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.
No don't believe so msl2008.
Was wondering if you or anyone else would pick up on that. Good catch.
See where she was also previously appointed to serve as a Special Master in the US District Court for the District of Delaware?
Honors & Awards
Ms. Elliott is consistently recognized by many legal publications and other associations for her exceptional work in the field of intellectual property litigation. These honors include the following:
Selected by peers as a leading intellectual property lawyer in Washington DC in the 2015 edition of Super Lawyers
Recognized in 2014 as one of the Top 250 Women in IP by Managing Intellectual Property
Recipient of the 2014 Outstanding Outside Counsel Award by The National Bar Association Commercial Law Section
Recognized in the 2014 edition of Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business as a leader in the field of intellectual property
Selected to On Being A Lawyer Of Color’s 2013 Hot List, meant to recognize lawyers who are achieving prominence and distinction in their practice and who are demonstrating a strong commitment to advancing diversity in the legal profession
Named to the 2013 "Women Worth Watching" list by Profiles in Diversity Journal
Selected as a 2013 Nation's Best Advocate: 40 Lawyers Under 40 by the National Bar Association and IMPACT
Recognized as one of the 2013 "top patent practitioners" by IAM Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners
Selected as a 2013 and 2012 Delaware Super Lawyers "Rising Star"
Recipient of the 2012 New Lawyers Distinguished Service Award from the Delaware Bar Association
Selected as a "Rising Star" in 2009 for the "FORTUNE Most Powerful Women Summit" dinner at the State Department
National Bar Association Honors Tara Elliott as Outstanding Outside Counsel
October 2, 2014
The National Bar Association Commercial Law Section honored Partner Tara Elliott with its 2014 Outstanding Outside Counsel Award, meant to recognize attorneys who are continuously demonstrating significant achievements in their practice while dedicating time towards community outreach and diversity efforts. Elliott was selected by a committee that consisted of both outside counsel and in-house counsel from Walmart, Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Dex Media, Diageo, United Technologies Corp., Liberty Mutual and Bank of America.
Elliott has extensive experience handling high-stakes intellectual property disputes and has advised clients on many issues including multi-million dollar matters involving e-commerce, information security, trade secrets and patent infringement. Elliott first-chaired a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Microsoft Corporation, which culminated in a bench trial before the Delaware Court of Chancery in May 2014.
In addition to her case work, Elliott serves on the Board of Directors and chairs the Governance Committee of Christiana Care, a not-for-profit, non-sectarian health system. From 2009 to 2014 she served on the Board of Directors of East Side Charter School & Learning Center, an organization committed to educating children in a safe, caring and nurturing environment for the opportunity to excel both academically and socially.
Elliott was honored at the National Bar Association's Annual Convention in Atlanta, GA, held from July 26 to August 1.
Marathon lead counsel...resume and accomplishments appear to speak for themselves.
https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.aspx?NewsPubId=17179871262
https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.aspx?NewsPubId=17179875008
http://www.diversityjournal.com/12922-women-worth-watching-winner-tara-elliott-moves-wilmerhale/
Tara D. Elliott is a seasoned trial-court and appellate lawyer with extensive experience handling high-stakes intellectual property disputes. A partner at WilmerHale, Ms. Elliott has a unique combination of private practice and government experience that provides distinctive value for her clients. She handles multi-million dollar matters involving patent infringement and corporate litigation concerning breaches of fiduciary duties, trade secrets, e-commerce and cybersecurity, among other issues. A determined leader and exceptional lawyer, Ms. Elliott has proven to be a trusted legal advisor to clients who value her ability to navigate their complex legal issues.
Ms. Elliott currently serves on the Federal Circuit's Lawyers' Advisory Council. She previously chaired the Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee by appointment of the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. She also served on the District of Delaware Merit Selection Panels for the US Magistrate Judge and Bankruptcy Judge vacancies by request of the Judges of the US District Court for the District of Delaware and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, respectively.
Prior to joining WilmerHale in early 2014, Ms. Elliott was a principal at a major US law firm, where she led litigation teams in case strategy and implementation, patent prosecution and client counseling. In 2011, she was appointed to serve as a Special Master in the US District Court for the District of Delaware.
Ms. Elliott served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, Chief Judge of the US District Court for the District of Delaware in 2006, and the Honorable Raymond C. Clevenger of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2007. She began her career at the Central Intelligence Agency where she was a computer engineer in the Directorate of Science and Technology and an analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence.
Ms. Elliott received her bachelor’s degree in computer engineering from Georgia Tech, where she attended on both academic and athletic scholarships. She received her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania, where she was senior editor on the Journal of Constitutional Law and a member of the Moot Court Board and National Trial Team.
