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.
msl2008,
Yes, I believe your assumption to be accurate. While we don't know the precise amount they drew on the line, I too would guestimate it at perhaps $10-$15M currently being used.
I believe as you indicated, some short term debt was exchanged for longer term debt. I also recall they don't have to make a payment to Fortress until mid to late 2018 if I recall correctly?
I would also assume that the 43 new international patent assets, including the German patent already having won on infringement against Schrader, which allows for an injunction to be put in place and all part of the recent transaction with Bridgestone, too may have been part of the use of proceeds from the facility.
Approximately $9.5M in cash as of last Q. Also have access to a $50 million long term financing facility.
Was going to also mention, the loss last Q that you quoted previously was the GAAP loss. Non-GAAP was $2.6M. Non-GAAP is probably a little more accurate measure of financial results for the company.
Hope this helps.
For reference:http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/marathon-patent-group-inc-announces-first-quarter-2015-financial-results-nasdaq-mara-2020132.htm
Marathon Patent Group, Inc. Announces First Quarter 2015 Financial Results
ALEXANDRIA, VA--(Marketwired - May 14, 2015) - Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) ("Marathon"), a patent licensing company, announced today financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. Highlights included:
•Revenues of $4.1 million, up 204% from the prior quarter
•Year over year revenues up 47% compared to the three months ended March 31, 2014
•Generated revenue from a total of thirteen (13) license agreements, across 25 different licensees
•Cash of $9.5 million compared to $5.1 million at December 31, 2014
•Net working capital improved by $11.5 million
•Currently have 19 portfolios covering 14 distinct technology areas, 15 in active licensing campaigns
•Added seasoned IP veterans Richard Chernicoff and Dirk Tyler to the board as directors
Commenting on the Company's first quarter financial results, Doug Croxall, Founder & CEO of Marathon Patent Group, stated, "I am pleased with our first quarter financial results, particularly our increased quarterly revenue which represented our second best quarter to date. At the top line, revenues of $4.1 million represented an increase of 204% from last quarter, and 47% when compared to the same period in the prior year."
"Since the beginning of the 2015, we have already had four Markman hearings covering 31 defendants. Throughout the remainder of 2015, our subsidiaries have an additional six Markman hearings covering 14 defendants, along with three US trials covering four defendants and nine German trials covering 12 defendants. We believe the current Markman and trial schedule for 2015 and 2016 have the potential to trigger significant revenue events."
2015 First Quarter Results
Revenue for the first quarter totaled $4.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million or 47% compared to $2.8 million in revenue during the first quarter of 2014. Revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2015 was derived from both the issuance of one-time patent licenses and recurring royalty. The growth in revenue from 2014 to 2015 resulted from growth in the patent monetization business.
Revenue from the issuance of licenses to certain of the Company's patent portfolios accounted for approximately 95% for the first quarter 2015. Revenues from the five largest settlement and license agreements accounted for 87% of the Company's revenues, whereas revenues from three total settlement and license agreements accounted for 100% of the Company's revenue for the first quarter of 2014.
Direct cost of revenues for the first quarter of 2015 totaled $4.3 million and for first quarter 2014, the direct cost of revenues amounted to $1.1 million. For the first quarter of 2015, this represented an increase of $3.2 million or 290%. Direct costs of revenue for the quarter include contingent and non-contingent payments to patent enforcement counsel, costs associated with technical and damage experts, and other miscellaneous costs associated with enforcing our patent rights and entering into settlement and licensing agreements.
For the first quarter of 2015, the Company had higher costs associated with experts and a non-contingent engagement with litigation counsel for numerous enforcement actions with scheduled trial dates over the next three to six months.
Total operating expenses for the first quarter, including amortization of patents, compensation and related taxes, consulting and professional fees and other general and administrative fees were $6.1 million. Operating expenses for the first quarter 2015 includes non-cash operating expenses totaling $4.1 million.
For the first quarter, we reported a GAAP net loss of $4.8 million, or ($0.34) per basic share, compared to a GAAP net loss of $0.3 million or a loss of ($0.03) per basic share in the year-ago period.
