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.
Marathon Patent Group Receives Order Setting Case Schedule in Signal IP and Updates Key Court Dates
LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwired - Jun 15, 2015) - Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) ("Marathon"), a patent licensing company, announced that on June 12, 2015, the company's subsidiary Signal IP, Inc., received an order setting the trial schedule in the matter of Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., case number CV14-02962 JAK (C.D. Cal.).
The order also applies to the Cases of: "Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.," "Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors of North America, Inc.," "Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.," "Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc.," "Signal IP, Inc. v. Subaru of America, Inc.," "Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al.," "Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC et al.," "Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.," and "Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars of North America, Inc."
On May 26, 2015, The District Court of The Central District of California ("the Court") issued an order denying the motion to stay pending reexamination submitted by defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Bentley Motors, Inc. In its conclusion, the Court ruled, "For the foregoing reasons, when all the relevant factors are considered, there is not a sufficient basis to enter the requested stay. Therefore, the motion is DENIED."
On June 12, 2015, the Company's subsidiary, Signal IP, Inc., received an order setting the trial schedule as follows:
Trial 1: March 15, 2016 at 9:00 am
Trial 2: May 10, 2016 at 9:00 am
Trial 3: July 12, 2016 at 9:00 am
Trial 4: September 13, 2016 at 9:00 am
Subsequent trials shall start approximately every 60 days thereafter. If an action against one defendant is resolved, then all subsequent actions are moved up to an earlier date.
Doug Croxall, CEO of Marathon stated, "We are pleased both by the Courts ruling denying the defendants requested stay, followed by its order setting the trial schedule. With the first trial commencing March 15, 2016, followed by one every 60 days thereafter, and defendants subject to being advanced on the calendar if an action against one defendant is resolved, we are ensured an accelerated trial schedule. With discovery now open, and having already reached settlements with previous defendants, we hope that the trial schedule will foster additional settlement activity and revenue generation. The addition of these trials only adds to an already expansive list of potential revenue opportunities for the company."
Croxall continued, "In upcoming months, we expect to further leverage existing and already licensed assets in Signal and other portfolios owned by Marathon against entirely new defendants, building on the current approximate 50 defendant count. We believe there remains significant opportunity within our current asset base to broaden the depth of monetization of existing revenue generating portfolios, as well as asserting assets currently not in monetization."
In addition to the trial scheduling order described above, the Company has also updated its current scheduled court calendar.
June 18 and 19, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in MedTech GmbH v. Stryker GmbH in the Munich District Court
June 29, 2015 - A Markman hearing is scheduled to be held in Selene v. Fluke Electronics Corporation in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
July 1, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in MedTech GmbH v. Joline GmbH in the Munich District Court
July 1, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in MedTech GmbH v. Maxxspine Ltd. in the Munich District Court
July 1, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in MedTech GmbH v. SAM in the Munich District Court
July 1, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in MedTech GmbH v. Signus Medizintechnik GmbH in the Munich District Court
July 21, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in MedTech GmbH v. Stryker GmbH in the Munich District Court
July 30, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in TLI Communications GmbH v. Facebook, Inc in the Munich District Court
July 30, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in TLI Communications GmbH v. Yahoo!, Inc in the Munich District Court
September 4, 2015 - A Markman hearing is scheduled in TLIF v. Biomet Inc. in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
September 14, 2015 - A jury trial is scheduled in IP Liquidity v. TRW in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
September 17, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in TLI Communications GmbH v. Google, Inc in the Munich District Court
September 17, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in TLI Communications GmbH v. Apple in the Munich District Court
October 29, 2015 - An oral hearing is scheduled to begin in MedTech GmbH v. Stryker GmbH in the Munich District Court (Patents EP1104260 B2 and EP1938765 B1)
November 9, 2015 - A jury trial in E2E v. Cabelas, Inc. in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
December 1, 2015 - A Markman hearing is scheduled in Selene v. Trend Micro America, Inc. in The United States District Court, Northern District of California
December 3, 2015 - A Markman hearing is scheduled in Orthophoenix v. Osseon in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
December 3, 2015 - A Markman hearing is scheduled in Orthophoenix v. Stryker Corporation in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
December 3, 2015 - A Markman hearing is scheduled in Orthophoenix v. Dfine Inc. in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