Marasprint,
I believe if you look at the foreign dates, you will find both nullity hearings still on the calendar as you had envisioned.
Medtech Stryker GmbH & Co. KG Nullity 1st EP 1 104 260 B2 (DE 699 33 037 T3) 06/18/15
Medtech Stryker GmbH & Co. KG Nullity 1st EP 1 938 765 B1 (DE 698 41 759.3) 07/21/15
Marasprint,
The company has published its entire U.S. and foreign key court dates on its website. Available here:http://www.marathonpg.com/patent-portfolio/key-court-dates
In the foreign ones, Oral Hearings I believe are the same thing as a trial here in the US.
They actually were required to disclose that settlement in an 8k Spetty. It was material. I would presume any additional potential large settlements would also require similar disclosure also constituting a material event.
You are most likely correct Marasprint.
hweb2,
That is a question I forgot to ask them about, but your right, it is a major step for the company.
Knowing Meller, I would presume he is right on top of it. I've personally found him to be highly intelligent and driven.
Everything he has done, and continues to do, is clearly in anticipation of trying to earn the opportunity to trade on a larger exchange.
I believe that event alone could be transformational for the company and us shareholders as a more sophisticated institutional audience could then buy the shares, rather than the current primarily retail based audience.
If I here anything on that matter, I will advise. As good as a presenter as Meller is, I wish the LD Micro presentation was being webcast. I think the more people who actually hear him and his conviction, the more compelled investors will be to take notice.
Nonetheless, it is only going to take just one decent buyer and the supply demand economics here is going to shift. In light of the tiny float and high insider ownership, we could see a very quick move up in the shares with minimal interest.
That's the beauty here, the fundamental results speak for themselves and by all generally accepted valuation metrics the shares are remarkably undervalued relative to comps in the space. Just to trade on par with the space, the shares would need to reach almost 3X current levels, or roughly $12.
Better, most comps aren't growing, or profitable like SilverSun. Big opportunity here imo should they continue to execute and tell the story.
I got feedback on Meller's presentation at Marcum. Spoke to no less than three person's who went to it. They said he was absolutely excellent.
Said he is a great speaker, had a killer presentation, and exuded complete confidence. Really no surprise to me having personally spoken with him on numerous occasions. That said, I'm glad others are now experiencing the same.
This is one of those situations where we will wake up one day and this company will no longer be a secret. With the CEO out there now telling investors the story, while also executing so flawlessly, it's really only a matter of time.
At just 1X's sales, you will rarely ever find a better, or well managed profitable growth opportunity, at such a deep value price.
He will be presenting at LD Micro next week which should be more great exposure.
Marathon Patent Group (MARA)
Signal IP On Track; Schrader Up Next Week
Summary
Yesterday Marathon announced its Signal IP case in the Central District of California is proceeding as planned. The court rejected the defendants' request to stay proceedings. We believe Marathon will proceed with at least three patents and eight claims against each defendant, both very healthy numbers. The trials should start in early Jan. with one every 60 days against each defendant. Ford and Fiat Chrysler moved venues and are in separate actions.
Key Points
Signal IP involves occupant restraint and safety system patents, and defendants in the Central District of California include the N. Am divisions of Honda, Nissan, BMW, Mazda, Mercedes, Subaru and Mitsubishi. Damages claimed are several hundred million dollars. Marathon recently had a favorable Markman ruling, and the case is proceeding as planned. There are 3-4 patents and 8-16 claims per defendant. We believe such numbers position Marathon very well at trial. Marathon settled with the lower value defendants of Volvo and Jaguar already.
On Monday, the Bridgestone/Marathon v. Schrader trial begins. These patents involve tire pressure monitoring systems. We see this trial as the first revenue-generating event for a top five portfolio, meaning having the potential to produce an 8-figure award. A jury verdict should occur within two weeks.
Yesterday, there was a Markman hearing in the Andrulis proceedings. We should get a Markman ruling in a few months.
Overall, we see at least one large potential revenue catalyst each quarter in 2Q (Schrader), 3Q (Stryker-MedTech) and 4Q (Dynamic Advances-Apple).
Macro pendulum slowly starting to swing back...
High Court Nixes 'Good Faith' Induced Infringement Defense
By Ryan Davis
Law360, New York (May 26, 2015, 10:20 AM ET) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to induced infringement, saying the Federal Circuit erred when it created the defense in a decision that vacated a $74 million verdict against Cisco Systems Inc.
