Seeking Alpha

Patrick Anderson

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Patrick Anderson's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Will Vringo's $22 Million Patent Purchase Pay Off? [View article]
    That's a good point about wireless infrastructure. Actually just got a phone call from someone at Vringo and they're going to arrange for me to speak with David Cohen about precisely that play.

    They also apparently mentioned in an investor call that I missed that they expect to negotiate contingency rates that will allow them to keep closer to $0.80 on the dollar. That does change the math significantly, though not the reasoning. If they can pay only 20% for legal services, they will be looking to gross close to $32 M in order to break even. A far cry from $44 M, but still not small feat.
    Aug 15 03:06 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Too Early To Dub Neonode The 'Apple-Killer' [View article]
    Justine13 -

    I don't have an agenda. And you are right, patents are not that tricky. The most important question about any patent is whether the CLAIM describes something that someone is making, doing, selling etc. As I explained already, NEON's swipe-to-unlock claim fails to describe the way Apple's slide-to-unlock works. It's that simple.
    Jun 28 07:15 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did InterDigital Sell A Rembrandt At Thomas Kinkade Prices, Or Was It The Other Way Around? [View article]
    "But that doesnt mean they werent valuable. I dont see why intel could give 375 million for patents that arent worth anything."

    There is more than one type of value when it comes to patents, which is why--as you also point out--discussing IDCC can get complicated.

    I suspect the patents had little LICENSING value, but that is not the same as saying the patents are worthless. A patent owner can extract value in multiple ways, but extracting value through licensing requires that the patents cover something that people are actually using (or have a strong desire to use).

    Intel is not primarily a licensing entity. To companies like Intel, patents tend to be viewed more as a pure numbers game. Some licensing discussions between large operating companies--and I WISH I were making this up--literally count the number of patents on each side, and the cash flows from the company with the smaller number to the one with the larger number. Thanks to computers, patent relevance has started to come into play, which explains why the portfolio is interesting to Intel. They can beef up their raw patent numbers in mobile technologies and potentially save more than $375 M in the long run.

    The move also keeps the patents out of the hands of, say, Nvidia.
    Jun 20 09:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Acacia Research Partners With Boston Scientific For A Major Medical Patent Play [View article]
    Might be fears that it's another 'nose candy' deal ... high risk/high reward. Takes a lot of resources to comb through 1900 patents.
    Oct 10 09:00 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • RPX Pursues More 'License Option' Agreements [View article]
    I think you've nailed exactly why this stock is what it is. They put out very few announcements and provide very little opportunity to get insight into what portfolio rights they have acquired or are in the process of acquiring. While USPTO assignment records can provide information on what patents they buy outright, there are no similar public sources to identify the license option agreements. In fact, the only reason I learned about the agreements referenced in the article was from the 8-K announcements of another publicly traded company.
    I'm pretty sure there have been entire quarters where the only mid-quarter announcements were for insider trading, which can't give outside investors a good feeling. A little more transparency into the patents and lawsuits RPX being targeted for acquisition and resolution would go a long way.
    Oct 9 08:32 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Mission: Take On The Patent Bullies [View article]
    My previous article was mostly about the economics of the purchase, which I still do not believe are ideal. Embarking on a new monetization campaign is inherently risky, and I personally prefer deal structures that give the acquiring entity a much larger share of the total economics than Vringo is getting in this deal. Was I wrong about a handset focus? Yes, absolutely and I admitted that in the article.

    The purpose of this article was to get Vringo's response to my criticisms more exposure, which I have done. If you look at the arrangement as less of a "purchase" and more of a "partnership," then arguably Vringo did get a good deal. Vringo paid $22 M for, essentially 65% of the income produced, so a one-time cash value on the portfolio would be about $34 M. For example, suppose you valued the total portfolio at, say $100 M (a completely made-up number, but assume that's based on what you think you can collect). You can play around with that number, as well as general and adjusted values for likelihood of success--less than 50% of patent owners win at trial, 80% of patent cases settle before trial, an industry-wide pursuit against multiple targets with multiple patents in different lawsuits can reduce your overall risk if you assume you only need to hit on one case, but chinks in the armor like re-exams or an aggressive defendant who manages to invalidate key patents in the first trial ... the list goes on.

    As it stands, the guys at Vringo I spoke to sound supremely confident. They are seeing mostly upside. As a habit, and not specific to Vringo, I tend see mostly risk ...
    Aug 23 08:59 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Mission: Take On The Patent Bullies [View article]
    As a rule:
    1. I generally don't invest in public companies. I am, however, very interested in patent monetization and the various management teams and business models that are deployed.

