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.
anyone watching BMR
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/beamr-nvidia-team-accelerate-adoption-120000281.html
just wait until we announce our deal with NVDA 😘
Is it time to buy yet, or do we wait for .01 ? What's do we wait for the clarinet to make a sound?
Guess Lebby had nothing exciting to say in Puerto Rica today.
I wonder why he went?
I wonder if anyone heard his presentation?
or would they post the same thing, maybe tomorrow???????
2023, another year of lies and false promises, what will 2024 hold????????????
The better question is when have the dynamic duo, with the help of an incompetent Board, ever done anything?
You guys are really amusing. The only appraisal that is going on is the one the bankruptcy court will require
Ha!
you sound like G's love child!
The current value is zero, the creditors will take it all. The President and the Chairman are buffoons who have milked this company dry for over 20 years.
Have you ever talked to them. Ha!
Have a merry Xmas!
Wall Street Analysts Think InterDigital (IDCC) Could Surge 28.81%: Read This Before Placing a Bet
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/wall-street-analysts-think-interdigital-idcc-could-surge-28.81:-read-this-before-placing-a
that's funny, that money is already out the door, and in insiders pockets !
InterDigital To Challenge Lenovo's Landmark FRAND Win By Alex Baldwin Law360, London
(September 21, 2023, 6:47 PM BST) -- An appeals court will hear the entirety of wireless and video technology company InterDigital's appeal in a high-profile spat with Chinese giant Lenovo over fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory licensing rates for InterDigital's patents.
Judge Richard Arnold said in a newly public Tuesday order that the Court of Appeal will reconsider all contested grounds of the landmark ruling that held Lenovo should fork over a $184.9 million lump sum to InterDigital, after High Court Judge James Mellor granted a far more limited appeal back in June.
According to the brief order, each of InterDigital's four grounds of appeal had a real prospect of success, contrary to Judge Mellor's initial decision that refused all four of InterDigital's grounds.
InterDigital sued Lenovo alleging that the company was using its patented technology without a license.
Three of the five patents levied by InterDigital were considered valid and essential by the High Court, which then moved to determine whether terms to license those patents floated by both InterDigital and Lenovo were fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND.
Lenovo asked to pay $80 million for a six-year license for the patents, with a 15% leeway, whereas InterDigital argued that it should pay around $337 million.
Judge Mellor ruled in June that Lenovo should pay a lump sum of $138.7 million to InterDigital, which factored in past sales of its products — noting that there was "no doubt" that Lenovo had prevailed in this trial and was the "overall winner."
InterDigital sought permission to appeal on four grounds. The primary ground concerned the specific licensing rate determined by Judge Mellor, arguing that it was not FRAND for the court to allow the effects of certain discounts to "depress" the rates of the license.
Judge Mellor agreed in a follow-up judgment that there were "some points of principal" but that they were "wrapped up" in a bid to get the Court of Appeal to accept an argument which he had rejected at "several different levels."
The High Court also dismissed InterDigital's remaining appeals, which focused on certain "economic adjustments" made to the licensing rate, the court's rejection of InterDigital's "top down cross-check" model for determining rates, and the finding that InterDigital was an "unwilling licensor."
However, Judge Mellor allowed InterDigital to appeal against the "points of principal" in which he determined the FRAND judgment, noting that it was possible to "take them in a slightly different order."
He also gave Lenovo the go-ahead to cross-appeal whether limitation periods play a role in the relationship of "willing" licensors and licensees.
The judgment also determined that Lenovo must pay an additional $46.2 million, upping the lump sum the Chinese company owes to $184.9 million.
But now, the Court of Appeal has ruled that InterDigital's primary ground of appeal concerning the specific licensing rate had a real chance of success, and that it was "unsatisfactory" to limit the appeal in the way Judge Mellor had.
Judge Arnold also granted permission to appeal on the remaining three grounds, noting that Judge Mellor had refused these grounds because he had considered that they were "contingent" upon the primary ground of appeal succeeding.
Representatives for InterDigital and Lenovo did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.
In the High Court proceedings, InterDigital was represented by Adrian Speck KC, Mark Chacksfield KC and Edmund Eustace of 8 New Square, instructed by Gowling WLG.
Lenovo was represented by Daniel Alexander KC of 8 New Square and James Segan KC and Ravi Mehta of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.
