Thank you for the post. I'm no English or patent language expert, but I tried my best to understand what this article means. Could this be one of the reasons why Spherix never asserted its standard essential patents on anyone, while RAND is still owed and due to Spherix by all these big companies? How do we know which patents that Spherix hold are standard essential?
Finally, the revised policy makes clear that where a patent holder’s LOA has indicated “reciprocity,” a potential standard implementer cannot both receive the benefit of the patent holder’s LOA and refuse to license to the patent holder the implementer’s own essential patent claims on the same standard.
Due to the potential concerns about the legality of its revisions under the antitrust laws, the IEEE requested that the DOJ review the patent policy and provide a statement on its current enforcement intentions.
In its business review letter, the DOJ declared that it does not presently intend to challenge the IEEE’s revisions. The DOJ concluded that harm is unlikely to result from the revised policy because its provisions are consistent with the direction of U.S. law interpreting RAND commitments.
The DOJ emphasized that the definition of RAND rates within the revised policy “provid[es] the patent owner with appropriate compensation, while assuring implementers that they will not have to pay any hold-up value connected with the standardization process.”
Addressing the ban on injunctions and exclusive orders for standard-essential patent holders, the DOJ praised the proposed revisions: “The threat of exclusion from a market is a powerful weapon that can enable a patent owner to hold up implementers of a standard. Limiting this threat reduces the possibility that a patent holder will take advantage of the inclusion of its patent in a standard to engage in patent hold up, and provides comfort to implementers in developing their product.”
The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a business review letter stating that it would not challenge the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (IEEE’s) proposed revisions to its patent policy. Letter from Renata B. Hesse, Acting Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Feb. 2, 2015), available here.
The IEEE policy revisions attempt to “provide greater clarity on issues that have divided [patent holders] and standards implementers.” In doing so, the IEEE proposed four key changes to its patent policy.
First, the revised policy defines a reasonable rate to be “appropriate compensation to the patent holder for the practice of an Essential Patent Claim excluding the value, if any, resulting from the inclusion of that Essential Patent Claim’s technology in the IEEE Standard.” This definition seeks to provide compensation to the patent holder for the value of the patent before the essential patent claim was incorporated into the IEEE standard. The revisions, however, do not dictate a specific calculation methodology or specific reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) rates.
Second, the revised policy states that a patent holder that has submitted a letter of assurance (LOA) disclosing that its patent claims may be essential to a standard under development is not permitted to seek an injunction or exclusion order unless the standard implementer “fails to participate in, or to comply with the outcome of, an adjudication, including an affirming first-level review.”
Third, the policy seeks to clarify the meaning of non-discrimination. The revisions make clear that a patent holder cannot refuse to license to any implementers once an LOA has been submitted, regardless of where a standard implementer sits in levels of production. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent patent holders from discriminating against implementers that make components or sub-assemblies, rather than an end-use product.
Cancel and reload if you are worried about them timing out. I think it's criminal that they can put price caps on GTC orders. They do that to discourage the practice so they can loan shares to short. Otherwise why would they care. This is one stock you will have to stay on top of.
337 02/25/15 02/25/15 Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' First Amended Trial Exhibit List by Spherix Incorporated.. (Cumings, Nicholas)
336 02/25/15 02/25/15 Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' First Amended Witness List by Spherix Incorporated. (Cumings, Nicholas)
Nothing much, but at least some activity. Perhaps Spherix can eliminate some opposing witnesses. We shall see.
My exit strategy is based around selling 1/3 of my shares once the PPS is 3x the initial investment. However, I have time limits on when these orders expire. I also have limits on PPS multiples that I can place these orders. Meaning, now that PPS is ~0.93, I am limited at what price I can sell at with limit orders b/c share price is low.
Any ideas? Trailing stop?
About 2600 market orders today. More like retail activity. S/P decreasing slightly on mostly buying at the the bid. Previously the SP would rise at buying mostly at the bid which to me would indicate some assistance in keeping the share price higher. Perhaps MM's being paid to sell at highest available SP. Today more like normal SP reaction.
Thx Fugitive.. Either way they still get paid.. But yes all will be the better if we finally get some wins or for shareholders a better buyout offer..
Sharing is caring. I check pacer everyday and will post anything and everything as it becomes available. With litigation in 4 states and 7 active cases. VTech-Uniden-Huawei-Cisco-Juniper-Verizon-TMobile we are bound to hit one of those out of the park. In all those cases only about 12 patents are being litigated. Spherix has a few hundred more to pursue at some point. I do not like the Verizon case in the least bit and fear a bad outcome in the near future. Hopefully before that we get something positive to blunt what I feel is a sure loss on the sole patent being litigated.
Buy Vol = 20,085 Sell Vol= 47,712
Nice pattern we have developed. Volume is non existent so I don't think this is much more than weak handed retail saying phu!!ck it! I am out.
SPEX won’t recover, but don’t fret, Ultimate Stock Alerts (google search for them now)
just gave me a replacement and I am going to buy
Alternative Fee Agreements
SKIERMONT PUCKETT LLP rarely bills clients by the hour.
We do not believe lawyers should make more money just because they take a long time to complete a task. That simply rewards inefficiency. Instead, we use Alternative Fee Agreements (“AFAs”) that align our firm’s interests with our clients’ interests.
AFAs can include flat monthly fees, fixed project-based fees, success bonuses, contingent fees, blended flat fees with a bonus or contingent component, and many other creative fee structures. Our attorneys have experience crafting a variety of different AFAs that best fit our clients’ needs. We will explore any fee agreement that is based on the value of our work to our clients, rather than the number of hours we spend working on the case. In short, we want our fee to be linked to successful results rather than the number of hours worked.
In our experience, AFAs reduce total client legal costs because they reward efficiency. Unlike the billable hour, AFAs also provide clients with greater monthly and yearly budget certainty. Most fundamentally, we believe it is only fair that we should be compensated more when we win, and less if we lose.
Because of the expense, unpredictability, and potential delays of patent litigation, patent assertion entities spend a considerable amount of time managing and hedging against downside risks. They do this by finding contingency fee attorneys and partners willing provide substantial up-front monies in order to fund an enforcement campaign.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Russ posted: I'm sure they get their free shares but if I'm not mistaken due to the cash burn they bill the common each quarter, so they get paid either way even if SPEX fails..
"spex attorneys are paid with shares"
I'm sure they get their free shares but if I'm not mistaken due to the cash burn they bill the common each quarter, so they get paid either way even if SPEX fails..
Apple now supports a free-market technology market system because they believe they can bury any competition if they have access to the technology.
And it saves them money from judgments against them and huge legal fees
It's a Win Win Win !!
But looks like Eriksson is not buying!!!