    2. I generally don't engage commenters who make unsupported accusations about the veracity of my disclosures from the relative safety, obscurity and anonymity of the internet. It's really not worth the trouble.
    Aug 23 08:37 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Investors To Fund New Business Model [View article]
    No doubt. The only opinion I care about is Cuban's opinion of how many jobs he can create if and when he profits from VRNG.
    Aug 9 04:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Investing In A 'Patent Troll' That Analysts Believe Will Double [View article]
    Personally, I don't think the sell-off had anything to do with CITI. The timing of the announcement was just a coincidence. The "smart money" has been short on Acacia since their pursuit of Adaptix. THe purchase shows the company toward more of a "big game hunter" model, which is obviously more exciting, but makes the company less stable.

    That was demonstrated this quarter, when a full 72% of Q2 revenue came from one licensing deal, meaning the rest of the portfolios produced only about $14 M combined, which is something I addressed here: http://seekingalpha.co....
    Aug 8 10:46 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Too Early To Dub Neonode The 'Apple-Killer' [View article]
    The UK ruling in no way translates into $ for Neonode. Period. Read the explanation of Neonode's patent claims, repeated ad naseum above. Apple's version is a bona fide design-around that specifically avoids infringing Neonode's patent.

    What the UK judge said, in a nutshell, is that Apple's design-around is not sufficiently 'inventive' to be patentable itself. This has no bearing whatsoever on applicability of Neonode's patent to Apple.
    Jul 7 09:37 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Internet Patents Begins A New Phase [View article]
    Vince -

    Good article ... The lawsuit is a bit of a headscratcher. Sure, you don't necessarily want to go after the 800lb gorilla on your first shot, but that doesn't mean the only alternative is picking on two companies that don't appear to have 100 employees between them! There is a huge middle ground between the two. Possibly, TellApart's recent $13 M funding round could be top-of-mind for PTNT, or they are simply looking to bully TellApart into a royalty-bearing license to establish an early data point for the patent.

    Another curious note is the choice of venue in Northern California ... not the most friendly of places for patent owners, but perhaps the company wanted to sue on its home turf and not appear to be gaming the system by going to a more patent-friendly part of the country.

    Finally, note that PTNT's counsel used an "internetpatentscorpor... email address ... an in-house counsel. Also signing the complaint was Michael P Adams of Winstead in Austin, Texas. Both this particular lawyer and law firm more commonly show up on the defendant's side of the aisle.

    It will be very interesting to see how this plays out ...
    Jul 2 10:45 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Too Early To Dub Neonode The 'Apple-Killer' [View article]
    I mentioned the zForce optical technology licensing in the article. Yes, of course it helps Neonode, but has nothing to do with Apple. First, Apple uses capacitive touch, not optical. Second, so much of the speculation on Neonde was driven by the supposed value of the swipe-to-unlock patent. I'm here to tell you that reliance is misplaced.
    Jun 28 07:17 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Too Early To Dub Neonode The 'Apple-Killer' [View article]
    Try reading the article again where I talk about what the patent CLAIMS. That is what determines whether or not Apple will need a license.
    Jun 27 07:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Vs. Vringo: Vringo Delivers A Knockout In Round One [View article]
    James,

    I appreciate the bold call. As to whether Google settles or goes to trial, I must disagree with you. Check Google's reputation in patent cases. They go to trial almost exclusively, and they have an extremely successful win/loss record--really more of a "win" record because they do not lose at trial. (Some background on Google's litigation success here: http://bit.ly/NLXSsk)

    That said, I do think Google is overdue for a visit from the law of averages at the very least. It does not strike me as being statistically possible to be accused so many times of infringing patents before someone gets one right, even if by pure chance!

    I thought perhaps the visit would come in Oracle v Google, but Vringo will be the next test. I think it goes to trial, and could be a big win for Vringo.
    Jun 19 09:49 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Google's Motions For Judgment As A Matter Of Law [View article]
    Steve -
    You are right that Google's motion is largely a procedural move (preserving issues for post-trial and appeal). Rather than deny the motion outright, another common move from a trial judge at this point is to defer ruling on the motion until after the trial is over. After all, if the jury finds the patent invalid, or finds no infringement, then Google's JMOL is largely mooted.
    Oct 31 09:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
46 Comments
17 Likes