On a non-GAAP basis, we had a net loss for the first quarter of 2015 in the amount of $2.6 million, or ($0.19) per basic share, compared to non-GAAP net income of $0.9 million, or $0.08 per basic share in the first quarter of 2014.
A reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financials can be found in the financial tables at the end of this press release.
As of March 31, 2015, cash totaled $9.5 million as compared to $5.1 million as of December 31, 2014.
$50 Million Long Term Financing Facility
During the quarter, the Company entered into a $50 million long term financing facility with funds managed by affiliates of Fortress Investment Group (NYSE: FIG) to make acquisitions, replace short-term acquisition debt and provide long-term support of the Company's enforcement actions of its existing portfolios. Details regarding the terms and borrowing under the facility can be found in the Company's 10-K and 10-Q filings.
Thanks EMI.
hardtoget,
Appreciate the response. I haven't read the filings on this one absent the time to do so. As you cite, clearly the deal had toxicity based on the tape action. I was only trying to better understand the specifics. If you have any specifics, please share. Thanks again.
Augusta,
It's clear that financing has some serious toxicity associated with it based on the tape action. You may better understand the problem with it, could you just briefly educate me? TIA
Good find CHM.
While I don't fully understand how they index, despite trying to better educate myself, don't many fund managers generally speaking have to take a position if included?
Thanks Yanquitrader.
Doug Croxall, CEO of Marathon stated, "We are pleased both by the Courts ruling denying the defendants requested stay, followed by its order setting the trial schedule. With the first trial commencing March 15, 2016, followed by one every 60 days thereafter, and defendants subject to being advanced on the calendar if an action against one defendant is resolved, we are ensured an accelerated trial schedule. With discovery now open, and having already reached settlements with previous defendants, we hope that the trial schedule will foster additional settlement activity and revenue generation. The addition of these trials only adds to an already expansive list of potential revenue opportunities for the company."
Croxall continued, "In upcoming months, we expect to further leverage existing and already licensed assets in Signal and other portfolios owned by Marathon against entirely new defendants, building on the current approximate 50 defendant count. We believe there remains significant opportunity within our current asset base to broaden the depth of monetization of existing revenue generating portfolios, as well as asserting assets currently not in monetization."
I concur with your assessment SSKILLZ1.
YES...I meant to say Q1, thank you for the correction. Should have read that most expenses were likely accounted for in Q1 as indicated in the company's public comments.
ms,
I believe you are correct, all 43 patent assets acquired from Bridgestone are international.
My understanding is that the vast majority of expenses related to the US case, fairly nominal in scope to begin with, were paid for already last year and predominantly in Q2.
That's what the transcript from the quarterly call appears to confirm if I recall correctly.
LOL! If you have subscribed to him like I have and seen this pattern one too many times now, you'd know why I see his comment as possibly one of the greatest contrary indicators of all time. He was pounding the table at 52 week highs in just Dec.
Hard to argue, he was wrong then. I expect he is even more wrong now. That said, you do what's best for you. ;)
Here's the reason for the weakness in the last 30 minutes. Never a dull moment!
Good old Lou!
I just got a note from good old Louise Navallier telling me to sell my Marathon shares. Oh the irony! He told me to buy them at literally the 52 week high in Dec, and now advises me to sell them at the 52 week low.
What is worse than his laughable advise, is the fact I actually paid him a pretty penny for it.
This would also explain some of yesterdays pressure since many like him give certain level subscribers advance notice before sending to the others.
Thanks again Lou! If the past is indicative of the future, you likely just called bottom. I'm literally checking my own buying power and logging into my account as I speak.
Roth Analyst Bill Gibson, also well regarded.
A U.S. District Court of Delaware jury ruled yesterday that Bridgestone Americas patents related to tire pressure monitoring were valid but that the defendant, Schrader-Bridgeport, did not infringe.
Marathon's IP Liquidity subsidiary owns the rights to the revenue associated with the case's ultimate outcome. Marathon intends to appeal the ruling.
We believe a settlement with Schrader is more likely than not in the next 12 months.
We are not changing our earnings estimates because we anticipate multiple settlements, some meaningful in 2015 and 2016.
