The following letter I have written and sent directly to
Mr. Enan and the board of Internet Patents Corp.
(Nasdaq:PTNT). It addresses an ongoing
mispricing in the company's stock that is valued at less than its
cash on hand and the strategic action the company should take to
create value for its shareholders moving forward. The company had a
pending audit review that it has just been cleared from by the IRS.
It can now act on what is in the best interests of its
shareholders and return the majority of its capital to
them.
BOCA RATON, Fla., May 13, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --
Mr. Hussein Enan Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Internet
Patents Corporation 10850 Gold Center Drive, Suite 250B Rancho
Cordova, CA 95670
Dear Mr. Enan and the Board of Directors of Internet Patents
Corporation,
As one of Internet Patents Corporation's largest shareholders
with beneficial ownership of 8.9% of its common stock, I am writing
this letter to present my strong viewpoints on how the company
should proceed to best maximize shareholder value after receiving
the positive news that the IRS completed its audit of the company
with no changes to the company's reported tax. Internet
Patents currently trades at a significant discount to its
cash. I understand there may have been hesitation on the
company's part to do anything but bide its time while waiting for a
resolution to the IRS audit. There was likely hesitation on
the part of potential new investors with that issue overhanging as
well. Now that the company has been cleared from this burden
and potential liability, though, its common stock is still trading
at a steep discount to cash and the company needs to start taking
action to create value for its shareholders.
I have been a founding investor of several publicly trading
patent licensing and monetization companies to large degrees of
success. I have consulted with several patent experts whom
have built significant companies in the space that trade at large
multiples to cash based on their patent assets. Internet
Patents Corporation is the only publicly traded patent licensing
company listed on the Nasdaq trading at a significant discount to
cash. As you can see in the table below, every other listed
company in the intellectual property monetization space trades at a
significant premium to its cash and patent assets. In
comparison, investors are assigning a negative value to Internet
Patents' assets and business plan as it is the only company with a
negative enterprise value and a price-to-cash ratio less than
1.
Data provided by Capital IQ
5/12/2014 |
Company |
Symbol |
Exchange |
Market Cap (in
millions) |
Cash (in
millions) |
Enterprise Value (in
millions) |
|
Price to Cash
Ratio |
Acacia Research Corporation |
ACTG |
Nasdaq |
750 |
228.0 |
521.56 |
|
3.29 |
CopyTele, Inc |
COPY |
OTC |
72 |
3.2 |
76.36 |
|
22.50 |
Crossroads Systems Inc |
CRDS |
Nasdaq |
22 |
8.0 |
22.31 |
|
2.75 |
Document Security Systems Inc |
DSS |
NYSE |
59 |
2.5 |
60.64 |
|
23.60 |
Finjan Holdings, Inc |
FNJN |
Nasdaq |
123 |
23.5 |
114.69 |
|
5.23 |
InterDigital, Inc |
IDCC |
Nasdaq |
1,400 |
685.0 |
928.51 |
|
2.04 |
Marathon Patent Group, Inc |
MARA |
OTC |
43 |
3.6 |
40.03 |
|
11.94 |
Network-1 Technologies, Inc |
NTIP |
OTC |
41 |
19.4 |
21.68 |
|
2.11 |
Pendrell Corporation |
PCO |
Nasdaq |
368 |
173.0 |
195.08 |
|
2.13 |
Patent Properties, Inc |
PPRO |
OTC |
67 |
24.7 |
42.71 |
|
2.71 |
Parkervision Inc |
PRKR |
Nasdaq |
489 |
17.0 |
471.98 |
|
28.76 |
Rambus Inc |
RMBS |
Nasdaq |
1,350 |
403.0 |
1,126.00 |
|
3.35 |
Spherix Inc |
SPEX |
Nasdaq |
10 |
3.1 |
7.39 |
|
3.35 |
Tessera Technologies Inc |
TSRA |
Nasdaq |
1,160 |
379.0 |
772.72 |
|
3.06 |
Unwired Planet, Inc |
UPIP |
Nasdaq |
226 |
50.9 |
194.35 |
|
4.44 |
VirnetX Holding Corp |
VHC |
NYSE |
714 |
30.9 |
659.41 |
|
23.11 |
Vringo, Inc |
VRNG |
Nasdaq |
297 |
27.8 |
268.98 |
|
10.68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average P/C |
9.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average P/C (excluding top
four) |
4.39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internet Patents Corp |
PTNT |
Nasdaq |
25 |
28.0 |
-4.67 |
|
0.89 |
The above table makes it pretty clear what investors think about
Internet Patents' patent assets. The market is assigning a
negative value to the rest of Internet Patents' assets, including
its current business plan, for a reason.
The two patents that the company has tried to do anything with
are its '597 patent and its '505 patent. On its '597 patent a
stay was granted in August 2013 pending a reexamination. In
February 2014, the company received a status report notifying it of
the following:
"Pursuant to the Court's August 29, 2013 Order granting a stay
pending reexamination, the parties file this Joint Status Report on
the reexamination proceeding. Reexamination remains pending at
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On January 15,
2014, a final office action rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-28, and 30 was
issued. No claims currently stand confirmed."
Regarding the company's '505 Patent, the district court in San
Francisco invalidated it on 10/31/2013 and the company is currently
appealing.
The company is continuing to try and fight the long and uphill
battle that is the appeal and reexamination process for patents
whose claims have been rejected and/or invalidated. This
process could take upwards of two years and burn through another $4
million of the real asset the company does have in its
cash. Internet Patents' management team does not have
experience in the patent licensing business and has had zero
success monetizing any intellectual property to date. This
business model became the company's sole focus of operations since
the sale of substantially all of its assets to Bankrate, Inc in
December 2011. Since this sale of its assets in December 2011,
the Nasdaq composite is up 58% while Internet Patents Corporation
is completely flat (after accounting for the $5 dividend paid in
March 2012).