Cisco has been embroiled in its patent dispute with Commil since 2007. (Credit: AP) In a 6-2 decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the justices held that while a company's belief that a patent is not infringed means that it does not...
Appears as though the Signal IP cases will be proceeding full steam ahead. Preliminary indication by judge post last Thursday hearing favorable in being inclined to deny all of the defendants motions to stay.
Assuming the judge sticks with his tentative view in his forthcoming ruling, one would have to believe this a nice potential catalyst for settlements in these cases.
Signal IP v. Kia Motors America
2:14-cv-02457 / California Central / John A. Kronstadt / Open 420 days / 1 Active Defendant
Events
Case has entered Scheduling
Docket Updates
94
MINUTES OF MOTION HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Kronstadt: The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to deny Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc. 's Motion to Stay (the "Motion"). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and will issue a ruling. The status and scheduling conference as to all cases is held. The Court states its views that it is notinclined to bifurcate damages discovery and expects counsel to confer in advance of filing a motion to avoid duplicative filings. The Court confers with counsel regarding the proposed dates. On or before May 28, 2015, counsel shall file a revised schedule of pretrial and trial dates consistent with the Court's views. The Court will issue a scheduling order upon review of the parties' submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. Please see Order for further details. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (cr)
> Additional Updates
________________________________________
Signal IP v. Mitsubishi Motors North America
8:14-cv-00497 / California Central / John A. Kronstadt / Open 420 days / 1 Active Defendant
Events
Case has entered Scheduling
Docket Updates
68
MINUTES OF MOTION HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Kronstadt: The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to deny Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc. 's Motion to Stay (the "Motion"). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and will issue a ruling. The status and scheduling conference as to all cases is held. The Court states its views that it is notinclined to bifurcate damages discovery and expects counsel to confer in advance of filing a motion to avoid duplicative filings. The Court confers with counsel regarding the proposed dates. On or before May 28, 2015, counsel shall file a revised schedule of pretrial and trial dates consistent with the Court's views. The Court will issue a scheduling order upon review of the parties' submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. Please see Order for further details. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (cr)
> Additional Updates
________________________________________
Signal IP v. Nissan North America
2:14-cv-02962 / California Central / John E. McDermott / Open 404 days / 1 Active Defendant
Events
Case has entered Scheduling
Docket Updates
85
MINUTES OF MOTION HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Kronstadt: The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to deny Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc. 's Motion to Stay (the "Motion"). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and will issue a ruling. The status and scheduling conference as to all cases is held. The Court states its views that it is not inclined to bifurcate damages discovery and expects counsel to confer in advance of filing a motion to avoid duplicative filings. The Court confers with counsel regarding the proposed dates. On or before May 28, 2015, counsel shall file a revised schedule of pretrial and trial dates consistent with the Court's views. The Court will issue a scheduling order upon review of the parties' submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. Please see Order for further details. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (cr)
> Additional Updates
________________________________________
Signal IP v. Subaru of America
2:14-cv-02963 / California Central / John A. Kronstadt / Open 404 days / 1 Active Defendant
Events
Case has entered Scheduling
Docket Updates
74
MINUTES OF MOTION HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Kronstadt: The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to deny Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc. 's Motion to Stay (the "Motion"). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and will issue a ruling. The status and scheduling conference as to all cases is held. The Court states its views that it is notinclined to bifurcate damages discovery and expects counsel to confer in advance of filing a motion to avoid duplicative filings. The Court confers with counsel regarding the proposed dates. On or before May 28, 2015, counsel shall file a revised schedule of pretrial and trial dates consistent with the Court's views. The Court will issue a scheduling order upon review of the parties' submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. Please see Order for further details. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (cr)
> Additional Updates
________________________________________
Signal IP v. Mercedes-Benz et al.
2:14-cv-03109 / California Central / John E. McDermott / Open 398 days / 1 Active Defendant
Events
Case has entered Scheduling
Docket Updates
83
MINUTES OF MOTION HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Kronstadt: The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to deny Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc. 's Motion to Stay (the Motion). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and will issue a ruling. The status and scheduling conference as to all cases is held. The Court states its views that it is notinclined to bifurcate damages discovery and expects counsel to confer in advance of filing a motion to avoid duplicative filings. The Court confers with counsel regarding the proposed dates. On or before May 28, 2015, counsel shall file a revised schedule of pretrial and trial dates consistent with the Court's views. The Court will issue a scheduling order upon review of the parties' submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. Please see Order for further details. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (cr)
> Additional Updates
________________________________________
Signal IP v. BMW of North America et al.
