tnyellowtomcat
1 day ago
Lumpy3,
I agree with you!
A key patent can transform this company! With that said, it is already doing pretty good now!
IDCC is small, but the importance of IDCC's IP to AI, AR, Video, and Wireless is HUGE!
Long and strong! I have been married to this stock since 1995!
Tomcat
FISH21049
4 days ago
Special Dividend Taxes
Unlike most regular dividends, which are taxed as qualified dividends (and thus as long-term capital gains), special dividends can be made up of a mixture of capital gains, ordinary income, and returns of capital.
The exact breakdown of the special dividend is spelled out in the 1099-DIV form sent to you by the company at tax time, but in general most special dividends are treated as returns of capital.
Rather than paying taxes on dividends classified as a return of capital, you lower the cost basis of your shares and only get taxed when you sell them.
However, this aspect of special dividend taxes also means that special dividends held in tax-deferred accounts, such as IRAs or 401(k)s, will miss out on the tax benefit.
That’s because any money withdrawn from these accounts after the age of 59.5 will be taxed as ordinary income.
Gamco
1 week ago
From the third quarter webcast:
Richard Brezski
Yes. Hey, Scott, good morning. So, let me follow up on the Samsung arbitration question. So, you are correct that I did say in my prepared remark that based on the latest hearing we had with arbitrator, we believe the result of the arbitration will be completed soon after end of the year. The primary reason is, there are some additional questions arbitrator was asking and plus as we approach to the holiday season. So, we fact this will take a bit longer. Regarding the revenue recognition, as you are aware, we have been recognizing Samsung revenue under the conservative estimation, the same as the prior agreement. We believe it's conservative and that's the case we continue to do for Q4, and when the arbitration is complete, if the number turn out to be higher than we will drop the number at the time of the award.
Gamco
1 week ago
InterDigital To Present At 2024 RBC Capital Markets Technology, Internet, Media & Telecommunications Conference
November 12 2024 - 8:00AM
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, today announced that the company will be presenting at the 2024 RBC Capital Markets Technology, Internet, Media & Telecommunications Conference on Tuesday, November 19th, 2024, at 2:40 PM ET.
The event will be webcast live and an archived replay of the presentation will also be available following the conference. For more information, please visit the Investors section of the company’s website closer to the event.
About InterDigital®
InterDigital is a global research and development company focused primarily on wireless, video, artificial intelligence (“AI”), and related technologies. We design and develop foundational technologies that enable connected, immersive experiences in a broad range of communications and entertainment products and services. We license our innovations worldwide to companies providing such products and services, including makers of wireless communications devices, consumer electronics, IoT devices, cars and other motor vehicles, and providers of cloud-based services such as video streaming. As a leader in wireless technology, our engineers have designed and developed a wide range of innovations that are used in wireless products and networks, from the earliest digital cellular systems to 5G and today’s most advanced Wi-Fi technologies. We are also a leader in video processing and video encoding/decoding technology, with a significant AI research effort that intersects with both wireless and video technologies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on Nasdaq.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
InterDigital Contact:
investor.relations@interdigital.com
+1 (302) 300-1857
la-tsla-fan
2 weeks ago
In case anybody is interested I will tell you how I did on my efforts to get a position in IDCC stock. Next to TSLA, IDCC feels like hit is a part of me. IN fact, my wife started calling IDCC a rival, because I was spending so much time on it.
Being a cheapskate, I still have not bought ANY shares, because they seem expensive to me. I am hoping to buy them at around $100. Of course, I fully realize what that does for my reputation among a bunch of IDCC bulls. BUT please relax. I mean net, after making some money on options.
I goit off to a good start because, I think, of the election. I JUST got lucky. I sold about half my puts at a humongous loss but made enough on the calls to end up with a b =net profit of about $20 per share.
my3sons87
2 weeks ago
This is the UBLOX case that eas tossed in Gamco's earlier post. It's time to pay up UBLOX, IDCC knows a frand rate.