December 3, 2015 - A Markman hearing is scheduled in Orthophoenix v. Wright Medical Technology Inc. in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
March 15, 2016 - A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. (1 of 10 defendants) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. *(Subsequent trials shall start approximately every 60 days thereafter. If an action against one defendant is resolved, then all subsequent actions are moved up to an earlier date)
April 11, 2016 - A jury trial is scheduled in TLIF v. Biomet Inc. in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
May 10, 2015 - A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. 1 of 10 named defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
June 16, 2016 - A jury trial is scheduled in IP Liquidity v. Celgene in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
July 22, 2015 - A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. 1 of 10 named defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
August 8, 2016 - A jury trial is scheduled in Selene v. Fluke Electronics Corporation in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
September 13, 2016 - A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. 1 of 10 named defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
November 15, 2016 (Approx) - A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. 1 of 10 named defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
January 15, 2017 (Approx) - A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. 1 of 10 named defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
March 15, 2017 (Approx) - A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. 1 of 10 named defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
May 15, 2017 (Approx) - A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. 1 of 10 named defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
June 12, 2017 - A jury trial is scheduled in Orthophoenix v. Osseon in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
June 12, 2017 - A jury trial is scheduled in Orthophoenix v. v. Stryker in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
June 12, 2017 - A jury trial is scheduled in Orthophoenix v. Dfine in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
June 12, 2017 - A jury trial is scheduled in Orthophoenix v. Wright Medical in The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
July 15, 2017 (Approx) - A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. 1 of 10 named defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
September 15, 2017 (Approx) A jury trial is scheduled in Signal v. 1 of 10 named defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/marathon-patent-group-receives-order-121500022.html\
"If my memory is correct, when they originally arrived at their projections, they did not incorporate any potential revenues from a Schrader trial, because most of them if not all, did not even know it was going to happen. So it is evident the current stock price is based much more upon negative psychology than rational analysis/understanding of the fundamentals. "
All of this is true as far as it goes. But one piece we don't know is how much MARA paid for the Schrader revenue deal and how much that takes away from our ability to pick up additional quality patents. Was it just the cost of litigation or something more that we took on? And how much was the litigation cost? Do we have the capital to keep replenishing our portfolio, or was that spent for Schrader and we're now looking at equity financing?
Negative psychology is borne in open questions. Today we have a few more unanswered ones.
~ yanqui
As for what it means for the TRW trial - we got a Not Invalid ruling so I assume that trial is still ongoing as 'infringement' is a company-specific finding. That said, someone would have to assess how close to Schrader the TRW situation is to assess likelihood of success. I also don't know how much $ is riding on the TRW suit but likely smaller than what was at stake here.
The bigger issue is the sense of 'inevitability' of success that defendants feel about MARA actions. If the sense is that they are very careful with their patents and suits, and thus win most of their cases - settlement becomes easier.
I think settlements just became much more difficult. It will take some time to regain what we lost today.
As always, jmo ~
yanqui
Looks like news has broken - appears to not be good news.
Evidence that the poor price performance in recent weeks has not been the work of the dastardly 'shorts' as the already minimal short position actually *decreased* by 5%:
http://newswatchinternational.com/news/update-marathon-patent-group-inc-short-interest-drops-by-5.html
~ yanqui
New tweet/post from Flyers with Day 7 notes. Thanks for all you do, Flyers - these are invaluable!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/268246101/MARA-June-8-2015-Trial-Day-7
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY PENDING REEXAMINATION
http://ir.marathonpg.com/press-releases/detail/1066
Yes, I sold the puts.
~ yanqui
$2.05 bid for Dec. 7.5 puts this morning. Really? Betting our MARA is below $5.45 at year's end? Can't believe those aren't moving - compelling value. I picked up a few. Give it a look.
~ yanqui
EMI24,
I received a copy of the report from Jason Assad at Marathon. I'd advise that you contact him at IR and have yourself added to his contact list. Very good guy and one of the most shareholder-friendly IR folks you're likely to run across.
He didn't ask that it be treated confidentially but nonetheless I'd be more comfortable with you simply asking him to forward you a copy. You should make his acquaintance anyway. His email is jwassad@bellsouth.net.
Tell him Yanquitrader sent you.