2:14-cv-03111 / California Central / John A. Kronstadt / Open 398 days / 1 Active Defendant
Events
Case has entered Scheduling
Patrick S Park from DLA Piper was added as representation for BMW of North America, LLC
Docket Updates
74
NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Docket 73 should have been docketed to case CV 14-03113 JAK (JEMx). (cr)
> Additional Updates
________________________________________
Signal IP v. Volkswagen Group of America
2:14-cv-03113 / California Central / John A. Kronstadt / Open 398 days / 3 Active Defendants
Events
Case has entered Scheduling
Docket Updates
95
MINUTES OF MOTION HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Kronstadt: The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to deny Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc. 's Motion to Stay (the "Motion"). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and will issue a ruling. The status and scheduling conference as to all cases is held. The Court states its views that it is notinclined to bifurcate damages discovery and expects counsel to confer in advance of filing a motion to avoid duplicative filings. The Court confers with counsel regarding the proposed dates. On or before May 28, 2015, counsel shall file a revised schedule of pretrial and trial dates consistent with the Court's views. The Court will issue a scheduling order upon review of the parties' submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. Please see Order for further details. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (cr)
> Additional Updates
________________________________________
Signal IP v. Porsche Cars North America
2:14-cv-03114 / California Central / John A. Kronstadt / Open 398 days / 1 Active Defendant
Events
Case has entered Scheduling
Docket Updates
68
MINUTES OF MOTION HEARING AND STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge Kronstadt: The motion hearing is held. The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to deny Defendant Volkswagen Group of America Inc. 's Motion to Stay (the "Motion"). Counsel address the Court. The Court takes the Motion UNDER SUBMISSION and will issue a ruling. The status and scheduling conference as to all cases is held. The Court states its views that it is notinclined to bifurcate damages discovery and expects counsel to confer in advance of filing a motion to avoid duplicative filings. The Court confers with counsel regarding the proposed dates. On or before May 28, 2015, counsel shall file a revised schedule of pretrial and trial dates consistent with the Court's views. The Court will issue a scheduling order upon review of the parties' submission. IT IS SO ORDERED. Please see Order for further details. Court Reporter: Alex Joko. (cr)
> Additional Updates
Good stuff Investentialist. Thank you for weighing in.
In addition, correct me if I'm wrong, but after nearly ten attempts to challenge the 798 patent, Apple has no further pending papers before the PTAB challenging it and they may not appeal the non-institution of an IPR to the Federal Circuit?
Finally something we can all agree on!
"The revenue increase in our full year estimate is due to a higher probability of meaningful settlements in tire pressure monitoring cases strengthened by the acquisition of a key patent announced today.
Marathon generated 1Q15 revenue from 25 licensees under 13 license agreements. The five largest settlements accounted for 87% of revenue.
Six Markman hearings are scheduled over the remained of the year covering 14 defendants. Three U.S. trials covering 31 defendants are scheduled as are nine German trials covering 12 defendants.
Possible outsize returns this year are related to enforcement actions against automakers in tire pressure monitoring cases and against Apple alleging SIRI violates natural language processing patents.
We believe Marathon Patent Group is distinctive among patent monetization companies due to its diversified patent portfolios and potential for stable cash flows.
The revenue increase is due to a higher probability of settlements this year related to tire pressure monitoring. We also believe there is meaningful upside to our estimates in both automotive related fields and natural language processing in the Dynamic Advances case versus Apple.
Purchase is recommended for speculative investors willing to assume the risk of lumpy revenue recognition and the risk of adverse legal rulings. Our 12-month price target remains $12 a share based on a P/E multiple of 12x our 2016 estimate, adding back non-cash charges and fully taxing the result."
"While evidence of MARA's strong business model emerged last year with 526% rev growth, the rubber really hits the road this year in our view. MARA had no revenue events with top 5 portfolios (meaning 8-figure potential) last year. We see at least three potential such events this year. The first one is in June, with a US trial related to tire pressure technology patents. MARA has already won an infringement ruling in Germany related to the patent.
2Q event. The first big potential revenue generator is in June. A US trial starts June 1; MARA represents the plaintiff against the largest tire pressure monitoring company in the world. MARA has already won an infringement ruling in Germany related to the same patents. Trials last about two weeks; hence, a verdict should occur this quarter.
3Q event. There is a nullity hearing in the Stryker case June 18 in Germany. In this hearing, the judge will determine if this patent is valid. Typically, in Germany the judge gives a preliminary ruling before the hearing, usually 10-15 pages describing his initial position. In this case, the judge provided a 45-page dissertation with all arguments in MARA's favor. If the patent is found valid, there will be a damages hearing in 3Q, where MARA's award is determined. Settlements can always occur as well around these events.
