Seeking Alpha

Tom Shaughnessy's  Instablog

Tom Shaughnessy
Send Message
Tom Shaughnessy is an independent investor and analyst. He has been investing in the stock market since the age of twelve. His style is comprehensive and includes multi-layered research on a concentrated set of stocks. Tom enjoys constructive dialogue regarding various investment ideas and... More
My blog:
Follow me on Twitter!
View Tom Shaughnessy's Instablogs on:
  • Get Caught Up On VirnetX: My Article List

    Lately I have been receiving emails as to VirnetX's (VHC) past, and other questions with regard to the company itself. I have created this list of my articles on VirnetX in hope that they will answer any questions. If there are any other questions that I can help with, please comment below or on any of the articles and I will do my best to answer them.

    I have bolded the above article as I feel its provides the best and most current overview of the company on an investment perspective. The other articles cover VirnetX's involvement with New Bay (recently terminated) to the Apple (AAPL) suit with regard to FaceTime and VPN on demand all the way to Cisco (CSCO) and Microsoft (MSFT). Some of the articles are investment themed in nature, some go over more legal concepts such as Clarity On Apple's Appeal With VirnetX, and The VirnetX Story Continues To Develop: The Judge's Recent Order.

    I hope these articles serve to inform and educate, If I can help with anything please private message me, comment below or on any of the articles.

    Disclosure: I am long VHC.

    Additional disclosure: Always do your own research and contact a financial professional before executing any trades or investments. These articles are informational and are all in my own opinion.

    Nov 15 12:17 PM | Link | Comment!
  • Rockstar Rocks The Intellectual Property World


    Rockstar is a consortium, a group featuring Apple, BlackBerry, Microsoft, Ericksson and Sony that purchased Nortel's patent portfolio.

    The recent Rockstar lawsuit against Google (GOOG) and the Android world was to be expected after the group featuring Apple (AAPL), Blackberry (BBRY), Microsoft (MSFT), Ericsson and Sony bought bankrupt Nortel's patent portfolio for $4.5 billion dollars. The winning group of bidders originally formed Rockstar Bidco to bid on Nortel's patents. After winning, Rockstar Holding Company was formed as a consortium that is currently the entity suing the Android world. After purchasing the portfolio, the group branded it "Rockstar Consortium". The group is seeking a return on their expensive investment and the growth of their own brand by way of setbacks to their competitor's technologies. This may take place through the consequences of a possible winning lawsuit. There are several points regarding the lawsuit that I would like to discuss that may be more background issues although certainly interesting. The main problem here is that Apple, Microsoft and the rest of the group are acting as the entities that they have been critical of, namely "NPEs" or non-practicing entities (also branded as "patent trolls"). Rockstar does not make any products. Rockstar is suing the Android world for patent infringement. This is exactly the same process utilized by other entities that Rockstar has been critical of in the past. The Rockstar lawsuit rings the NPE bell. This is a hypocritical idea on Rockstar's part. Companies have requested more stringent laws regarding intellectual property lawsuits and NPEs. This article will discuss how the larger players in the field have taken part in exactly the same acts as the smaller players that they have been so critical of in the past. This relates directly to the larger players' backing of the Shield Act.

    Patent Trolls:

    Between 2009 and 2013, Apple has been the target of 171 "patent troll" lawsuits. Recently, WiLAN (WILN) lost their suit against Apple and was branded a patent troll in the last sentence of the linked article. Apple owns over 15,500 patents. The reason that the Rockstar lawsuit is interesting is that it is an intellectual property lawsuit over patented technologies. This is the same type of lawsuit that the larger players have been so critical of in the past with regard to the smaller players. Moreover, since Apple and the gang are larger their products have saturated the market creating an inability for the smaller companies to market their proprietary products. So, in turn, the smaller companies sue for damages so as to be compensated for their inventions. This concept can lead to an injunction although that is a high bar to reach and is usually unlikely in the intellectual property world.

    Representatives in our government have proposed the Shield Act.Under this act, the loser of the patent fight will pay both sides' legal fees. This will act to deter a patent owner from using its small amount of capital to enforce its intellectual property ownership rights. The significance of the Rockstar lawsuit is that it has the ability to enforce two concepts:

    1. Apple, Microsoft and the larger players are held to a different standard. This is unjust as they are acting as NPEs.
    2. Larger players are unjustly deterring IP lawsuits due to the increased costs to the patent owners. This is stifling to innovation and invention as there is no reason to create something you cannot defend.

    Forcing the loser to pay both sides' legal fees could be disastrous to the small IP owner. The larger players would be the target of less lawsuits due to the fact that smaller players do not have the capital to assert their ownership. Innovation and invention should be defended no matter how large or small.

    In absolute theory the Shield Act would end pointless lawsuits from entering the courtroom. Then there is the patent owner who truly has ownership of intellectual property that is being infringed upon yet doesn't have the capital to assert ownership. This patent owner can partner with a larger "assertion company". These NPEs or assertion companies provide the capital that the small patent owner needs to assert. These assertion companies like IP Nav offer their services to the patent owner at a fee.

