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.
Do we know who will testify at court? I assume the inventors will, William Carter and who else?
This is an interesting question. Maybe Leanne will consider $5M in 2020 from carter vs. $XXM in litigation settlement (or nothing at all if the jury sides with the Defendants)... I guess it is a possibility that she may roll the dice?!
you might be surprised
That was exactly my question "I wonder why Leanne brought in Carter?"
Anyway, it appears to have hit a nerve or irked some people and its not that important. I just wondered.
As to the consulting - maybe she should have (LOL)
Incorrect. I have done many deals with RPX and your comments are inaccurate.
I am not entertaining further posting on this matter. Sincerely.
PTT is dead and the brain child is Pal Maliga not Carter.
I did find a post that one of our fellow posters posted some time ago, which is very helpful:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=106487950
Common denominator = IPNav; Spangenberg and Leanne; which is my point.
Anyway, point is made and noted; countered and noted.
Correct, they do buy but their preference is to license ... least expensive option (not on the hook for main. fees etc)
That is RPX's business!
They tend to not buy assets but license for their members. Its a membership model and CB is and has been on their radar.
I am aware of that article. Threatening and making threats is not an outcome. I know that incident.
Again, point to an outcome that HE is responsible for. Not IPNav, Not Leanne, Not Spangenberg etc
Perhaps I misunderstood but isn't Comcast the only one on the hook for treble damages?
Did I great that wrong?
Thank you :)
They must add different skill sets - a team of sorts.
$$
I don't see anything he did outside of IP Navigation Group doing the heavy lifting?
That aside, does anyone know why Leane exited and sold to Carter?
What do you mean by this? What is the history?
"I still think Billy Carter is going for cash + royalties. He wanted just cash or a buyout they could have made that happen by now. Billy has a history of going for everything he can get and making you aware of it while he’s doing it. He’s a true shark"
It’s ChanBond’s case to drop not UOIP
If Arris or the acquirer purchase the assets they are admitting liability - why would they ever do that? Plus they are not a Defendant ...
Arris is not accused - not sure why their potential acquisition is relevant. The potential acquirer will assess the CB case and determine their own valuation, if any. I’m certain the indemnification is capped.
I’m looking at UOIP shares and wondering how buying U shares gets me shares in CB, LLC? Is a dividend at the CB level vs U level? Sorry if that seems basic ...!
I did not keep up on posts but this is a "classic" ...
Marathon’s decision to turn over patents to Fortress may be part of capitulation Spangenberg predicted would mark bottom of U.S. patent market
Two years ago, Erich Spangenberg, the founder and owner of IP Navigation Group, predicted the bottoming of the U.S. patent market would be marked by a great capitulating event such as the collapse of a major patent licensing player or the sale of a major company or portfolio at a fire sale price.
Spangenberg also predicted that the bottom would be plumbed by the first half of 2016, with the rebound occurring in the second half of 2017. (See https://thepatentinvestor.com/2015/11/great-ip-recession-seen-ending-in-2016-recovery-in-2017/ and https://thepatentinvestor.com/2016/10/great-capitulation-recovery-u-s-patent-market-may-generation-away/)
Since then, the former Unwired Planet Inc. sold its patent portfolio to Les Ware's Panoptis Patent Management for $40 million. In addition, the former WiLAN Inc. has transformed itself into Quarterhill Inc., a diversified holding company much less dependent on patent monetization. Moreover, the former Vringo Inc. has exited the patent licensing business and become a diversified holding company called FORM Holdings Corp.
What Spangenberg perhaps didn't expect was that the turn of his own fortunes or those of his associates might play a a role in that capitulation.
With last month’s news that Spangenberg had parted ways with Marathon Patent Group (MARA), and the licensing company's decision to start handing over patents to a unit of Fortress Investment Group to repay $16 million in debt, that prediction has come uncomfortably close to home.
Since then, Marathon also has announced plans to end the employment contract of Chairman and CEO Doug Croxall who has served as chairman and CEO of Marathon since November 2012. Croxall, who signed a six month retention agreement, has been friends with Spangenberg since 2004 when as CEO of Firepond he engaged IP Nav to help monetize Firepond's patents and generated about $90 million in licensing revenue from 2004 to 2009.
To be sure, Spangenberg and IP Nav have been less visible in the U.S. patent monetization market in recent years, though very active as an IP advisor.
In March, Spangenberg formed Hermes Patents, an IP advisory firm, with Pascal Asselot, a partner at France Brevets. His LinkedIn page also says he's been managing director of SK14 Advisors, an IP advisory firm since March. In addition, he's been CEO of nXn Partners, a predictive analytics firm from 2014 to present. It also lists his time at IP Nav as 2003 to 2014. In January, IP Nav President Deirdre Leane left to join Technicolor SA.