3Q/4Q event. In MARA's case against Apple related to natural language processing (Siri), there are summary motions June 24 and the court will set a trial date shortly thereafter. Hence, a trial could occur in 3Q or 4Q. This case is in NY, which is a better venue than California. The inventor is in NY. Eight requests for IPRs by Apple were denied. Apple has changed its lawyers three times in the case, and Apple was sanctioned because its expert witness didn't prepare the expert witness report. If successful, the patents relate to many other entities in mobile devices, cars, TVs, etc..."
Good point msl. Ultimately, the market is about "what have you done for me lately". Like I said before, thank God they only reported 526% growth last year and not a paltry 520%! ;)
A good case could be made that the company is a victim of its own early success. Q3 clearly created near term expectations almost impossible to live up to. It's also indisputable that the space in general has been under pressure. I personally continue to expect that pendulum to soon swing back the other way. Recent reform activity appears to affirm my thoughts.
That said, the real elephant in the room is that there has been a very large seller, or few, over recent months. There has been a clear supply/demand imbalance in the shares for many months now. Their consistent selling has caused even the most confident of us to wonder if there was something we're missing. It has affected investor psychology, turning previously present greed, into fear.
Generally speaking, all companies at a similar stage will see a turnover in their shareholder base in the early years. Those who had large early positions with low cost basis's will often monetize their positions and move on being replaced by others who are buying at current levels expecting appreciation going forward. Like a company must evolve, too must its shareholder base.
Not all investors are the same, time horizons will ultimately vary on an individual basis. It should be expected and the net result of this turnover, from weak hands to stronger hands, is often what inevitably allows the shares to trade higher, assuming management performs.
Unfortunately, this exodus of a mere few can often have a very noticeable short term effect on the market. It's simply supply and demand and admittedly, this stock is still inherently illiquid at times. It doesn't take much in the way for shares for sale, or being bought, to see increased volatility.
That said, don't we essentially know who owns the larger positions in the company? All one must do is look at the cap table in their filings, previous 13G filings etc., to see that it could really could only be a few. We also know who it is not, Croxall, Spangenberg, or any other insiders or board members. Importantly, it's nobody who in theory knows the most about what's actually occurring within the company itself.
The good thing is that it doesn't matter who it is, it's irrelevant, they have every right to do what they want with their money. It's likely not personal, just business and them managing their money as they deem appropriate. Let them do what they need to do, it should soon pass.
Why? because no seller has an infinite supply of shares. Their supply will run out and the pressure will abate. If you look at the volume and how long the selling has been present, one might conclude we may already have eaten through the vast majority of it already with possibly minimal supply still left.
Good points as usual msl2008.
EMI24,
Well stated, thank you.
Interesting theory Jalase.
While I personally wish it higher, I would simply point out that short interest remains fairly minimal at just 325,000 shares. In recent weeks, the number has remained consistent.
Short Percent of Float
3.40 %
Short Interest Ratio (Days To Cover)
5.5
Short % Increase / Decrease
-0 %
Short Interest (Shares Short)
325,500
Short Interest - Prior
326,800
Update: Marathon Patent Group Exceeds Q1 Estimates
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3195506-update-marathon-patent-group-exceeds-q1-estimates
May. 19, 2015 10:41 AM ET | About: Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (MARA), Includes: ST
Summary
•Marathon Patent reported Q1 revenues of $4.1M vs. estimates of $3.5-4M showing growth of 47% for the quarter.
•Marathon also announced the acquisition of 43 International patents in the automobile area.
•Marathon’s new 460 patent has already been granted Final Judgment and Marathon will file an Injunction in Germany to stop Schrader from continuing to manufacture this type of equipment.
•A major US trial is set to start June 1st against Schrader and the new IP provides additional leverage against them.
•The additional acquisition of IP and imminent trial against Schrader furthers my belief that this is going to be a huge year for Marathons shareholders.
I recently wrote an article Did The German Courts Unlock Hidden Value In Two Patent Plays? that discussed two of the best IP plays around the market today, Acacia Research (NASDAQ:ACTG) and Marathon Patent Group (NASDAQ:MARA). In it I mentioned that many investors have yet to realize the significance of the German courts in terms of IP monetization. These courts which operate at a much faster pace than many of the US courts also allow the plaintiff the ability to seek injunctive relief if the judge rules that there is likely patent infringement going on. This is very significant and can be a highly motivating factor in terms of settling prior to actual court litigation.