The defendants that Internet Patents has named in its lawsuits
are cause for alarm as well. The defendants named in the
lawsuits for both the '597 and the '505 patents are not behemoths
of their industry but rather much smaller vendors. On the off
chance that Internet Patents is able to obtain a positive ruling on
either its outstanding appeal or reexamination, it could very well
be a case of winning the battle but losing the war. The
damages model is not likely to amount to a significant number based
on the size of the companies claimed to be infringing. There
is the additional question mark of whether these companies will be
in business and in a position to pay in several years should things
go in Internet Patents favor.
Managing an intellectual property portfolio is similar to
managing a financial investment portfolio from an ROI
perspective. Placing all of the company's cash on the outcome
of two unlikely wagers is not a gamble the company should be taking
with its shareholders' capital. Rather than just sitting on
its $28 million in cash less the company's burn over the next 18-24
months, I believe the company has two options to best maximize
shareholder value moving forward.
Return Capital to Shareholders and Give Free Shot at
Pending Outcomes on Patents
The first option is setting aside enough capital to comfortably
carry it through the next two years, in which timeframe the company
should learn the outcome of its appeal and reexamination. The
company should make a return of capital payment to its shareholders
with the balance of its cash. Factoring a conservative burn
rate of $500,000 per quarter and a conservative timeframe for the
company to learn the outcome on the validity of its patents of two
years, the company should keep $4 million on hand to ride out the
appeal and reexamination process. The remaining $24 million in
cash should be paid back to shareholders as a return of
capital.
A return of capital gives shareholders a free shot at a
successful outcome in the company's patent rulings. Based upon
7,751,952 shares outstanding as of April 30, 2014, returning $24
million to shareholders would return $3.09 per share. In this
scenario, if there is a positive outcome down the road, the stock
should react positively and the company will have options available
at that point for additional capital to pursue its patent licensing
and enforcement business again. If there is any value to the
company's patents, the company can retain a law firm on contingency
to further help mitigate its burn rate and proceed with its attempt
to license and enforce its current patent assets. Returning
the capital that is not needed to await this outcome to
shareholders now creates much more value for shareholders.
The alternative of the company keeping all of its cash and
waiting it out is simply not desirable for shareholders. There
will be no near term catalysts for the company and likely no
catalysts at all as the company just kicks the can down the road
while paying management salaries for a company that will most
likely not have any ongoing operations in two years. It is
taking one long shot gamble with shareholder's capital that even if
it does pay off may not amount to much. This is based on my
analysis and consultation with experts in the patent space
regarding the viability of the company's patents and the likelihood
of outcomes for the company's pending appeal and
reexamination.
One expert I spoke with used the following analogy for Internet
Patents' current business position: "It is the equivalent to being
in the 9th inning of a baseball game, down 5-0, with 2 outs, no one
on base, and an 0-2 count at the plate. Even if the batter is
to hit a homerun (ie Internet Patents getting a positive ruling on
its appeal or reexamination), the likely outcome for the game is
still a loss."
Tender Offer to Shareholders at the Company's Cash Value
per Share
If the company chooses not to return its excess capital not
needed to pursue its current business plan to shareholders, it must
have a yet to be publicly mentioned plan to begin creating
shareholder value that would cause the company to trade at a
premium to its cash. If this is the case, then the company
should make a tender offer to buy back its common stock at the
equivalent of its cash per share, roughly $3.60 per share. This
would show that the company has faith in its ability to create
value for the company and its shareholders going forward and
perhaps spark a renewed interest from current investors. If
this is the case, I believe you as the company's largest
shareholder owning ~25% of the common stock outstanding would
decline such a tender offer due to your confidence in the company
with yourself as its leader going forward. This would in turn
leave the company with plenty of working capital even if every
other shareholder tendered every other share. In that case,
you would also be giving new shareholders a new chance to bet on
you and the company's assets.
If you yourself would participate in such a tender offer, then
the company simply must proceed with the first option of returning
capital to its shareholders and having the upside on how the
current business model plays out. I understand that such a
tender offer may have a negative implication against the company's
ability to maintain its Net Operating Losses going forward for tax
purposes, but this is a moot point as the company is not positioned
to ever take advantage of its Net Operating Losses with its current
business plan anyway.
In addition to being Internet Patents Corporation Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, you are its largest shareholder. I am
one of the company's next largest shareholders. Our interests
are very much aligned here and I believe working together we can
maximize the interests of all Internet Patents shareholders. I
have analyzed the best strategic options for the company that I
laid out in this letter extensively. I have analyzed and
discussed the likely negative outcomes to be reached from the last
straws the company is grasping at with its patent assets with top
experts in the patent space. The only two strategic paths the
company can take to maximize value for its shareholders are the two
I laid out. The company must act on one of these options in
the near term if it is looking to act in the best interests of its
shareholders.
You may reach me any time by phone (561) 302-2287 or email
(brhonig@aol.com) to discuss further. I look forward to
working with you to start taking action to drive value for all of
us shareholders now that the company has received positive news
from the IRS and can put the audit issue behind it.
Sincerely,
Barry Honig
CONTACT: Barry Honig
(561) 302-2287
brhonig@aol.com
555 S. Federal Highway, Suite 450
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Prism Technologies (CE) (USOTC:PRZM)
Historical Stock Chart
From Oct 2024 to Nov 2024
Prism Technologies (CE) (USOTC:PRZM)
Historical Stock Chart
From Nov 2023 to Nov 2024