    Problems with the Shield Act

    The Shield Act has great intentions as well as several flaws that need to be discussed.

    IP Nav offers a comprehensive page that covers the problems that surround the Shield Act. One problem is that the larger players have called for the deterrent of troublesome lawsuits brought by NPEs,yet they themselves are acting as NPEs with the Rockstar lawsuit.

    "big operating companies (such as Google and Cisco) have convinced the bill's sponsors that the "explosion" in patent litigation originates with NPEs.

    The problem creates many problems that were not originally present and it has several questionable items.

    Problems: (From IP Nav's Page)

    1. The Bill Solves The Wrong Problems: "In the attempt to target NPEs, the bill misses two important considerations: 1) not all NPE litigation is without merit; 2) you don't have to be an NPE to file a meritless lawsuit."

    2. Problems For The Court System: "it creates an incentive for litigation over negotiation on the part of the party accused of infringement."

    3. Unintended Financial Consequences: "Reducing the value of patents will have the effect of reducing the incentive to innovate and hire inventors and engineers. Fewer innovations will mean fewer innovative products and potentially a loss of jobs."

    4. Harm To Inventors and Innovation: "For many smaller inventors, selling a patent to an NPE is the best vehicle for getting a return on their investment. By harming NPEs, the legislation harms the many inventors who currently sell their patents to NPEs."

    5. The Bill Is Discriminatory: "It would be a huge step backward to return to an era where certain property owners are treated preferentially compared to other property owners."

      Ip Nav closes that the bill has good intentions, such as curbing litigation and the costs thereof, yet it it has many flaws that need addressing.

    Thinking that Google, Microsoft and Apple should be held to a different standard is unfair and unjust. These companies defend their innovation and creations through the patents they have received for the intellectual property they own. These companies arose from humble beginnings which were defended through the ownership of their intellectual property. Market capitalization is not a valid defense although ownership is.

    Smaller Players:

    Asserting ownership for a smaller company in the area of intellectual property is not easy. They are up against industry goliaths. If these goliaths assert their patents against the smaller player it looks as if they are just defending their property, when in reality both sides are dealing with defense of their patents. Smaller players such as VirnetX (VHC), Vringo (VRNG), Spherix (SPEX), Parkervision (PRKR), Marathon Patent Group (OTCQB:MARA) have a long road to proof of ownership. Let's take VirnetX as an example. Recently the company was the target of a shell company's demand for 10% of their final judgment against Apple in exchange for dropping its inter-partes review of VirnetX's patents. The real intention of the shell company's filing was most likely to allow Apple to piggyback the shell's IPR request. This because Apple was past the one year time limit for filing their request. This is my opinion. The shell company recently asked to terminate their request as discovery in the Eastern District of Texas (where all of VirnetX's lawsuits take place) was on the horizon. Apple is not able to oppose the shell company's motions to terminate their IPR requests.

    This is just one example of the hardships of that smaller players. The media may portray defending intellectual property as an annoyance to larger players. A shell company which files an IPR has the potential to undo a decade's worth of work by engineers. This does not include legal fees incurred with this type of litigation. Many of the lawsuits are outrageous yet the overreaching Shield Act can have unintended consequences on the intellectual property space for owners of valid inventions. My articles on New Bay Capital LLC and VirnetX can be viewed here and here.

    Real Life Example

    If you develop an invention and desire to patent it you have to pay tens of thousands of dollars dependent upon the complexity of the invention and the attorney fees. Individuals and small companies do not have endless amounts of capital to then defend their rights against industry giants when suing for infringement. In some cases a company can partner with a patent monetization firm like IP Nav that can provides capital to defend the owner's intellectual property. This is no easy course for the small company as the true owner may only get pennies on the dollar, years later.

    Implications Of Rockstar and The Shield Act

    • The Shield Act has been proposed to deter dubious patent lawsuits. This would require the loser to pay both sides' legal fees
    • Rockstar's recent lawsuit goes against what the larger players have been so critical of in the past - patent infringement lawsuits.
    • These two items are significant in the IP world due to the broad based nature of the Rockstar lawsuit. It provides ammunition for the smaller players in that it is a patent infringement suit. This borders on the NPE level that the larger players have criticized smaller companies for taking part in. The Shield Act will have negative and positive implications on the IP world depending on the final version that is enacted.
    • Lastly, the Rockstar lawsuit can have serious implications on Google and the Android world as the lawsuit develops - Google's search engine is even at risk in this lawsuit.

    Investor Implications:

    • Smaller players who attempt to assert their patent ownership in the courtroom can face having to pay both sides' legal fees. This could be disastrous to smaller, underfunded companies that then need to partner with patent assertion companies to assert their ownership in the courtroom. This would be the implications on the smaller company due to the Shield Act.
    • Larger players such as the Android world and Google are under direct attack with this lawsuit. Google's search engine is at risk, and so is the rest of the android family if this lawsuit continues to move ahead.

