7 billion
...QTL 5.2 billion
loophole: You are correct: that quote was from the district court related case to the 868 ITC investigation in which they only patent asserted against Nokia was the '151 patent. However as noted in my last post, the MSFT settlement agreement covered all of Nokia's outstanding litigation.
mickey: From IDCC's 8-K announcement of the settlement agreement;
'Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for cash and other commitments from Microsoft, InterDigital has agreed to a limited release on the past sales of certain Microsoft products, including Nokia terminal units sold during a limited period of time. InterDigital and Microsoft also have agreed to terms for dismissal by them and Nokia Corporation of all outstanding litigation and other proceedings among these companies and their affiliates, including, without limitation, the Microsoft Sherman Act Delaware Proceedings and the Delaware District Court Proceedings related to the 2007, 2011 and 2013 United States International Trade Commission Proceedings as previously disclosed in InterDigital, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1405495/000140549517000014/a2017_05x09-form8xk.htm