The case is InterDigital Technology Corporation v. Lenovo Group Ltd., case number CA-2023-001492, in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
guess the presentation today was another dud
InterDigital Hits Lenovo, Motorola With Patent Fights
By Adam Lidgett · Listen to article
Law360 (September 6, 2023, 7:02 PM EDT) -- Wireless and video technology company InterDigital has launched legal proceedings in federal district court and at the International Trade Commission alleging Lenovo and Motorola laptops, desktops, tablets and smartphones infringe multiple patents on coding and wireless technology.
Various InterDigital entities filed a complaint in North Carolina federal court and at the ITC Friday against Lenovo and Motorola, claiming they infringed five InterDigital patents that "enable wireless file-sharing between devices" and are important to "delivery and consumption of an enormous amount of video content on a daily basis."
In the district court case, InterDigital wants a finding that Lenovo is infringing the patents-at-issue and for damages, among other things, according to court records.
In the ITC case, InterDigital is seeking a ban on imports of the products, including the Lenovo ThinkPad laptop and Motorola Edge+ smartphone, according to ITC records.
Chinese technology giant Lenovo earlier this summer walked away the "overall winner" in a London court judgment on costs in its long-running dispute with wireless and video technology company InterDigital over fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory licensing rates for wireless patents.
"We remain committed to receiving a fair return on the billions of dollars that we have invested in foundational wireless and video innovation that drives so much of the connected world around us and which Lenovo continues to infringe in a number of their products," Josh Schmidt, InterDigital's chief legal officer, said in a statement to Law360 Wednesday.
Representatives for Lenovo and Motorola did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The patents-at-issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,250,877; 8,674,859; 9,674,556; 9,173,054 and 8,737,933.
InterDigital is represented by M. Scott Stevens, Philip C. Ducker, Katherine G. Rubschlager, Ryan W. Koppelman, Neal A. Larson, Jenny J. Wang and Adam D. Swain of Alston & Bird LLP.
Counsel for Lenovo and Motorola was not immediately available Wednesday.
The district court case is InterDigital Inc. et al. v. Lenovo Group Limited et al., case number 5:23-cv-00493, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
--Additional reporting by Alex Baldwin. Editing by Caitlin Wolper.
talk about a death of a 1,000 cuts
Any word on MRGE.?
Big Tech Voices Concern Over EU's Essential Patent Plan
By Alex Baldwin · Listen to article
Law360, London (August 17, 2023, 1:39 PM BST) -- Technology giants are still skeptical about the European Union's proposal to overhaul the system for licensing standard-essential patents, telling the bloc that its move to create a more "transparent" framework could lead to mounting costs and further delays in the licensing process.
Add required Alt Text here for accessibility purposes
The European Commission, pictured, wants to create a more transparent and efficient system for licensing patents deemed "essential" to some technology. (iStock.com/PaulGrecaud)
The latest responses to the European Commission's proposal — which was open for consultation until Aug. 10 — shows that interested parties are in favor of the push for greater transparency. But patent owners, and the companies that implement them, are concerned that the proposed regulations could introduce more roadblocks to the licensing system.
The commission has set out to create a more transparent, predictable and efficient system for licensing patents deemed "essential" to some technology, including 4G/5G, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.
A company that wants to release a mobile phone or laptop in the market must pay for a license for these patents to be in the legal clear to use the industry-wide standards.
Both the licensor and the company seeking to use the patented technology must agree to a license for the patent on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, known as FRAND. But what exactly are "fair" terms and rates for these patents? That question has created a series of legal disputes in recent years.
"This is a very divided landscape between patent holders and implementers," Allen & Overy LLP partner David Por said. "When these big waves of [standard-essential patents] cases get filed, they just overwhelm the courts ... Judges have been quite vocal for quite a time about the fact that they would welcome an alternative way to solve these disputes."
Courts in England, Germany and China have, so far, ruled that they have the jurisdiction to set licensing rates for these patents. But now the European Commission seeks to create a new framework to tackle the problem of what it described as "inefficient licensing" for these patents.
A promise of greater transparency for licensing of standard-essential patents, or SEPs, is central to the proposal. The commission plans to introduce requirements for SEP owners to register their patents on a database with the EU's Intellectual Property Office and make patent owners enter into "nonbinding" FRAND determination proceedings before litigating. It also wants to set up a procedure for determining the "essentiality" of patents.