In the meantime, Spangenberg also has sold some assets to Marathon. Indeed, Marathon paid $10 million for MedTech Development Deutschland and OrthoPhoenix. About 45% of MedTech is owned or controlled by Spangenberg. Other properties Spangenberg sold to Marathon include Dynamic Advances, which along with its partner Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute famously won a $24.5 million settlement from Apple Inc.
Soon after, Croxall brought Spangenberg on board as director of international acquisitions and licensing to try to replicate his past success at IP Nav, which Marathon has been betting on for the last year.
When Spangenberg joined Marathon, Croxall said Spangenberg’s connections were “opening the flood gates” and “transformational.”
Unfortunately for Marathon shareholders, the flood gates and transformation didn't go according to plan.
After a terrific first half of 2016, Croxall and Spangenberg’s transformation ran into the reality of the post America Invents Act market, where inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board proved an efficient way to stymy licensing companies.
The trend of alleged infringers, who only reluctantly settle, was born out of the relative predictability of IPR invalidations, the Federal Circuit's and U.S. Supreme Court’s growing skepticism of injunctions and large damage awards and the confidence that the system was tilted in alleged infringers’ favor.
According to RPX data, at least 63 IPR petitions have been filed against Marathon patents, though some may have been filed before Marathon owned the patents.
As a result, Marathon was unable to make good on Croxall’s forecast that 2016 revenue would exceed $40 million, though it came in at a record $36 million.
Unbowed, Croxall continued to tell shareholders including financier Jeffrey Feinberg that Marathon would produce revenue of $40 million to $50 million in 2017 and even more in 2018 and beyond.
Feinberg has now filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Marathon, Croxall and CFO Francis Knuettell II in Superior Court in Los Angeles. Spangenberg's name is conspicuously absent from that complaint most likely because he played no role in Marathon management's discussions with Feinberg.
Alleged infringers who could always read Marathon’s balance sheet and see the burden of $16 million in debt owed to a unit of Fortress Investment Group were surely tempted to delay and wait for the inevitable.
But Spangenberg’s ability to reinvent himself should never be doubted or underestimated. His creativity was never more apparent than when he teamed with Hayman Capital Management's J. Kyle Bass to use the IPR process to try to invalidate weak drug patents. Though the profitability of their shorting strategy has been questioned, no one questions the brilliance and audacity of the bet, except perhaps the pharma giants they targeted.
Perhaps there is wisdom and a vision in Spangenberg’s decision to pull back and wait for the next opportunity.
When The Patent Investor reached out to Spangenberg for comment on this article, he said in an email: "You can quote me: F*ck you. You are a f*cking moron and you would not know an opportunity if it carried a large neon sign and bit you in your fat a**."
—To reach the reporter responsible for this story, please contact Dan Lonkevich at 707 318-7899 or at dan@thepatentinvestor.com
With IPNAV still under construction I assume it is dead? Erich went to MARA and now Hermes. Is Deidre Leane at IPNAV? is IPNAV still sending patent portfolios to MARA? Who is doing the analysis at MARA? So many questions.
Why does MARA have two CTO's?
http://www.marathonpg.com/about/management-team
Do they have the team to deliver on large portfolios or did they mention any expansion plans to build out the team? What about IPNav?
Agreed on Apple settlement - good result and far from a nuisance value - i would never say that. Just wondered if RPI signed off.
This is not a new target, it is a license to the USA patents for a German Co that was sued in Germany. Note it is Royalty not a lump sum. Accounting tricks will come in to play - mark my words that this License is likely not worth the paper it is written on. Would like to hear Doug give an estimate on how much he thinks it is worth.
Any news on Arbitration with RPI on Apple settlement?
Business is not working --
Titanium 2 Bone: http://www.titanium2bone.com/#
Note KMC system
http://www.maxxspine.de/de/
Note KMC system
Maxxspine was sued in Germany
Siri is very specific in the way it operates. Does MARA have proof of infringement for other players such as Samsung, LG and so on? What about Google? All these cases should be ready to file now - they had long enough to create the infringement theory. Or do they infringe? Doug needs to address.
It is common knowledge that Spangenberg set MARA up with their projects. MARA - commercialization aside - didn't bring in new projects. My guess is Doug will turn to Spangenberg again to bail him out and since he is a large shareholder (per filings) it is in his interest to make sure Doug/MARA is bailed out. I have zero confidence in Doug and that team. Speculative on my part.
... subject to arbitration one assumes?
