Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Leap Wireless International, In Message Board

jeffreek 13 posts  |  Last Activity: May 21, 2015 4:17 PM Member since: May 15, 1998
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • IF you want/need to get your strategic positions in order...better get them done Tomorrow...for

    Everybody knows that...
    Tuesday is Newsday...

    (wishful thinking?)

    jmfo

    ...jk...

    Sentiment: Buy

  • I expect we will see a move out of the recent low-Volume trading range...into a multi-million-share frenzy of trading that Lifts the Shareprice Significantly...

    The set-up IS in place...and Many (on Both sides of the trading) are Aware of it...

    ok boys, release the News...its Time...

    jmfo

    ...jk...

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    a Chance of a MONSTER week...next week...?!!

    by jeffreek Feb 20, 2015 4:28 PM
    jeffreek jeffreek May 19, 2015 3:01 PM Flag

    Still in play...

    C'mon, guys...Raise the divvie by a dime...per Q...
    Is That asking too much...?!!

    waiting patiently...agaon...

    ...jk...

  • NEW YORK (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) lost a round in a potentially costly patent battle when a U.S. International Trade Commission judge on Monday found that the software giant used InterDigital Inc's technology in its mobile phones without permission.

    The judge, Theodore Essex, said that Microsoft infringed two wireless cellular patents owned by InterDigital (IDCC.O), a patent licensor, and said it would not be against the public interest to ban the Microsoft devices from being imported into the United States.

    The judge's decision must be reviewed by the full commission before any import ban is enacted.

    The ITC has the authority to stop the import of products that it determines infringe a U.S. patent. Companies frequently sue at the ITC to win an import ban and in district court to win damages.

    Wilmington, Delaware-based InterDigital first accused Nokia Corp (NOK1V.HE) of infringing its patents in 2007. Microsoft acquired Nokia's handset division last year. The InterDigital patents relate to moderating a mobile phone's power to reduce signal interference.

    ..Related Quotes .IDCC
    53.90
    +0.10% MSFT
    48.03
    +0.33% InterDigital, Inc. Watchlist
    53.90+0.06(0.10%)
    NASDAQ4:00 PM EDT Microsoft phones infringe patents: U.S. International Trade Commission judge
    Reuters 7 mins ago Microsoft phones infringe patents -U.S. Int'l Trade Commission judge
    Reuters 2 hrs 42 mins ago More
    Microsoft Corporation Watchlist48.03+0.16(0.33%) NASDAQ4:00 PM EDT .The ITC originally cleared Nokia of infringement, but in 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation's top patent court, overturned that decision and sent it back to the ITC.

    The "full-court stall" finally coming to a conclusion...?!!

    Pay Up, Deadbeats...!!!

    lol

    jmfo

    ...jk...

  • Reply to

    you Have heard of InterDigital, right...???

    by jeffreek Mar 10, 2015 4:22 PM
    jeffreek jeffreek Apr 27, 2015 4:28 PM Flag

    Real news out...and Nobody is even paying attention...??!
    OK then...just What will MSFT now do...???
    Buy InterDigital...??? (my idea)

    oh...I Own IDCC shares...
    Anyone else...???

    ...jk...

  • and Load Up...today...

    The Only sellers are those Shorting to hold the SP for options...

    If they are so myopic to Not see past Today...well, then...

    let them get hit hard...next week..or the week after...or...whenever...

    But it Will happen...

    jmfo

    ...jk...

    Sentiment: Buy

  • ...after the close...
    now That would be excellent Timing...

    C'mon, IDCC...I know you got Something...

    LOL

    (just teasing the shorts)

    ...jk...

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • "V. CONCLUSION
    For the reasons discussed above and in the Staff’s Posthearing Brief, the Staff is of the view that both the formerly accused products and the currently imported accused products infringe each of the asserted claims of the ’966 and ’847 patents under the claim constructions in effect in this remand proceeding. The Staff is also of the view that if the Commission finds a violation of Section 337, imposing a remedy in this investigation would not adversely affect any of the statutory public interest factors.
    Respectfully submitted,
    /s/ Lisa A. Murray
    Margaret D. Macdonald,"

    nice...

    ...jk...

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Options Week...

    You can Count on Discounted SP offers to be available...
    Manipulation does, in a perverse way, imply Opportunity...

    lets see if any of the Big Boys "seize the shares"...

    "Don't Sell " (buy) is My sentiment...
    Better days are a'comin'...

    jmfo

    ...jk...

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    you Have heard of InterDigital, right...???

    by jeffreek Mar 10, 2015 4:22 PM
    jeffreek jeffreek Mar 10, 2015 4:37 PM Flag

    InterDigital spent eight years seeking to license Nokia on FRAND terms and conditions, to no
    avail. MMO refused to negotiate with InterDigital at all following its acquisition of Nokia’s
    device business, waiting until the last business day before the evidentiary hearing to provide only
    a single, proposal. As their conduct and statements demonstrate, Respondents are
    unwilling licensees who refuse to obtain a FRAND license from InterDigital. There is likewise
    no basis to deny an exclusion order pursuant to the statutory public interest factors under
    Sections 337(d) and (f).
    Accordingly, InterDigital respectfully requests that the ALJ find that Respondents have
    violated Section 337, and recommend prompt issuance of exclusion and cease and desist orders.