The immediate response from the sector was skeptical. Major players including Apple Inc., Dell, InterDigital Inc., Qualcomm Inc. and Nokia Corp. have voiced their concerns about the plan directly to the commission.
The commission hopes that a register for SEPs would allow for a more streamlined process for implementers looking to license patents. But SEP owners are asking whether the resources required to implement this outweigh any potential benefits.
Semiconductor giant Qualcomm said that the concept of a register is "sound," but contended that the inevitable costs associated with registering are "unlikely to be worthwhile in the absence of substantial licensing activity." The company also pointed out that the burden of the additional costs associated with the new framework seem to be directed exclusively at the patent owners.
"If the registry is enacted, then it should be enacted in a balanced way," Qualcomm said in its response to the consultation. "The proposed measures impose all obligations and virtually all of the direct and indirect costs on patent holders. Transparency from implementers should also be required, in the form of a registry of standards-compliant products."
The register would not be the first of its kind: many standards-setting agencies maintain public databases on SEPs, including the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, or ETSI.
The question of how exactly the register would exist alongside these established databases was raised by the institute itself, which asked the commission to clarify whether it intends to have an "interrelation" between the two registers.
Por, of Allen & Overy, acknowledged that the ETSI database was "extremely comprehensive." But he said it typically holds too much information to be useful for determining what exactly is essential and non-essential. Patent owners tend to "over-declare" the essentiality of their patents, he said.
Apple said that the creation of a SEP register was "desirable" for increasing transparency, but added that the regulation, as it stands, does not provide "sufficient incentives to ensure that SEP owners will make accurate, complete and timely registrations." The iPhone maker also expressed concerns that the plan does not set out any serious consequences for making inaccurate or incomplete registrations.
The commission also proposed enforcing a mandatory procedure to determine seemingly nonbinding FRAND terms before patent owners are allowed to enforce the patent against an implementer.
Ericsson said that proposition was "confusing and complex." The telecoms giant said that could yield an "ideal setting for the creation of many (new) purely procedural friction points" that could be exploited to delay the conclusion of a licensing agreement.
InterDigital — which was a party to one of the FRAND disputes heard in London in recent years, which led to Lenovo handing over a lower-than-expected $138 million in royalties — also echoed the concern that either side could use these proceedings to delay licensing talks. The patent owner added that it would be "legally unclear" how these nonbinding commitments would work in practice and would probably be treated differently depending on the jurisdiction.
And Dell said that the requirement for a pre-litigation FRAND determination "has promise." The consumer tech giant also told the commission that it supported the publication of the final nonbinding FRAND determination to give third parties insight into rates associated with specific patent portfolios.
"Any delay associated with the FRAND determination process is relatively inconsequential," Dell added.
The proposal also posits mandatory "essentiality checks" for a sample of patents registered by larger companies, which would be handled by Europe's Intellectual Property Office. The office would collect and publish data on a representative "ratio" of all patent owner SEPs.
But the checks must be reliable and the sampling methodology sound if the ratio is to be representative, Qualcomm said. If that is not the case, it might give companies looking to license SEPs "unreliable information" as they argue for FRAND rates.
Canon Inc. doubted that the EUIPO has the "knowledge and experience necessary" to deal with the so-called essentiality checks as well as the FRAND determinations. The camera company said that the office's "extensive experience" in dispute settlements is limited purely to trademark and design matters.
Canon also questioned whether the EUIPO would be equipped to deal with the number of checks it would have to conduct in the first few years that the system is in operation. The commission estimates that 14,500 patents will have to be checked, according to the company. The 30 full-time employees assumed to be carrying out the checks "cannot possibly" be responsible for that many checks, Canon said.
Apple argued in its responses that much of the criticism of the essentiality checks falls flat. It noted that the regulation is intended to "provide useful inputs for bilateral negotiations" rather than being the "final word" on the matter.
Although the respondents have been quick to poke holes in the new proposal, there is a long road of refinements and amendments ahead. The proposal will have to be approved by member states and the bloc's parliament and will probably face opposition every step of the way.
"Maybe things can be improved, but it needs to be properly considered with input from more sides, but I just don't think this has been," Andrew Sharples, partner at EIP, a patent boutique law firm, said.
"Maybe as it goes through Parliament it will get that input and may impact on how this proposed legislation progresses," Sharples added.
