Here is the Commission's Opinion regarding the reversal:
Here is the link for the stay. It is a joint motion by all remaining respondants (minus MOT).
And QCOM apparently posted the bond:
And TSRA's further response:
And the transcript from a QCOM investor conf that TSRA used as an exhibit to their filing:
Newly posted on the ITC website: https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-external/513575-406281.pdf?sp=ZH4sIAAAAAAAAAFvzloG1uIjBND2%2FTK%2B0OLMkWa8ksSC1uKSoUi81Lz0zL1XPNSWzODg1uSQzPy84tagsMzk1ILEoMTe1JLXoPxB8qdrSzMTA7MPAlZKfXJqbmlfimVLCIOCTlViWqJ%2BTmJeu75Ofl27tw8BZDDHEM6WQoY6B0YdBECoQkl8QkppbEFqUWcLAB9GXl1qiHxrkaV1RAHQbH0hID2SUHtio7icTzvQr32diYPRiYC1LzClNrShiEEAo8ivNTUotalszVZZ7yoNuJgaGigIGEGAz5iwGWc0C5rFfUy8AAAKWUPL9AAAA
And QCOM posts an extra $28k bond... https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-external/513483-406224.pdf?sp=ZH4sIAAAAAAAAAFvzloG1uIjBND2%2FTK%2B0OLMkWa8ksSC1uKSoUi81Lz0zL1XPNSWzODg1uSQzPy84tagsMzk1ILEoMTe1JLXoPxB8qdrSzMTA7MPAlZKfXJqbmlfimVLCIOCTlViWqJ%2BTmJeu75Ofl27tw8BZDDHEM6WQoY6B0YdBECoQkl8QkppbEFqUWcLAB9GXl1qiHxrkaV1RAHQbH0hID2SUHtio7icTzvQr32diYPRiYC1LzClNrShiEEAo8ivNTUotalszVZZ7yoNuJgaGigIGEGAzulAMspoFzGO%2FeroAALZ0pMz9AAAA
I'm not sure what you mean by "timing," but it is critical for Tessera that a stay not be granted. The pressure of an exclusion order would get the Respondents signed up. If the matter is stayed pending appeal, it's possible that the patents will expire before that is resolved. Then, it's just a matter of past damages if Tessera wins on appeal. The pressure will be off and experts will argue about the amount of damages using a reasonable royalty measure in the District Courts (as I recall, there are two District Court actions, which have been stayed). By the way, it made sense for Motorola to settle out, since it is no longer in the semi business. It's just a money thing for Motorola; no downside risk from an exclusion order.
Of course TSRA counsel wouldn't say they have a 98% chance of success, its just an opinion, mine, and I'm not a lawyer. I was actually trying to address the timing issue with you, this appears to be the biggest factor. But in the end, look at QCOM's litigation record with BRCM. They're the schoolyard bully trying to steal your lunch money. They were slapped with contempt charges, dragged out every argument, appealed every decision, thats just how they operate. In the end, they paid a huge amount of money to resolve the litigation. Who knows if this takes a similar path.
I'm not concerned about right and wrong, I was wrong for a long time when the stock plunged to the 8's, but reading between the lines, it didn't make sense. I took the opportunity to load up on some additional shares and play some LEAP options and that has worked out pretty well. TSRA's new technologies also seem to haver significant appeal and a very real chance of exploding, no matter what happens here. But I have to believe that MOT signing a license is likely going to have a real impact on where QCOM's appeal goes.
You say: "I'm thinking 98% chance of success."
Dear tech, even Tessera's litigation counsel would not say they have a 98% chance of success. No patent litigator with a major firm like those involved in this case would tell you that any hotly litigated case taken up to the Federal Circuit was a 98% chance of success. Cases with such poor prospects for one side settle. I started my career years ago with a major semiconductor manufacturer (not one of the Respondents in this litigation). As an investor, I look for opportunities in various sectors, but the semiconductor manufacturing sector is something in which I have a keen interest. I started watching this case several years ago to see how in might affect the major players since the patents were so far reaching. As a patent attorney, I find this case very interesting with respect to the interplay between the courts and the USPTO. Which forum will ultimately control the outcome, if all involved don't settle and leave that question unanswered? Though I have expressed my opinion in the past, as you say, I never felt confident enough in the outcome one way or the other to bet my own money for or against Tessera. So, I have no hidden agenda and have no dog in this fight. So far, you have been right and I have been wrong. But it's not over until the fat lady sings.
"I'm just way too conservative to make a big bet on a speculative play that depends on the arcane aspects of patent law."
If you take "speculative play" out of your statement, I'm sorry to say I'm in your camp. My experience has been that investing in court dependent as opposed to business dependent companies opens one up to the unexpected, always. So I can't be in big in TSRA because, for now, it's a court company. Having said that, the potential for continued success is way too high to bail (unintended pun) completely. Fact is, the patents remain in place throughout. Score one for TSRA now. Fact is, TSRA has developed some terrific new technolgies in unrelated areas that have what I consider to be unbelievable potential to dominate their fields in the future as their present patents wind down, NO MATTER what the outcome in the courts... So I remain an investor, though substantially paired down in size. The future potential for TSRA outside of court far surpasses the downsize risks in court.
TSRA's Response to the Stay request finally declassified.....
Thank you for the link. I have read the parties' briefs on the stay issue and it's clear that both sides made strong arguments. It's a tossup as to whether the stay will be granted. I do not have a long or short position in TSRA, and never have. The precedent that this case will set is what interests me as a lawyer, and that's why I follow it. It seems to me that a serious Achilles' heel for Tessera is the indefiniteness determination of the claim term "movable" (as presently construed in the ITC action) made by the PTO in a reexamination of a Tessera patent related to the patents-in-suit. See Respondents' Joint Motion at I.A.3. When all issues arrive at the Federal Circuit, this particular issue might be Tessera's undoing. Claim terms must be construed consistently in related patents, as are involved here. Good luck to you.
Dark - I can't handle this legal stuff..I just glaze over instantaneously. So, bottom line, does this joint filing on 630 have any impact on an expectation for additional companies to follow Motorola's lead signing for 605 contracts?
I glaze over too.
My goal was to put the raw data into the forum and get the discussion going from smarter minds.
They all requested the stay, but only QCOM seems to have posted a bond.
I don't understand the amount of the QCOM bond. Some on this board indicated that such a bond would be huge. $5000 is nothing. They paid their legal team more to file the paperwork.
At this point, I'd say it is an inexpensive stall tactic. If the ITC denies the stay, then they will have to decide whether they are ready to post bonds and move into District Court incurring more legal fees.
Can you give us your opinion on what it all means? I'm don't have much experience on patent disputes so to me it looks like QCOM is going to keep on fighting and all the other ones seem to not let go either... i.e: another year of litigation??