However, we our lowering our price target to $9 from $12 because we expect multiples paid in the patent monetization space are likely to remain under pressure.
Our price target is based on a P/E multiple of 9x our 2016 estimate, adding back non-cash charges and fully taxing the result. We were previously using a multiple of 12x the same adjusted estimate.
Yesterday's ruling has no bearing on the case in Germany where courts have already ruled Schrader infringed on the Bridgestone patents. IP Liquidity has the ability to invoke an injunction to halt auto sales in Germany, which if allowed, would likely bring a quicker settlement.
Marathon has a diversified portfolio with 413 patents across 19 different subsidiaries, 12 of which are in active litigation with about 50 defendants.
Six Markman hearings are scheduled over the remainder of 2015 covering 14 defendants. Two more U.S. trials covering 30 defendants are scheduled later this year as are nine German trials covering 12 defendants. Settlements generally occur around the hearings and trials.
We are maintaining our Buy recommendation for speculative investors willing to assume the risk of adverse legal rulings and lumpy revenue recognition.
Latimore is extremely well regarded and followed. He lowered his price target a mere $1 to $11, from $12.
"Discounting back and assuming 19.6 mil shares fully diluted, we are lowering our target to $11 from $12. Our FY15 and FY16 models assume MARA wins a material settlement by the end of FY16, and thus, these models don't change materially."
Outperform
Price: $3.36
Price Target: $11.00
Industry
IP
Michael Latimore
Stock Data
52-Week Range $3.30/$9.73
Avg. Daily Volume 104,108
Market Cap. (MM) $47
Shares Out. (MM) 14.0
Float 60.6%
Cash Per Share $0.36
Book Value Per Share $1.52
Dividend Yield 0.00%
Shares Short 353,142
Insider Ownership 0.0%
Institutional Ownership 15.6%
FY End Dec
Source: Bloomberg
Revenue Estimates ($M)
2014 2015 2016
1Q 2.8A 4.1A 4.1E
2Q 3.8A 2.7E 2.9E
3Q 13.5A 3.4E 3.7E
4Q 1.3A 15.5E 30.9E
FY 21.4A 25.7E 41.6E
P/S 2.2x 1.8x 1.1x
Adjusted EPS Estimates ($)
2014 2015 2016
1Q 0.04A (0.19)A (0.05)E
2Q 0.08A (0.19)E (0.07)E
3Q 0.45A (0.11)E (0.07)E
4Q (0.47)A 0.28E 0.52E
FY 0.23A (0.21)E 0.33E
P/E 14.6x NM 10.2x
.
Marathon Patent Group (MARA)
US Bridgestone Verdict Unfavorable; Diverse Portfolio Remains
Summary
Despite winning on infringement in Germany, Marathon/Bridgestone lost on that issue in the US yesterday. Lowering target $1 to $11. The opportunity on this portfolio remains in Germany, and Marathon's four other top portfolios have rev events over the next 12 months. MARA has established a diversified portfolio of patents, helping to minimize effects of one event. The nullity/validity hearing in the Stryker case is next week, and the Apple court will set a trial date June 26 most likely.
Key Points
Bridgestone-Schrader. We assume top five portfolios can garner 8-figure licensing fees. At the requested 2.5% royalty rate in the Bridgestone case, Marathon/Bridestone was effectively asking for $70 mil combining the past six years and estimated next 9.5 years. While Marathon will appeal, we now assume Marathon does not get the roughly $25 mil in cashflow on this case in our long-term DCF model. This lowers the target $1 discounting back and assuming 19.6 mil fully diluted shares. Marathon still appears to be in a strong position in Germany, where Marathon has won the infringement hearing. The nullity/validity hearing is Nov. 5. The US court actually found Marathon/Bridgestone's patents were valid, but not infringed. If successful at the German validity hearing, the next step would be determing damages. This could occur in 3-6 months. Germany represents a large market opportunity by itself we believe.
June events. The validity hearing in the Stryker case is on June 18. If Marathon is successful, the following step would be determining damages. We estimate Stryker does about $85 mil per year in relevant revenue, and royalty rates in the medical arena are well above computer and mobile technology. On Apr. 26, the court in the Apple case will hold a summary judgment hearing, and set a trial date.