On May 14th Marathon Patent filed Q1 numbers and revenues grew 47% from last year's first quarter. The Seeking Alpha transcript can be found here. Along with this solid growth came the announcement of the acquisition of 43 international patents of which the most significant one at this time is patent EP1309460 (DE 60142907.9). This patent is involved in a pending lawsuit in Germany against Schrader that already had a final judgment against it in the German courts on June 12th, 2014.
What this means is that Marathon now has the right to enforce injunctive relief against Schrader in Germany that will prevent them from making or selling any tire pressure monitoring system covered by this patent. To understand the significance of just this one patent let's take a closer look at the 460 patent. This patent was developed by Bridgestone and has a priority date of July 26th, 2000. It took over 10 years to actually get it published on August 25th, 2010.
Looking at the claims it is for an Electronic Tire Management System that has become ubiquitous in almost every line of car that exists today and the priority date sets from when it can be enforced from. That's 15 years of potential infringement and the patent has already made it through the first hurdle in Germany and Marathon stated they will be seeking an injunction against Schrader just like they did against Stryker (NYSE:SYK) in another German case. Keep in mind this is in addition to the US case that will start against Schrader in the US in only two weeks on June 1st.
Schrader was recently acquired by Sensata Technologies (NYSE:ST) at the end of 2014 for $1 billion. Schrader considers themselves the world leader in Tire Pressure Management Systems (TPMS) and has sold over 300 million of the devices.
As mentioned in the original article the potential of litigation in the German courts could provide huge returns for companies like Marathon and Acacia for years to come. This potential has in no way been factored into their market caps which are only $500 million for Acacia and $72M for Marathon. The ability to seek injunctive relief in Germany is a huge factor in getting companies to settle prior to actually going through the next step and is exactly what Marathon has already done in its German case against Stryker. I
In the Stryker case Marathon was successful in getting a favorable ruling on two patents in its Medtech portfolio on November 3rd, 2014. Less than a month later they announced they had taken all necessary steps to start enforcing the injunction which stopped Stryker from manufacturing and selling any of the products covered under these patents in Germany. I expect the same speed with the above mentioned Schrader case. As Doug Croxall said in the Q1 transcript:
"I've talked many times about the big events that we have ahead of us and I'm not going to continue to drone on. And we look forward to our Q2 earnings call and look forward to the announcement tomorrow morning and the activity throughout the month of June, July and August."
As with any microcap stock there are risks. The ability to raise capital is one of the key problems many small companies face. Marathon so far has been able to accomplish this on very good terms but will need to continue to do so in the future and this area must be closely monitored. Being in the IP monetization space brings several additional areas to watch. One being the ability to continue acquiring prime assets and also the ability to monetize these assets in an expedient manner. Investors should continue to monitor these areas to make sure Marathon continues down its very successful path to date.
While nothing in the IP monetization business is easy or happens as quickly as shareholders would like the above statement may be the most obvious precursor for what could be the most exciting summer in Marathon Patent's short history. Given this is really only its second full year in operation it's already hitting on all cylinders and with six Markman hearings, three US trials and nine German trials scheduled for the remainder of the year the excitement is just beginning.
Terms of the agreement are confidential. I would defer to Flyers who appeared to be working on an update as indicated earlier.
Having said that, here is a comment from Mike Latimore of Northland this am which is insightful.
"MARA management mentioned that the company has used Fortress financing to acquire the rights to a patent, which relates to tire pressure monitoring technology. Schrader is the defendant. Schrader has 45% share of the $1.4 bil market we believe. MARA and the plaintiff (US tire maker) have worked together to date, having won an infringement hearing in Germany. MARA and the plaintiff have a trial date in the US for June 1; hence, a verdict is likely in 2Q. We view this as a top five portfolio for MARA, meaning having 8-figure potential. MARA also had a successful Markman ruling heading into trial."
Roth ups revenue guidance from $32.5M to $35.1M
"The revenue increase in our full year estimate is due to a higher probability of meaningful settlements in tire pressure monitoring cases strengthened by the acquisition of a key patent announced today."
Think today's announcement represents the entire asset purchase Spetty. I believe he indicated on the call yesterday that there was a German patent they had acquired plus the additional roughly 40 patents they were working on. Appears they may have wrapped the entire deal up with today's news.
However, it certainly would appear to leave the door open to additional possible asset acquisitions in the future due to the nature of the relationship. The seller clearly is an innovator in their space and surely owns a ton more IP that may be of interest at some point.
Croxall "I want to again reiterate, we would never take on debt unless we had already identified a specific use of proceeds that we believe has the potential of generating return on investment far in excess of our cost of capital. The Fortress transaction enabled us to essentially exchange short-term debt with long-term debt, while positioning us to be able to take advantage of certain opportunities."