    Back To Rockstar

    Rockstar Consortium's lawsuit is seemed to be held to a different standard. Apple does not have a streamlined search engine yet the lawsuit attacks Google's search engine in the first few pages. Microsoft has Wouldn't that qualify? Why are Apple and others (through the Rockstar Consortium) trying to assert their intellectual property against Google and others when they do not have competing products?

    The above is just one example of the larger players being held to a different standard. The Rockstar Consortium's lawsuits may be a win for the smaller players in the field as the attack on the Android world will erode the nature of an overreaching bill that targets patent companies. The Rockstar lawsuit is a significant overlap by the larger players and the entities they have been at odds with. Time will tell how the Rockstar Consortium's lawsuit pans out. , The owners are looking for a monetary return on their $4.5 billion dollar investment. It is also looking to expand its brand power through impediments on its competitors through a winning lawsuit. The Shield Act is well intentioned although it is overreaching and flawed. It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out and how the Rockstar Lawsuit affects the Shield Act moving forward. Many see the Shield Act as simply a defense of industry giants against NPEs. The biggest item at stake here is Google's search business if the patents are proven to be valid and infringed upon. Google bid up to $4.4 billion dollars after losing a bid for the Nortel patents. - This does not justify the patents' validity in a judicial setting.

    There are many devious lawsuits in the area that are a true annoyance in the industry that need addressing. In my opinion the other side of the debate is one that is under addressed. As new events come to fruition with this lawsuit I will provide a "part two" article as an update.

    Disclosure: I am long VHC.

    Additional disclosure: Always do your own research and contact a financial professional before executing any trades

    Nov 04 2:49 PM | Link | Comment!
  • New Bay LLC Is Authorized To File Motions To Terminate Their IPRs - Apple Can Not Oppose



    NEW BAY CAPITAL, LLC Petitioner


    VIRNETX, INC. Patent Owner ____________

    Cases IPR2013-00375 (Patent 6,502,135 B1) IPR2013-00376 (Patent 7,490,151 B2) IPR2013-00377 (Patent 7,418,504 B2) IPR2013-00378 (Patent 7,921,211 B2)1


    and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

    ORDER Conduct of the Proceeding 37 C.F.R. § 42.5

    1 This order addresses a similar issue in the four cases. Therefore, we exercise discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style of heading in subsequent papers.

    Case and Patent No. IPR2013-00375 - 6,502,135 B1 IPR2013-00376 - 7,490,151 B2 IPR2013-00377 - 7,418,504 B2 IPR2013-00378 - 7,921,211 B2

    On October 29, 2013, a conference call was held between counsel for the respective parties and Judges Medley, Tierney, Easthom and Siu.2

    The purpose of the conference call was for New Bay to seek Board authorization to file a motion to terminate the four proceedings. VirnetX does not oppose the filing of the motion.

    Counsel for New Bay explained that New Bay is abandoning the contest. Paper 12 at 8 (IPR2013-00375). The Board explained that a motion to terminate making such a representation would be construed as a request for adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4). Based on the facts presented, the Board further explained that if the Board grants a motion to terminate, New Bay likely would be estopped from challenging the same VirnetX patents before the Office at a later time under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Paper 12 at 10. (Id.)

    Based on the facts of these proceedings, New Bay is authorized to file four motions to terminate the four proceedings briefly explaining that the motion is unopposed by VirnetX and why termination is appropriate in this case in accordance with the conference call held before the Board. Apple, as a third party, is not authorized to file an opposition to the motions to terminate.

    Accordingly, it is

    ORDERED that New Bay is authorized to file four motions to terminate the four proceedings;

    FURTHER ORDERED that the motions are due November 6, 2013; and

    2 Counsel for Apple, Inc. in related proceedings IPR2013-00348, -00349, -00354, - 00393, -00394, -00397, and -00398 was also on the call. A court reporter was present.


    Case and Patent No. IPR2013-00375 - 6,502,135 B1 IPR2013-00376 - 7,490,151 B2 IPR2013-00377 - 7,418,504 B2 IPR2013-00378 - 7,921,211 B2

    FURTHER ORDERED that Apple, as a third party, is not authorized to file an opposition to the motions to terminate.


    Case and Patent No. IPR2013-00375 - 6,502,135 B1 IPR2013-00376 - 7,490,151 B2 IPR2013-00377 - 7,418,504 B2 IPR2013-00378 - 7,921,211 B2

    For PETITIONER: Robert Asher

    Jeffrey Klayman

    For PATENT OWNER: Joseph Palys

    Naveen Modi



    Disclosure: I am long VHC.

    Nov 01 10:10 AM | Link | 8 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


  • CEO Interview planned for the end of the month on new idea - article should be out soon after or early May. This one has me very interested.
    about 5 hours ago
  • Working on a new small cap idea, aiming to complete it towards the end of the month. A lot of research to do.
    3 days ago
  • Any guesses on what $PHOT will open at? I doubt it will go "higher"
    5 days ago
More »

Latest Comments

Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.