Press releases|27 Oct 2023u-blox moves court venue against InterDigital to Delawareshare thisu-blox remains committed to obtaining a license from InterDigital on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms.Thalwil, Switzerland – October 27, 2023 – u-blox (SIX:UBXN), a global provider of leading positioning and wireless communication technologies and services, has made the decision to pursue a FRAND license lawsuit against InterDigital (NASDAQ: IDCC) in the Delaware Court of Chancery and to dismiss the case in the Southern District of California. The Delaware Court of Chancery provides an efficient venue for the resolution of this dispute because the parties involved are incorporated in Delaware and the court is known for setting case schedules that are faster than the Federal Courts.“u-blox respects the intellectual property rights of others and has always been and continues to be a willing licensee to standard essential patents (SEPs) under FRAND conditions, ultimately reducing the risk of litigation for our customers and protecting their business,” said Andreas Thiel, Head of Product Centers, Co founder, u-blox. “We proactively decided to move the case to the Delaware Court of Chancery, because we are committed to this strategy. We aim to create value for our customers and expect the venue change to allow a much faster resolution of the issue
my3sons87
2 weeks ago
UBLOX ISFULL OF CRAP. They signed a license in 2019 and then filed suit in 2023.
Press releases|12 Nov 2019u-blox and Interdigital sign new license agreement and dismiss litigationshare thisThalwil, Switzerland – November 12, 2019 – u-blox (SIX:UBXN), a global provider of leading positioning and wireless communication technologies, and InterDigital Group (NASDAQ: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, entered into an agreement on 1 November 2019 including a license covering all u-blox cellular modules. As a result, all litigation matters between the two companies have been dismissed.In January of 2019, u-blox had filed a lawsuit against InterDigital Group asking the United States Federal Court in San Diego, California, to determine fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rates for patents licensed by InterDigital Group.“u-blox respects the intellectual property rights of others and has always been and continues to be a willing licensee to standard essential patents (SEPs)”, said Thomas Seiler, CEO of u-blox. “In fact, u-blox views this as a value-added differentiator that benefits u-blox customers by reducing their risk of litigation and positively distinguishes u-blox within the module industry. u-blox remains committed to this strategy – it’s how we create value for our customers.”
Monterey2000
2 weeks ago
Does anyone see a potential u-blox license as a result of the Delaware's lawsuit dismissal. What else can u-blox do and where else can u-blox go?
I suppose anything is still possible until a license is signed.
Just some u-blox lawsuit history via a u-blox press release from 2023...
Press releases|27 Oct 2023
u-blox moves court venue against InterDigital to Delaware
shareshare this
u-blox remains committed to obtaining a license from InterDigital on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms.
Thalwil, Switzerland – October 27, 2023 – u-blox (SIX:UBXN), a global provider of leading positioning and wireless communication technologies and services, has made the decision to pursue a FRAND license lawsuit against InterDigital (NASDAQ: IDCC) in the Delaware Court of Chancery and to dismiss the case in the Southern District of California.
The Delaware Court of Chancery provides an efficient venue for the resolution of this dispute because the parties involved are incorporated in Delaware and the court is known for setting case schedules that are faster than the Federal Courts.
“u-blox respects the intellectual property rights of others and has always been and continues to be a willing licensee to standard essential patents (SEPs) under FRAND conditions, ultimately reducing the risk of litigation for our customers and protecting their business,” said Andreas Thiel, Head of Product Centers, Co founder, u-blox. “We proactively decided to move the case to the Delaware Court of Chancery, because we are committed to this strategy. We aim to create value for our customers and expect the venue change to allow a much faster resolution of the issue.”
About u-blox
u-blox (SIX:UBXN) is a global technology leader in positioning and wireless communication in automotive, industrial, and consumer markets. Their smart and reliable solutions, services and products let people, vehicles, and machines determine their precise position and communicate wirelessly over cellular and short range networks. With a broad portfolio of chips, modules, and secure data services and connectivity, u-blox is uniquely positioned to empower its customers to develop innovative and reliable solutions for the Internet of Things, quickly and cost-effectively. With headquarters in Thalwil, Switzerland, the company is globally present with offices in Europe, Asia, and the USA. (www.u-blox.com) Find us on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter @ublox, Instagram and YouTube
u-blox media contact:
Natacha Seitz
Senior Manager PR and Content Marketing
Mobile +41 76 436 0788
natacha.seitz@u-blox.com
Link to u-blox press release
Gamco
2 weeks ago
Chancery Tosses Microchip Co.'s Tech Licensor Challenge
By Jeff Montgomery
Law360 (November 8, 2024, 6:48 PM EST) -- A Delaware vice chancellor on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed by Swiss microchip maker u-blox AG against tech licensor InterDigital Inc., finding among other points that u-blox was barred from moving forward with potentially unsettled claims arising from the same issues in a California federal court case.