10q filed today, no news on the "buyer"😥
Does anyone know the name of the company that they have a contract with
InterDigital Beats Antitrust Suit Over Patent Licenses, For Now
By Henrik Nilsson · Listen to article
Law360 (August 8, 2023, 8:12 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge on Tuesday dismissed with leave to amend a suit brought by a Swiss chipmaker alleging that InterDigital Inc. is breaking antitrust laws by demanding unfairly high royalty rates to license patents considered essential to 3G and 4G cellular tech standards.
In a minute order following a hearing on Wilmington, Delaware-based licensing company InterDigital's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo tossed Zurich-based U-blox AG's antitrust suit with leave to amend.
The judge's ruling comes after InterDigital accused U-blox, which makes microchips for wireless mobile devices, of manufacturing a dispute to impose litigation costs and secure a favorable patent licensing deal.
U-blox filed the underlying complaint on Jan. 1, alleging that InterDigital violated commitments to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, a standards-setting organization, by failing to license its patents to U-blox on "fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory" conditions.
InterDigital has collected "approximately 2,400 U.S. patents and 11,500 non-U.S. patents" and is now demanding "royalties that are discriminatory and far higher than FRAND rates," according to the suit.
U-blox urged Judge Bencivengo to set a fair licensing rate and stop InterDigital "from wrongfully interfering with U-blox's customers and downstream manufacturers."
But in April, InterDigital argued that it never accused U-blox of actually infringing on any patents, saying U-blox is seeking to force InterDigital to grant a patent license.
"U-blox has no contractual right to such a license, and InterDigital has not sued (or even threatened to sue) U-blox for patent infringement. There is thus no cognizable dispute between the parties," InterDigital argued in its motion to dismiss.
Additionally, InterDigital said that the patents it was trying to license to U-blox were not "essential" to manufacturing any products U-blox sells, meaning there isn't any legal way to apply antitrust laws that let courts jump in and set rates.
Much of the language in that lawsuit over InterDigital's licensing practices had been largely identical to language in an earlier lawsuit that U-blox filed in 2019. That case was settled and according to InterDigital, the terms of the settlement also prevent U-blox from filing the kind of lawsuit that it filed ever again.
Counsel for U-blox declined to comment on Tuesday. Lawyers for InterDigital did not immediately return a request for comment.
U-blox is represented by Martin Bader, Ryan Patrick Cunningham, Stephen S. Korniczky, Ericka Jacobs Schulz and Mona Solouki of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
InterDigital is represented by Richard A. Kamprath, Nicholas Mathews, Blake Bailey, James H. Smith and Eliza Beeney of McKool Smith and James J. Yukevich and Nina J. Kim of Yukevich Cavanaugh LLP.
The case is U-blox AG et al. v. InterDigital Inc. et al., case number 3:23-cv-00002, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Another month in the record book
Anyone still here??????????????????
Just jump from 1300 stores to 2800, is traction happening
Lenovo Named 'Overall Winner' In FRAND Costs Ruling
By Alex Baldwin · Listen to article
Law360, London (June 27, 2023, 9:26 PM BST) -- Chinese technology giant Lenovo has walked away the "overall winner" in a London court judgment on costs in its long-running dispute with wireless and video technology company InterDigital over fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory licensing rates for wireless patents.
Although the High Court ordered Lenovo Group Ltd. Tuesday to pay an additional 4% interest on top of $138 million sum to license InterDigital Technology Corp.'s standard-essential patents and held that Lenovo "lost" on "foreign law" matters in the proceedings, there was "no doubt" that Lenovo came out on top in the trial and that InterDigital should bear the rest of the costs in the licensing proceedings, Judge James Mellor ruled.
As Lenovo had alleged it should not have to pay interest, Judge Mellor ordered the company to pay InterDigital's legal costs related to the "interest issues. But, the judge added, "The fact that Lenovo will be 'writing the cheque' and a sizeable cheque at that cannot, in my view, convert InterDigital into the winner of the FRAND trial."
InterDigital's suit against Lenovo accused the Chinese company of infringing five of its telecommunication patents, arguing Lenovo used InterDigital's patented technology in its products without a proper license.
The English courts first ruled that three of the five patents were valid and essential, then moved on to determining whether terms of the licensing agreement offered by InterDigital and Lenovo were fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND.