* 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
It's there in the IR section CHM.
Direct link also here: http://public.viavid.com/player/index.php?id=114481
Thanks Flyers.
So the three analysts who I view as most knowledgeable and credible, you, Mike Latimore (Northland) and Bill Gibson (Roth), have them at $3.2M, $3.1M and $3.5M respectively for Q1 revenues.
Marathon Patent Group to Announce First Quarter Financial Results on May 14, 2015
LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwired - May 8, 2015) - Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) ("Marathon"), a patent licensing company, announced today that the Company will issue financial results for its first quarter financial results after the market closes on Thursday, May 14, 2015.
Marathon will host a corresponding conference call to discuss the results with Chief Executive Officer Doug Croxall and Chief Financial Officer Frank Knuettel II on Thursday May 14, 2015 at 4:30 PM ET/1:30 PM PT. To participate in the conference call, investors from the U.S. and Canada should dial (877) 407-0784 ten minutes prior to the scheduled start time. International calls should dial (201) 689-8560.
In addition, the call will be broadcast live over the Internet and can be accessed through the Investor Relations section of the Company's website at www.marathonpg.com. The broadcast will be archived online upon completion of the conference call. A telephonic replay of the conference call will also be available until 11:59 p.m. ET on Thursday, May 28, 2015 by dialing (877) 870-5176 in the U.S. and Canada and (858) 384-5517 internationally and entering the pin number: 13609019.
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.
Well reasoned and intelligent thoughts postyle, much like always.
Greed and fear are powerful things. They often cause normally rational people to become a little irrational, much like we have witnessed first hand in this very forum today.
In light of the price degradation, all while the company continues to incur what most would say is a long stream of favorable developments, not really anything adverse to speak of, it's only natural that some would begin to second guess their investment thesis.
I think some would be well served to consider the simple fact that Marathon has a pretty tight capital structure with a fairly limited float. We know that not a single member of management is responsible for the sizeable selling of recent months. Not Croxall, Knuettel, Spangenberg, Crawford, Jani or Sanchez. No insider selling whatsoever by a single one of them, same can be stated for current board members. Those who know the most have not sold a single share, some having been with the company since its infancy, better than 2 plus years. Not a share despite a nearly 5 fold increase in share price from low to high.
We do know a few small funds sold a few shares, but not nearly enough to account for the pressure. None were ever influential in the name and they were small positions to begin with relative to what some funds might eventually want to own in a name.
One must wonder, the list of potential owners of size is fairly small and defined. What if it eventually turns out that the depth of shareholders who have sold considerable shares in recent months is really fairly narrow? Perhaps only a few may ultimately be responsible for a large chunk of the recent supply? Selling begets selling and that's clearly what has happened, but the truth is that only a few had a large enough position to have effectuated the pressure of recent months and we know who it's not.
Who was it? I really don't care because ultimately it shouldn't matter. Whoever they are, they don't have an infinite supply, it will run out. Logically one could presume that perhaps they have sold the majority of their position already. Regardless, if someone wants to sell and move on, isn't it better that they do it here at these prices as opposed to higher levels where many of us believe the stock ultimately could trade to? Levels like what both recent analysts at Roth and Northland have put as price targets, ($12).
Frankly, all companies at this stage will inevitably see some turnover from early shareholders to newer shareholders. Where shares essentially transfer from weaker hands to stronger hands. It's a process that must occur in order to enable the shares to eventually trade to higher price points.
While all admittedly painful in the short term, none of us like to see our account values erode, despite the belief it only temporary, I can't isolate anything with the story or the company's underlying fundamentals that has changed whatsoever. In fact, most would argue both have improved.
Simply looking at the calendar of Markman hearing and trials for the balance of the year, and just learning of a near term trial in just 2 weeks against Schrader here in the US, "54% of global vehicle platforms carry Schrader TPMS technology off the assembly line, with over 160 million Schrader sensors on the road today," while they already have won an infringement ruling in Germany, I find it hard to believe that Croxall and company aren't exactly where they had always hoped to be at this point.
Marasprint,
I respect your opinion and right to voice it. That said, I think your emotions may be getting the best of you. I think your better than that.
Not sure if you saw this yesterday by one of the analysts who was apparently just with management last week in person. I would also point out he is extremely well regarded and respected.
Northland:
"While evidence of MARA's strong business model emerged last year with 526% rev growth, the rubber really hits the road this year in our view. MARA had no revenue events with top 5 portfolios (meaning 8-figure potential) last year. We see at least three potential such events this year. The first one is in June, with a US trial related to tire pressure technology patents. MARA has already won an infringement ruling in Germany related to the patent."
