Updated last night:
All claims under reexamination are still rejected, contrary to what many expected 2 months ago when the MSJ was filed related to some prior art. My explanation was dead on related to this issue.
Augme has 1 month to respond and can appeal for an additional month. This is for the '636 patent which is being asserted in some of the lawsuits. I am expecting defendants to file more reexaminations on the other patents. I would.
Combining this with the litigation update provides for some seriously negative events concerning the IP. 9 figure settlements pretrial was never going to happen in my eyes. Now I question whether 9 figure damages is ever going to be realistic with the IP. Licensing the patents without jury verdicts, settlements, and successful reexaminations is going to be extremely difficult. It doesn't matter if they work with God trying to license them out. I would love to be proved wrong.
Augme filed their response to the ACP-NF on 9/14 and was updated on the system yesterday. Looked very thorough and now we wait for the uspto to decide. I don't have a timeframe for the next event. It is viewable on docket 95/001,734.
Very well done. Compelling to say the least. Hard to guess but I felt good about it when reading Augme's response. Did you see Judge McMahon's ruling last Friday? Moving AOL Gannet forward quickly.
The IP originally. That ship has sailed with me until results can be nailed down on a financial statement. Any new investor taking a look at the IP, is going to look at the history of the IP and how the lawsuits have been executed and puke. Summary Judgments are extremely rare to get granted surrounding IP infringement cases. Either GP messed up or the judge messed up. I don't like either scenario. Not to mention that the lawyers let the judge in the AOL case fall asleep for 2 years.
I am focused on the core business and Ivan providing meaningful results this quarter and quarters in the future.
Here is what I am expecting. Articles like this to eventually capture Augme and HK:
Augme PR and IR should have been trying like mad to get exposure in an article like this. It will come but will take time.
I will agree that it can be a large pre-occupation and maybe a distraction, but it is part of what they are doing so must be considered. I also agree that they may have a more smoothly running ship by emphasizing the core business, and growth over the IP, and let that run its course in the background.
You have to recognize though, that there were years where the IP story is really all they had, but it provided them the leverage and attention needed to get to the place they are now with the core biz.
What attracted you to Augme, the core biz, the IP, or both?
What they say about the IP side is very different from reality and what they execute. I am in for the core until the IP side can be executed and solid numbers appear.
The company needs to be marketed as a growth story in the mobile advertising space to investors and potential investors. The IP side needs to be dropped from presentations and conference calls.
My reexam update was strictly for information on an issue that affects the company.
I don't expect or want Augme to be the next Virnetx. The IP space is loaded with small IP players that never make it. I think the value is in the core marketing and I think Ivan can provide significant value to shareholders as the shift in advertising $$$ continues to move to mobile.
People always forget all the years that went into VHC finally winning a case. What they went through is much worse and difficult than anything Augme has gone through at this point. They did it all with no net like augme has. Pretty impressive considering what it took for them to finally make it. I remember that stock under $2 for so many years before it finally did what it did. Matter of patience.
The value assigned by these analysts is understood (or should be understood) to be contingent upon favorable outcome. You do your DD, I'm sure you understand that to be the case. Do you not think other investor/potentials are smart enough to see that as well.
The large figures "touted" have always been in the context of the 'ifs'... if the outcome is favorable, if we prevail... etc.... and that is still the case until the final gavel drops on it, and to bemoan the fact that some of the posters have postulated on that ignores what everyone knows (or should know). Not everyone has the same way of looking at things... Different stokes!
As far as the Tacoda case ruling, you ask:
"...There were multiple touts over suing Tacoda and how it was guaranteed cash coming to Augme. Now it is a good thing they terminated that portion of the case. Which one is it?..."
While I doubt anyone seriously stated anything to be a guarantee, the obvious answer is that in light of the judges ruling that restricts the possible damages, it is wise to not waste any more resources going after something that may be trivial. That was not the case before the ruling, as Modavox filed motions a few years ago to deal with exactly that contingency when AOL tried to gut the case by arguing that the damages should remain inside the dead gutted shell which is Tacoda. I guess she finally decided to rule... wrongly, on a common sense motion... years late as usual... and it is hard to believe it was NOT done to make it harder for the little guy. Notice however, that Augme did not come out and say they will appeal that, which may tell you that they believe the strength of the other 2 suits will be sufficient to prevail. It just adds more time to the resolution
I look at the glass half full, not half empty. Consolidating cases, dropping dead unproductive weight, and more expeditiously using resources seems to be something I would expect as the numerous cases run their course through the courts... which will hopefully lead to a better understanding of what exactly are the IP assets we have, and the ability to value them better.
We are not going to win them all, and it only takes one moderate to large win/settlement to move things along in a big way... ala VirnetX.
As you know, a request for a reexamination can be filed by anyone at anytime during the period of enforceability of a patent. To request a reexamination, one must submit a “request for reexamination,” pay a substantial fee, and provide an explanation of the new reasons why the patent is invalid based on prior art.
Copies of the prior art must be provided, and the party making the request has to let the owner of the patent know that a request has been filed. If the USPTO finds that the request indeed raises a substantial new question of patentability, the USPTO orders a reexamination.
THIS IS THE ONLY PART OF THE PROCESS YAHOO! HAS COMPLETED.
Once a reexamination is ordered, a new examiner is assigned to the case, and the patent goes through another examination similar to the examination it received the first time around. If any claims are rejected in light of the new questions raised, then the patent owner can narrow or cancel those claims. The patent owner can also submit new claims, provided they are not broader than the claims in the original patent.
CURRENTLY, AUGME HAS BRIEFED ON BOTH SIDES THE EXAMINER AND AWAIT A DECISION.
If the examiner makes a rejection "final", the patent owner can appeal the decision to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) at the USPTO. The patent owner can file an appeal to theCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and even to the US Supreme Court, if permitted.
IF IT DID NOT, AUGME WOULD APPEAL AS ABLE STATED ABOVE
TWO MORE CYCLES TO GO ESTIMATED TIME 8 months – 1 Year.
I hope this adds a little clarity to those who might have been confused by your post or comments.
Arn, please see my comments in the following thread:
You should explain what happens to the lawsuits when you start amending patent claims. I think you can clarify that issue also.
if management can make a deal with a company like acacia or some other third party licensing company, I believe that will give us instant respect and credibility.. does anyone know how many other acacias are out there that could be potential partners for us??
also on the acacia website, there was a section called testimonials. this is where companies actually talk about the relationship and business dealings they had with acacia. nothing but great things to say. all had the same theme; how acacia helped the little guy beat the big corporations. it also sounded like acacia has the juice to slap injunctions on infringers. and why not if they're gonna get half the proceeds you may as well do everything in your power to get them to come to the settlement table. hopefully, these are the third party licensing companies that management has been talking about.
From the BM analyst 2 months ago:
Maintain Buy and $5 target price for AUGT, based on a sum-of-the-parts analysis. We value each of Augme’s major business initiatives at 5.0x forward revenues of $39 million (“high-touch” agency business at 5.0x $9 million, AD LIFE licensing opportunity at 5.0x $18 million, and AD SERVE Mobile Add Network at 5.0x $12 million), or approximately $192 million. To this, we assign a value for IP infringement claims in the AOL case of $300 million. We estimate $5 million in cash at FY2013 end for a total EV of $501 million, or $5.34 per share.