~ yanqui
MARATHON PATENT GROUP'S ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF SIGNAL IP MARKMAN RULING
http://ir.marathonpg.com/press-releases/detail/1055
I noted that OTIV has hired folks to help maximize the value of its intellectual property - which has withstood all attacks on validity to date. Interesting play in the NFC field - with potential for product commercialization. Likely just coincidence - but the new consulting arrangement coincided very closely with the OTIV announcement.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/oti-engages-houlihan-lokey-explore-200500105.html
~ yanqui
Nothing new here, but nice to see us out in the news in some form. Finance numbers are skewed negatively but the overall tenor of the article is about companies 'reaching for their potential'. Net positive, to my mind.
http://www.streetwisereport.com/stocks-try-to-grab-potentials-mcdermott-international-inc-nysemdr-marathon-patent-group-nasdaqmara-reeds-nysemktreed-airgas-nysearg/114146/
I think it's likely that the Signal Markman didn't go well. That's really the only thing I can think of to explain the pps action. Management silence contributes to this line of thinking.
I am confident that major positives are just around the corner. That being said, I fully understand people being nervous with what's happening. Hopefully some news to turn this around shortly. At these prices, won't take much to change direction.
~ yanqui
Unified Patents Files to Invalidate Vantage Point's Patent
http://unifiedpatents.com/unified-files-to-invalidate-vantage-points-patent/
Ok - never mind that last post. If MARA goes up significantly from here, that 15% markup gets lost pretty quickly. I think my IP $ will stay with MARA.
~ yanqui
I think this is very interesting from an investment perspective. It means that Doug and company have high confidence in the value and enforceability of the SPEX patents. If the patents eventually come to MARA, perhaps a cheaper way to pick up MARA shares is to purchase some SPEX shares and assume a 15% or better markup. If SPEX doesn't merge with MARA, high quality patents will either eventually create some good value for SPEX - or some other company will pay greater than 15% for these assets and enjoy the probable 5x appreciation they represent (back of envelope assessment of what MARA looks for in obtaining patents). Might be worth picking up a few of these as the news, and price, fade.
Thoughts?
~ yanqui
Nobody likes to see the price go down, and nobody likes to see shorts start to play with their low-float company. One reason why I continue to hope that MARA doesn't rush to offer options. That being said, people should relax. Nothing goes straight up and low-float, under-followed stocks will be particularly volatile. But I for one will not criticize management for anything. They have steered us masterfully and I suspect none of us would prefer that they start listening to message boards for advice on maximizing shareholder value.
There was considerable accumulation after the stock split. Now we have some low-volume correction (or manipulation) going on. As long as management continues to perform, these are blips on the screen. Best advice I can offer is to not check stock prices daily/hourly on this one - step away for awhile. Unless you are trading. In which case you probably aren't complaining as this has been a traders dream.
Just my thoughts ~
yanqui
The Company is getting the word out wherever they can - found the following notification on Facebook about the previous article:
Marathon Patent Group
1 hr · Edited ·
Marathon named "PIPCO of the year in 2014" by IAM Magazine.
"In 12 months the firm’s share price went from around $3 to just under $9; it joined NASDAQ; took control of a number of portfolios from IPNav’s Erich Spangenberg, and started to commercialise a new patent analytics tool developed in-house by IPNav. On top of all that, it acquired a large portfolio of medtech patents, which quickly led to litigation success in Germany, among other places."
http://www.iam-magazine.com/Blog/Detail.aspx…
~ yanqui
Just hit! Woo hoo!! 401k account yet to update, but ThinkorSwim account just doubled. What's interesting is that, in my ToS account, the shares doubled while the price is still unchanged. Though I'm not complaining - just 'doubled' my ToS net worth (which is pretty much just MARA)!
~ yanqui
Not yet.
CHM and RR - appreciate your insights, as always. Likely I am wrong as, honestly, it would be a bizarre thing to allow. Again, happy holidays to all!
~ yanqui
<<The Date of Record (the day you must own MARA stock to receive the dividend) is 12/15... the actual dividend/split payable date is 12/22. No "halving" of the stock price until 12/22. >>
<<The "record date" means virtually nothing to the common shareholder. If you bought the stock during the 7 days between the record date and the ex-div date, your shares will split the same day everyone else's do, regardless of when you purchased them. You won't lose on the split. >>
Ok, I'll let it go. The two statements above do not appear consistent to my eye. Ex-dividend usually means the record-date, not the payment date. I don't understand the meaning of the 'record date' if you'll receive the shares even if you purchase after.
But as I said, I'll let it go. Just curious - not planning to sell or buy during this week.