Lowering target to $11 from $12. If Marathon had won the trial, an appeal would have likely occurred, pushing cashflow out 18-24 months. We estimate about $25 mil of cashflow is eliminated with the verdict. Discounting back and assuming 19.6 mil shares fully diluted, we are lowering our target to $11 from $12. Our FY15 and FY16 models assume MARA wins a material settlement by the end of FY16, and thus, these models don't change materially.
Strategy.
Marathon represents large companies and individual inventors that have invented products and technologies, and that are having their constitutional rights violated by unauthorized use of their ideas. Marathon takes a portfolio approach, diversifying patent assets across technologies, stages of enforcement and regions. While yesterday's ruling was unfavorable, the company has numerous opportunities lined up over the next year surrounding its four other key patent portfolios, and the German side of the Bridgestone portfolio.
Valuation
Our DCF model generates an $11 target.
Nullity and infringement are separate panels of judges and separate courts altogether…no juries in Germany as you indicate.
As for the preliminary opinion regarding validity, I believe the infringement court did give a preliminary indication of validity which allowed them to put the injunction against Stryker in place, and then the Federal Patent Court did as standard operating procedure leading up to the nullity hearing.
Fortunately we aren't dealing with 8 women on a jury who have no experience in the subject matter and rather a panel of those who routinely deal in these matters.
Yanqui,
My layman's understanding is that this has no affect on the infringement aspect of the case against TRW. The infringement aspect of the cases are distinctly different.
Apparently the jury finding the patents valid could actually be considered of benefit in that case, alleviating that argument for the defense. If there's any silver lining to this ruling, it is that the jury found the patents valid.
Marathon Patent Group Announces Jury Verdict in TPMS Case v. Schrader-Bridgeport
LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwired - Jun 11, 2015) - Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) ("Marathon"), a patent licensing company, announced today that on June 11, 2015, a jury ruled in the matter Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC v. Schrader-Bridgeport in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
On May 2, 2013, Schrader-Bridgeport International Inc. was sued by Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC for patent infringement in Delaware District Court, case number 1:13-cv-00763. Marathon has advised the plaintiff and provided substantially all of the financing of this litigation.
Marathon Patent Group's wholly owned subsidiary, IP Liquidity, owns contract rights to the revenue associated with the outcome of this case.
On June 11, 2015, an eight-person jury ruled that the asserted patents, while valid, were not infringed by the defendant.
Doug Croxall, Founder & Chief Executive Officer of Marathon, stated, "We are clearly disappointed by the jury's ruling. It is a decision Bridgestone will promptly appeal as we believe the jury erred in their verdict. This outcome has no bearing on our German case and we remain confident in the validity and infringement of our European patent."
"Since there always exists the potential for an adverse ruling in an individual case, Marathon has invested in a diversified portfolio consisting of 413 patents across 19 different subsidiaries, 12 of which are in active litigation with approximately 50 defendants."
Croxall continued, "We built our model predicated upon diversification of assets. Today, we see the true underlying value of that model. While disappointed, the case represents only one of many. We continue to have an extremely busy calendar of both Markman hearings and trials going forward."
About Marathon Patent Group:
Marathon is a patent acquisition and monetization company. The Company acquires patents from a wide-range of patent holders from individual inventors to Fortune 500 companies. Marathon's strategy of acquiring patents that cover a wide-range of subject matter allows the Company to achieve diversity within its patent asset portfolio. Marathon generates revenue with its diversified portfolio through actively managed concurrent patent rights enforcement campaigns. This approach is expected to result in a long-term, diversified revenue stream. To learn more about Marathon Patent Group, visit www.marathonpg.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
Certain statements in this press release constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Words such as "may," "might," "will," "should," "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "continue," "predict," "forecast," "project," "plan," "intend" or similar expressions, or statements regarding intent, belief, or current expectations, are forward-looking statements. While the Company believes these forward-looking statements are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on any such forward-looking statements, which are based on information available to us on the date of this release. These forward looking statements are based upon current estimates and assumptions and are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including without limitation those set forth in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), not limited to Risk Factors relating to its patent business contained therein. Thus, actual results could be materially different. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation to update or alter statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
I would simply mention that this trial is completely independent of the German trial where they already won with a finding of infringement.