Delaware-chartered u-blox last year dropped a federal court lawsuit accusing InterDigital of breaching agreements on u-blox's use of 3G and 4G wireless cellular technology licenses, jumping instead to Chancery.
In the bench ruling on Friday, Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn found u-blox could not escape InterDigital's claims that the California case, though dropped, precludes relitigating the same issues in Chancery.
"That the decision was not appealable is not sufficient to counter collateral estoppel," the vice chancellor said.
U-blox sued InterDigital in California in early 2023, seeking a ruling on fair licensing rates and an injunction to block InterDigital from wrongfully interfering with u-blox customers and downstream manufacturers, as well as damages and other rulings.
The company opened litigation in Delaware in October 2023 after U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the Southern District of California ruled in part that her court might lack jurisdiction over the dispute.
U-blox argued that since the claims were voluntarily dismissed in California, collateral estoppel and the California court's ties don't apply. The company also argued it properly pled breach of contract and sought a declaratory judgment that it is a third-party beneficiary of an InterDigital agreement on access to its standard essential patents covering the 3G and 4G cellular standards on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions.
U-blox makes cellular modules that go into other products with wireless needs, such as utility meters that are remotely queried and read.
Vice Chancellor Zurn said for estoppel to apply, the issues at stake must be identical in both venues, with both sides having a full opportunity to litigate and the case ending with a final judgment on the merits.
"It may be final for preclusion, even though it lacks finality for appeal," the vice chancellor said.
In Judge Bencivengo's proceedings, the parties were fully heard and the court fully considered the issues, Vice Chancellor Zurn said, and a hearing transcript on the dismissal order was well-reasoned, though not issued as a written opinion.
In the Delaware action, InterDigital sought dismissal of the u-blox license demands in addition to the collateral estoppel argument. It also argued u-blox failed to state a claim.
In a transcript of dismissal arguments on June 6, Richard Kamprath of McKool Smith PC, counsel to InterDigital, argued no U.S. court had ever set and imposed FRAND rates in a license without consent from both parties.
InterDigital also argued that while u-blox was arguing breach of contract, it is "hiding a potential defense at some other point or negotiation, later saying, 'We don't even know if any of your patents are essential. We don't think they are, and we don't think we infringe your patents. So it's trying to get around notice provisions.'"
During the same argument, Stephen S. Korniczky of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP told the vice chancellor that u-blox is entitled to a license on these standard essential patents under a contract formed between InterDigital and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
"By virtue of the fact that u-blox implements these standards, u-blox is a third-party beneficiary entitled to a license," Korniczky said. He added that federal antitrust and non-infringement declaratory judgment claims were blocked in the Southern California case, potentially triggering the federal court's loss of jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.
Judge Bencivengo "sua sponte issued an order to show cause why the case shouldn't be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. That's it," Korniczky said. "U-blox looked at that issue and said, rather than try to fight the jurisdiction issue, fight the motion to dismiss issue, let's move the complaint to a court where InterDigital doesn't dispute jurisdiction."
Kamprath said in the same proceeding that "if u-blox was going to have a court second-guess Judge Bencivengo's order, they could have appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and that would have been the correct court to second-guess the order."
U-blox is represented by Philip A. Rovner and Timothy R. Dudderar of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP and Stephen S. Korniczky, Martin R. Bader, Ericka J. Schulz and Ryan P. Cunningham of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
InterDigital Inc. and its affiliates are represented by Kelly E. Farnan and Blake Rohrbacher of Richards Layton & Finger PA and Richard Kamprath, Charles E. Fowler Jr. and Eliza Beeney of McKool Smith PC.
The case is U-blox AG et al., ve. InterDigital Inc. et al., case number 2023-1086, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California is u-blox AG et al. v. InterDigital Inc. et al., case number 3:23-cv-00002.
Trade like a pro: Leverage real-time discussions and market-moving ideas to outperform.
Ask ADVFN Intelligence (AI)
Hot Features
Premium