Happy holidays, all and thanks for the feedback.
~ yanqui
Ok so everyone thinks I'm wrong - isn't the first time. But I still don't get it. If this was a simple stock split, the split share ownership is contemporaneous with the stock adjustment. But in the case of a dividend, the stock price always adjusts when the shares go ex-dividend to reflect the underlying value that no longer attaches to the purchase of a share. Here, the dividend is worth half the value of the company.
Why wouldn't the shares adjust immediately upon the shares going ex-dividend? So, I repeat my previous question - would you purchase a share of MARA on the 16th for $15/share - and if so, why?
~ yanqui
<<The Date of Record (the day you must own MARA stock to receive the dividend) is 12/15... the actual dividend/split payable date is 12/22. No "halving" of the stock price until 12/22. >>
I get all of that except the last sentence, CHM 760. Why would I pay $15 for a share of stock on the 16th that is going to be worth $7.50 in a week with no additional share to compensate? After the vesting, I think the stock price *has* to halve. So our market value will 'halve' until the new shares are distributed. Strange.
~ yanqui
Hmmm...a week gap between the dividend vesting and it being paid. Doesn't that mean that all shares traded in the interim week will be worth half of what they otherwise would? I mean, shares are about to double, but your shares (12/16-12/21) won't. Will price then reflect the split before it actually occurs?
I haven't dealt with a dividend-split before. I guess the split-adjusted price kicks in on the 15th and we don't get the benefit until the 22nd - an interim week where the market value of MARA halves?
~ yanqui
Options also allow some pretty nasty manipulations by shorts that can really hurt small companies. The discussion here will have little impact on the decision to offer options or not, but I for one am happy to keep those manipulations at bay for as long as possible, and simply gather my well-above-average equity gains.
~ yanqui
There is no dilution in a split. The stock price reflects market cap, which will not change nor will the proportionate share of existing stockholders. No reason for an anticipatory pps change.
~ yanqui
What's the advantage of calling this a 'one-time stock dividend' as opposed to a stock split?
~ yanqui
Got a similar message from Jason. Left me more than impressed. A company that shows that level of detail and commitment, combined with the talent and experience already shown, is a rare find. Hunkering down for what will most certainly be quite an exciting ride.
~ yanqui
seekingalpha.com/news/2140425-marathon-lower-after-filing-to-sell-shares?app=1&uprof=45
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1507605/000141588914003631/maras3_nov2014.htm#sellingstock
Not to contest any of the wisdom just posted, but just a note of caution. What we need to be tracking here is not what *should* happen, but what is *likely* to happen in patent 'reform'. It could affect our investment here positively, negatively or not at all. Or simply the prospect of it could impact us (slowing down the willingness of defendants to license pending possible change).
So - just hope you will all help me track this as it gears back up. We ignore it at our peril, imo.
~ yanqui
They have a board here on Investors Hub. I believe Postyle is active on that board, and you could learn quite a bit just browsing through his latest postings there.
yanqui
Thanks for posting that - great write-up. Except the head-scratcher...how they can maintain their 2015 non-GAAP income expectation in light of 'increasing revenues' and non-GAAP income that already exceeds their previous (and apparently current) estimate??
~ yanqui
I still don't think we attract any serious institutional interest until we can grow our pps enough to do a split and open up our float. Can't see an institution trying to move shares comfortably with such a small float.
~ yanqui
After hours price is showing as 16.23/17.48 on ThinkorSwim at the moment - bouncing all over the place, but clearly the word is out now.
After Hours Volume:
After Hours High:
After Hours Low:
4,000 $ 17.01
(16:33:03 PM) $ 15.50
(16:31:13 PM)
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mara/after-hours#ixzz3ItPaXnrx
~ yanqui
GAAP earnings are amazing, but agree the fact the bulk of Q3 were non-recurring payments by 2 parties is troubling. Lack of guidance for Q4 during the call would be problematic - need some indication if revenues at this level are 'the new normal' or a one-off.
~ yanqui
Incentive Options:
http://ir.marathonpg.com/all-sec-filings/content/0001415889-14-003339/form4.html
http://ir.marathonpg.com/all-sec-filings/content/0001415889-14-003338/form4.html
http://ir.marathonpg.com/all-sec-filings/content/0001415889-14-003337/form4.html
http://ir.marathonpg.com/all-sec-filings/content/0001415889-14-003336/form4.html