EMI,
My understanding is that it has not gone to the jury yet. Perhaps Flyers can update us later. I believe he is there today if I read correctly earlier.
Good post EMI. I would presume it related to one of the parties in your post based on their removal from their site.
Marathon Patent Group's Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries MedTech Development Deutschland GmbH and Orthophoenix LLC Enter Into Settlement and License Agreement
LOS ANGELES, CA -- (Marketwired) -- 06/09/15 -- Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) ("Marathon"), a patent licensing company, announced today that its wholly-owned subsidiaries, MedTech Development Deutschland GmbH and Orthophoenix LLC, entered into settlement and license agreement. Due to a confidentiality agreement, the licensee may not be disclosed by name.
The consideration to be paid to MedTech Development Deutschland GmbH and Orthophoenix LLC and all other commercial terms of the license agreement are confidential.
The licensed patents include the German parts of European patent EP 1 938 765 B1 and EP 1 104 260 B2, both of which have been asserted in Germany and relate to medical devices involved in kyphoplasty surgery.
The Orthophoenix portfolio consists of patents, which relate to the treatment of bones including fractured and diseased bone elements. Claims coverage includes discharging a material into a bone cavity such that the bone assumes an expanded geometry. In addition to claims covering discharging a material into a bone structure the portfolio included additional patents and associated claims which address bone treatments in which an expandable structure is introduced into a collapsed bone and subsequently manipulated such that the structure forms an expanded geometry inside the bone. Exemplary patents in this portfolio include U.S. Patents 6,248,110, 6,280,456, 6,440,138, 7,044,954, and 6,863,672 with additional foreign patent grants providing International coverage.
About Marathon Patent Group
Marathon is a patent acquisition and monetization company. The Company acquires patents from a wide-range of patent holders from individual inventors to Fortune 500 companies. Marathon's strategy of acquiring patents that cover a wide-range of subject matter allows the Company to achieve diversity within its patent asset portfolio. Marathon generates revenue with its diversified portfolio through actively managed concurrent patent rights enforcement campaigns. This approach is expected to result in a long-term, diversified revenue stream. To learn more about Marathon Patent Group, visit www.marathonpg.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
Certain statements in this press release constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Words such as "may," "might," "will," "should," "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "continue," "predict," "forecast," "project," "plan," "intend" or similar expressions, or statements regarding intent, belief, or current expectations, are forward-looking statements. While the Company believes these forward-looking statements are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on any such forward-looking statements, which are based on information available to us on the date of this release. These forward looking statements are based upon current estimates and assumptions and are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including without limitation those set forth in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), not limited to Risk Factors relating to its patent business contained therein. Thus, actual results could be materially different. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation to update or alter statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Marathon Patent Group
Jason Assad
678-570-6791
Jason@marathonpg.com
Perhaps they hooked an institutional buyer with the 100k print.
It is, and has been, open to the public since day one. It can only be feasible that some in attendance could now possibly be forming strong opinions based on what they've observed. 300k volume before noon appears to speak for itself.
It was just stayed by Judge Sleet (same Judge as Bridgestone case) until the IPR's are finalized.
What will also be interesting is to eventually learn what some of the new 43 patents bought from Bridgestone cover and who and what they read on. One would have to wonder if current defendants, not limited to Schrader and TRW, might expect to see further challenges from Marathon in the future with regard to the newly acquired assets.
In other words, Marathon now owns rights to past and currently applied sensing technologies, but did they also recently acquire the IP that too covers the future evolution of such technologies?
Seems that future automobile developments will only include more of these technologies as they are now becoming foundational to the vehicles themselves. No longer an option, but applied and incorporated into all aspects of common cars as safety, convenience and monitoring devices.
TRW: The Company’s full year 2014 sales grew to a record $17.5 billion.
http://ir.trw.com/index.cfm
50k on the bid.
It is continuing today.
50,000 bidding $4.72 now.