Reading previous posts - the only way Doug/MARA will survive is if Erik recuses him again
Riveting read! ... So everything rides on the one HP Opportunity?
Where are all the new cases? When will they file new cases to ensure longevity? Or is Doug waiting for another IP Navigation Group to find him cases and keep him/MARA alive? Doesn't look like he can do it himself.
Yes, one needs to post a Bond with the courts which could be hefty
Interesting reads - I think a $40M settlement is likely if you want to keep it and not go to the appellate courts etc.
As one post reminded us; the $40M has to be divided into Contingency fees, money back to RPI .. presumably they have some skin in this game and it is a License from RPI (which is why they are co-plaintiff), partner fees ... does IP Navigation Group get a cut? What's left?
Backfill/new portfolios - I said it already, they are not getting any new projects or at least any visible ones. The HP/commercialization attempt is a long way off.
Fair point.
https://www.docketnavigator.com/document/order/6d0e59f0-ddc2-a817-cb55-85658a3e1252
Mr. Yerman has calculated plaintiffs' damages, in the event a factfinder concludes Apple has infringed the ’798 Patent, utilizing the analytical model, to be $429 million. Dkt. No. 211-3 at 42.
As a result of his analysis under the hypothetical negotiation approach, Mr. Yerman concludes that an appropriate damage award, in the event infringement is proven, would be between $175 and $200 million. Dkt. No. 211-3 at 107.
Mr. Yerman concluded that a hypothetical negotiation would have resulted in a license, for the remaining life of the ’798 Patent, costing Apple between $175 and $200 million in royalties. Id. at 39, 991-08.
(1) Plaintiffs' motion to strike the invalidity report and selected
invalidity and damages opinions of Dr. James Allen (Dkt. No. 203) is DENIED.
(2) Defendant's motion to strike untimely disclosed or improper expert reports (Dkt. No. 197) is DENIED.
(3) Defendant's motion to preclude the testimony of Robert M. Yerman (Dkt. No. 196) is DENIED
January 6, 2016
Could not agree more dolphinsmike ....
All the portfolios they acquired were in litigation or prepared for litigation - they have not replaced any of the settled cases with new portfolios ... they have not delivered.
Watch them settle Apple for a fraction of what was/is promised (unless RPI dig in their heels).
"misdirection of the ceo and cockiness of the team" - perfect description
Yes, I agree with your points - they make perfect sense.
Consolidation of cases is another way to spare additional expense ... file a wave of cases, get them consolidated and then treat as "one". Of course it adds additional expense (llc IPRs by all parties if they don't group up) but at least it is capped at a min.
Anyway, it is interesting and worth a "why/why not?" query
That makes sense but by the same token suing at time intervals like one has here keeps the IPR window open for a long time. Sue Apple, IPR window expires and validity is left up to the District court. Then sue, for example, Google and the IPR window opens up again and so on. Google, in this example, also gets to learn from Apple's mistakes at the PTAB.
Just seems odd to me.
If they are infringing why leave the money on the table?
Wonder if there is a plan to go after them? Strange this has not happened already.
Seems odd when the likes of Kyle Bass can file an IPR against Pharma and have it instituted. Real party of Interest was queried but dismissed and allowed to go through to institution regardless ...
I do not disagree with your comments but one cannot dismiss the fact that Apple may look to invalidate this patent in some way.
Apple doesn't have to join. They were barred for the one you refer to (http://patentlaw.jmbm.com/2014/09/ptab-to-apple-no-third-or-fourth-bite-at-the-apple.html)
Anyone can invalidate that patent - there are lots of third parties out there who do just that. They file the IPR, Apple won't appear on the filing. The party that cannot file right now is Apple and only Apple due to the time bar.
Apple is a member of many consortiums/bodies and any one of those consortiums/bodies can file on its behalf (the consortium is the real party of interest not Apple)
Any one can try. Take, for example, RPX or Unified Patents or any other third party set up for this purpose - they can file on behalf of their clients or members. Anyone can be a client/member - If I was Apple I would pay $250K to get a third party to invalidate the ONE patent in suit versus paying millions in a pre-trial settlement or running all the expense of going to trial and perhaps losing. Then comes the expense of an appeal (inevitable) and possibly a much lower payout but in the millions range. $250K vs. $M's ....
As to the earnings call - lots of skirting and avoiding questions. Obligations aside, nothing new was learned. The one trick pony of the Apple case continues. Nothing about the seed capital vs equity stake ... are the patents granted? how long before the market catches up for the MARA team to row in re infringement etc it is not like they have any manufacturing capability in house (the two HP guys are not MARA employees - right?)