"2Q event. The first big potential revenue generator is in June. A US trial starts June 1; MARA represents the plaintiff against the largest tire pressure monitoring company in the world. MARA has already won an infringement ruling in Germany related to the same patents. Trials last about two weeks; hence, a verdict should occur this quarter.
3Q event. There is a nullity hearing in the Stryker case June 18 in Germany. In this hearing, the judge will determine if this patent is valid. Typically, in Germany the judge gives a preliminary ruling before the hearing, usually 10-15 pages describing his initial position. In this case, the judge provided a 45-page dissertation with all arguments in MARA's favor. If the patent is found valid, there will be a damages hearing in 3Q, where MARA's award is determined. Settlements can always occur as well around these events.
3Q/4Q event. In MARA's case against Apple related to natural language processing (Siri), there are summary motions June 24 and the court will set a trial date shortly thereafter. Hence, a trial could occur in 3Q or 4Q. This case is in NY, which is a better venue than California. The inventor is in NY. Eight requests for IPRs by Apple were denied. Apple has changed its lawyers three times in the case, and Apple was sanctioned because its expert witness didn't prepare the expert witness report. If successful, the patents relate to many other entities in mobile devices, cars, TVs, etc...
MARA has a number of smaller opportunities that can produce solid, profitable results on a quarterly basis, but the three above hold material potential this year. MARA reports 1Q on May 14. We expect a solid qtr."
An analyst apparently issued the following yesterday.
"While evidence of MARA's strong business model emerged last year with 526% rev growth, the rubber really hits the road this year in our view. MARA had no revenue events with top 5 portfolios (meaning 8-figure potential) last year. We see at least three potential such events this year. The first one is in June, with a US trial related to tire pressure technology patents. MARA has already won an infringement ruling in Germany related to the patent."
"2Q event. The first big potential revenue generator is in June. A US trial starts June 1; MARA represents the plaintiff against the largest tire pressure monitoring company in the world. MARA has already won an infringement ruling in Germany related to the same patents. Trials last about two weeks; hence, a verdict should occur this quarter.
3Q event. There is a nullity hearing in the Stryker case June 18 in Germany. In this hearing, the judge will determine if this patent is valid. Typically, in Germany the judge gives a preliminary ruling before the hearing, usually 10-15 pages describing his initial position. In this case, the judge provided a 45-page dissertation with all arguments in MARA's favor. If the patent is found valid, there will be a damages hearing in 3Q, where MARA's award is determined. Settlements can always occur as well around these events.
3Q/4Q event. In MARA's case against Apple related to natural language processing (Siri), there are summary motions June 24 and the court will set a trial date shortly thereafter. Hence, a trial could occur in 3Q or 4Q. This case is in NY, which is a better venue than California. The inventor is in NY. Eight requests for IPRs by Apple were denied. Apple has changed its lawyers three times in the case, and Apple was sanctioned because its expert witness didn't prepare the expert witness report. If successful, the patents relate to many other entities in mobile devices, cars, TVs, etc...
MARA has a number of smaller opportunities that can produce solid, profitable results on a quarterly basis, but the three above hold material potential this year. MARA reports 1Q on May 14. We expect a solid qtr."
Whatever it is, the addressable market appears to speak for itself.
"54% of global vehicle platforms carry Schrader TPMS technology off the assembly line, with over 160 million Schrader sensors on the road today."
EMI...did you catch the Schrader comment? US Trial in a couple weeks, June 4 it appears, dealing with tire pressure sensors.
"over 54% of global vehicle platforms carry Schrader TPMS technology off the assembly line, with over 160 million Schrader sensors on the road today."
Schrader has established itself as the global market leader by providing easy-to-use TPMS technology for OEMs as well as the service and repair community. In fact, over 54% of global vehicle platforms carry Schrader TPMS technology off the assembly line, with over 160 million Schrader sensors on the road today.
The battery-powered TPMS sensor monitors a vehicle’s tire pressure, whether the vehicle is stationary or in motion. The sensor is attached to the vehicle’s tire valve stem, with the sensing electronics inside the tire. The sensor periodically measures tire pressure and temperature and transmits this information to an on-board receiver via radio frequency (RF) technology. The receiver decodes the RF signals, and alerts the driver if any of the vehicle’s tire pressures drop below a pre-programmed threshold.
Postyle,
Did you catch the June trial in just a few weeks with Schrader?
Postyle,
Did you catch the June trial in just a few weeks with Schrader?