66,000 share bid at $4.60 pre-market. You don't see that often.
Thank you Matt24d, appreciate your response.
Seems to me that this company really needs a foothold in the American mobile payments market. American investors want to see an American presence.
Can anyone explain to me the recent drop from the $1 area? Can anyone speak to any potential toxicity in the recent financings?
One could argue Sensata, (NYSE: ST) has a potential major liability on its hands.
With the transference of the German patent to Marathon, Scharader's liability can only have grown exponentially because they previously knew Bridgestone was not going to move for the injunction, not against them as a customer. However, with the asset now in the hands of Marathon, one could suggest it completely alters their risk profile in that their entire German operations can possibly be shut down. That is a complete new risk only now relevant due to the purchase of the asset just two weeks ago. Again, that previous disclosure long predates the acquisition of the German patent by Marathon. Whole different ball game now.
The risk of their German operations being shut down in totality, including everything in the entire supply and distribution chain, every car on every lot, can only exceed the $45M by many times over. We're talking about shutting down the entire German automobile market for all intents and purposes. Remember, they already lost the actual infringement case in Germany.
Also remember Schrader was acquired for $1B and that was 11% of the entire market cap of Sensata. The majority of the revenues for Schrader is from TPMS. In fact, I believe Sensata has $500M of goodwill alone on its balance sheet for the acquisition and has yet to take any impairment. A loss at trial, and or the injunction, could only cause a material write down of that goodwill and the admission that they had not properly advised investors of the potential associated risk.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sensata-technologies-announces-the-acquisition-of-schrader-international-2014-08-18
As for their comment that they believe they will win, it's exactly what I'd expect. If you expected them to admit in their filings that they expected to lose, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Marsprint,
I've long indicated I believed much of the price depreciation was due to a large original shareholder possibly moving out of their holdings. There were really on a select few who owned a large enough position to begin with to have imparted any noticeable pressure. Again, we know it's not management or any current board members.
I think it self evident that the sizeable associated selling has clearly led others doing the same as selling begets selling. That said, I personally believe a large percentage of the shares, and associated price pressure, have come from a fairly narrowly defined few, rather than a broad contingent. I believe it possible that we are now possibly starting to see the tail end of that specific supply exhausted. We'll see. Some large bids have appeared in recent minutes in fact, but time will tell.
Spetty,
Spangenberg is absolutely restricted in his ability to buy or sell shares. He is undoubtedly privy to a deluge of non public material information being intimately involved with many of the company's portfolio's and any potentially on going settlement discourse. In addition to his equity holdings, there is still a percentage participation in some of the patent monetization, therefore he can only be considered intimately involved.
Frankly, the day you see Croxall, Spangenberg, Knuettal or any of the executive team buying shares, that will be the day you know nothing of a material nature is going on.
The simple nature of their business, compared to others with different business models, makes insider buying inherently problematic, risky and unlikely. Can you imagine the regulatory scrutiny that would be drawn if an insider bought shares and subsequently they announced a large settlement just weeks later.
At any given point, there are likely material discussions occurring with up to 60 defendants, all involving non public material information.
Like you, I wish he could, it's simply impossible. I'm sure some insiders may want to buy, I just don't expect them to do it on advise of counsel and at the risk of going to jail for insider trading.
She also apparently made a statement that Bridgestone had "opened its door" to Schrader which appears to infer at one point perhaps they were working together on the technology. If so, the comment by Schrader about high risk of infringement would really make sense and point possibly to willful infringement.
I don't believe the total damage numbers disclosed yet, but the plaintiff did apparently indicate they will be seeking a 2.5% royalty if I understood correctly.
One thing I thought interesting was that apparently at some point in the opening statements, Ms. Elliot actually showed the jury an executive summary from Schrader itself that said something to the extent that corporate risk is perceived as high for IP infringement. One could assume the inference appears to be that Schrader itself knew that they would be infringing others IP and had internally already identified and documented that risk in their own executive summary. Pretty interesting stuff.
Anxious to hear Flyers comments from today.
My understanding EMI24 is that the jury is composed of 8 females. 1 African American, 1 other ethnicity, 6 Caucasian