InterDigital proposed an offer that would see Lenovo pay about $337 million for a six-year license, whereas Lenovo said it should pay $80 million for the same term, with a 15% leeway to account for sales of its devices.
But Judge Mellor ruled in March that neither InterDigital nor Lenovo's offers were FRAND, and said the court should set the rate, ordering Lenovo to pay a lump sum of $138.7 million, which included past sales of its products.
However, Judge Mellor did not determine in the March ruling whether Lenovo should pay interest on its sales.
InterDigital contended that Lenovo should pay at least a 4% interest rate for its sales, a figure that it says Lenovo had previously agreed to in a draft license agreement. It also floated a higher 5-10% interest rate based on expert evidence.
Lenovo argued the court did not have a jurisdiction to award interest in this "contractual" claim. It added that granting interest payments would encourage licensors to "hold out" from setting FRAND terms to secure interest payments down the line.
In Tuesday's judgment, Judge Mellor held that the 4% rate previously agreed upon by the parties was suitable and found no justification to set a higher rate.
The judge also gave InterDigital permission to appeal two points of his FRAND judgment concerning whether he should have taken into account the "subjective" view on the value of the patent license, and whether interest should be awarded in the sum "derived from the comparables analysis."
InterDigital's Chief Legal Officer Josh Schmidt welcomed the court's "careful consideration," decision to award interest and granting permission to appeal these aspects of the ruling.
The court also gave Lenovo the go-ahead to appeal the court's decision on whether limitation periods "have a role to play in the relationship between willing licensor and willing licensee."
John Mulgrew, Lenovo's vice president, deputy general counsel and chief intellectual property officer, also cheered the decision, calling the case a "broader, landmark victory for the technology industry and the customers we serve."
InterDigital was represented by Adrian Speck KC, Mark Chacksfield KC and Edmund Eustace of 8 New Square, instructed by Gowling WLG.
Lenovo was represented by Daniel Alexander KC of 8 New Square and James Segan KC of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Kirkland & Ellis International LLP.
The case is InterDigital Technology Corp. and others v. Lenovo Group Ltd. and others, case number HP-2019-000032, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
Another week has passed. The new 10q will be like reading a comic book.
People have been saying that for 20 years.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. That's about two times more than the dynamic duo!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm anticipating good news
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a waste of time that was. Why does he bother with these shows ?
Considering what?
Seems like we are waiting for a Crow to die?
Or is that just a wish?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has held up well considering
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duh!!!! try google or is that too much research for you. Or just look on the VLN website
just added another state, Montana. Store count nationwide, over 1000. 100+ since last week
Bard id getting smarter
Lightwave Logic, Inc. (LWLG) signed a contract with a leading global communications company for the delivery of PICs for use in a 400Gbps data center application. The company expects to begin shipping the PICs in the second half of 2023.
However, the company has not disclosed the name of the customer. This is common practice for companies that sign commercial contracts, as they do not want to give their competitors an advantage.
The contract is a significant milestone for Lightwave Logic, as it marks the first time that its PICs have been deployed in a commercial product. The contract also validates the company's technology and its ability to deliver high-performance PICs at scale.
Lightwave Logic is a leading developer of photonic integrated circuits (PICs) for high-speed communications. The company's PICs are based on its proprietary photonic bandgap (PBG) technology, which offers a number of advantages over traditional semiconductor technologies. PBG PICs are more efficient, more scalable, and can be manufactured at lower cost than traditional semiconductor PICs.
Lightwave Logic's PICs are used in a wide range of applications, including data center interconnects, 5G networks, and optical sensing. The company has a strong customer base, including leading global communications companies and research institutions.
The signing of this commercial contract is a major step forward for Lightwave Logic. It validates the company's technology, its ability to deliver high-performance PICs at scale, and its market opportunity. Lightwave Logic is well-positioned to continue to grow its business and to play a leading role in the development of the next generation of high-speed communications networks.
Is the April 15th date still operative?
And remember all those guys in the picture were young when they 1st invested in LWLG
what r u talking about ??????
Have a happy Memorial Day, and keep your eye on the obituaries.
Show me the money !!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone listening to the NVDA call. Talks about how data centers are going to change and how they need more speed and less energy
No news today, means no deal by meeting, market is tanking
Looks like somebody died
The big seller is in there pounding today. I wonder if the band will step in at the close.
As of the issuance date of these financial statements, no transactions per above occurred and no shares of common stock were issued.