    Ruling(s) due soon...

    ...jk...

  • Reply to

    you Have heard of InterDigital, right...???

    by jeffreek Mar 10, 2015 4:22 PM
    jeffreek jeffreek Mar 10, 2015 4:28 PM Flag

    (continued)
    ?There is no evidence of patent hold-up in this case; instead, the evidence
    demonstrates Respondents’ reverse hold-up;
    ??There is no public interest-based reason to deny an exclusion order.
    Nothing in Respondents’ initial Post-Hearing Brief disturbs these conclusions.
    Regarding infringement, Respondents spend the bulk of their argument on “generated using a
    same code” propounding new and unsupported claim construction arguments under the flimsy
    pretense of rebutting a construction purportedly advanced by InterDigital. In reality, it is
    Respondents who are seeking to reconstrue the claims in an effort to exclude their
    implementation from the ordinary scope of the claim language. Respondents’ new claim
    construction arguments should be disregarded as waived, and rejected as unfounded and outside
    the scope of remand.
    Respondents’ argument on “successively transmits signals” stands on the same collateral
    estoppel theory that the ALJ has already rejected, and requires application of claim constructions
    the ALJ has repeatedly ruled are irrelevant to this proceeding. It should be rejected again for the
    same reasons—the issues here are different from those in the prior investigations.
    Regarding public interest, Respondents have failed to demonstrate the existence of patent
    hold-up in this case. They rely solely on speculative theories, pointing to no actual evidence of
    hold-up. Instead, the evidence demonstrates that Respondents have engaged in reverse hold-up.
    PUBLIC VERSION

  • If not...be awrae that they are in-the-news related to all of MSFT's mobile devices...
    NOK has been a perennial infringer of IDCC Patents for a long long time...and MSFT has assumed the Liability...
    The ALJ at the ITC, as well as the ITC Staff will soon make its recommendations...
    from the just-out post-hearing brief-
    "
    At the hearing and in its Initial Post-Hearing Brief, InterDigital established that
    Respondents have violated Section 337 in connection with the importation of the accused
    devices. Specifically, InterDigital proved that:
    ??Each of the Accused Products have been imported into the United States and infringe
    one or more of the claims of each Asserted Patent;
    ??There is no evidence of patent hold-up in this case; instead, the evidence
    demonstrates Respondents’ reverse hold-up;
    ??There is no public interest-based reason to deny an exclusion order.
    Nothing in Respondents’ initial Post-Hearing Brief disturbs these conclusions.
    Regarding infringement, Respondents spend the bulk of their argument on “generated using a
    same code” propounding new and unsupported claim construction arguments under the flimsy
    pretense of rebutting a construction purportedly advanced by InterDigital. In reality, it is
    Respondents who are seeking to reconstrue the claims in an effort to exclude their
    implementation from the ordinary scope of the claim language. Respondents’ new claim
    construction arguments should be disregarded as waived, and rejected as unfounded and outside
    the scope of remand.
    Respondents’ argument on “successively transmits signals” stands on the same collateral
    estoppel theory that the ALJ has already rejected, and requires application of claim constructions
    the ALJ has repeatedly ruled are irrelevant to this proceeding. It should be rejected again for the
    same reasons—the issues here are different from those in the prior investigations.
    Regarding public interest, Respondents have failed to demonstrate the existence of patent
    hold-up

  • The Court finds that the claim language and specification support Plaintiffs' proposed
    construction.3 The Court previously construed "communication session" in this context to mean
    "logical connection." (D.I. 219 at p. 12). The surrounding claim language therefore compels the
    conclusion that the connection is between the subscriber unit and the cellular wireless network.
    A connection within the subscriber unit itself cannot be a connection "with the cellular wireless
    network." In addition, the specification describes a logical connection as a connection between
    peer nodes at the network layer. ('244 patent, col. 4, IL 5-18).
    The Court does not agree that the prosecution history limited the claim as Defendants
    suggest. Defendants made the same argument at the original claim construction proceeding. My
    response now is the same: "The examiner's statement provides only a possible example for the
    definition of the disputed phrase. This is not sufficient to put the inventor on notice that the
    invention had been limited to only spoofing, nor is it specific enough to restrict the claim." (D.I.
    219 at pp. 13-14).
    3 In reaching this conclusion, the Court does not rely on the definitions proposed in the parallel IPR proceeding.

    this is just Part of the 16 pages of reviewed claim construction...

    THIS is one of the parts I like...

    Can't figure out Exactly how it plays out in the end...

    Settlement...???

    eventually, is My guess...

    jmfo

    ...jk...

    Sentiment: Buy

LEAP
17.520.00(0.00%)Mar 13 4:00 PMEDT