|
Post by forkodak on Dec 19, 2012 10:44:46 GMT -5
ok so maybe Kodak is going to do the IP company idea; maybe they are bringing in an investor to raise the $500 million. Then this new entity/company will be created to continue to litigate Kodak’s court cases and generate money for Kodak and these new investors that are paying the $500 Million to Kodak upfront… Thoughts? – thanks So was I right?
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 19, 2012 10:24:14 GMT -5
Kodak is in court today -- timing is interesting...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 19, 2012 9:53:45 GMT -5
Yep still not sure what is going on; stock price does not seem to know anything either.. What are your thoughts? Up Down ....
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 19, 2012 9:12:11 GMT -5
Like on 218 Kodak says it is owed 1 billion in back infringement and Apple says they made the patent and it is not valid -- how do they come to a settlement? Flip a coin on who owns the patent and then average it for a payout of a half a billion... to the winner of the coin flip??
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 19, 2012 9:02:17 GMT -5
SEC filing does not seem clear, leaves questions. It implies settlement of cases that involve money larger than sale of portfolio; something does not add... Is there additional settlement money or not and how much? ...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 19, 2012 8:56:14 GMT -5
Currently there is the ITC case 377-831 so is that concluded and included in the ~$500 million or not? Currently there is the 12-1588 or the 218 case is that included in the ~$500 million or not? Or is there a settlement where Kodak will collect additional money from parties on these two cases?
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 19, 2012 8:50:06 GMT -5
Settle current patent related litigation -- Settle for money? "The transaction also includes an agreement to settle current patent-related litigation between the participants and Kodak, which avoids additional litigation costs and helps to ensure that management and the company’s resources focus on enhancing the operations of its core future businesses. "
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 19, 2012 8:44:06 GMT -5
Kodak Announces Sale of Patents Consortium organized by Intellectual Ventures and RPX Corporation to pay approximately $525 million for purchase and licenses of patents Builds on Kodak’s momentum toward a successful emergence in the first half of 2013 investor.kodak.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1193125-12-507443
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 20:31:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 19:53:08 GMT -5
Dates ( initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on May 30, 2013) ALJ Gildea Sets 19-Month Target Date In Certain Electronic Devices (337-TA-831) Posted On: March 7, 2012 by: Eric Schweibenz Topics: ALJ Gildea, ALJ Orders Further to our February 23, 2012 post, on March 2, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 2 in Certain Electronic Devices For Capturing and Transmitting Images, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-831). According to the Order, ALJ Gildea set September 30, 2013 as the target date (which is approximately 19 months after institution of the investigation). ALJ Gildea further indicated that the initial determination on alleged violation shall be due on May 30, 2013. In addition, ALJ Gildea directed the parties to submit discovery statements and proposed procedural schedules by March 27, 2012. ALJ Gildea also determined that the evidentiary hearing in this matter will commence on March 11, 2013. Lastly, the Order also included ALJ Gildea’s ground rules governing the conduct of the investigation. www.itcblog.com/20120307/alj-gildea-sets-19-month-target-date-in-certain-electronic-devices-337-ta-831/
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 19:38:35 GMT -5
Any clue what our target date is for Initial determination? -- Below is a cut and paste from ITC faq doc from above ************* 16. When is the Judge’s Initial Determination on the merits of a case issued? Within 45 days after publication of a notice of investigation, the presiding Administrative Law Judge sets a target date for completion of the investigation.16 The Judge issues a decision on the merits of the case, called an "Initial Determination," no later than four (4) months prior to the target date.17 Journalists and other non-parties to an investigation should note that the Administrative Law Judges' decisions typically contain confidential business information, and thus are not available for public inspection on the date filed. Public versions of these decisions
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 18:46:55 GMT -5
No clue maybe call her and ask? Lisa M. Kattan, Esq., (202) 205-2734,
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 18:38:42 GMT -5
New doc dated 12-18-12 -- (The Office of Unfair Import Investigations) see bottom on these guys **************** DESIGNATION OF OUII ATTORNEY FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (AOUII@) hereby designates Lisa M. Kattan, Esq., (202) 205-2734, Lisa.Kattan@usitc.gov, as OUII's lead attorney for service of process instead of Juan Cockburn. It is requested that all documents served by the Commission or filed by the parties in the above-referenced investigation be served upon this attorney. Respectfully submitted, ************************* from page 8 of below ITC link ************************* The Commission also assigns an investigative attorney from the Commission's Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”), who functions as an independent litigant representing the public interest in the investigation. The investigative attorney is a full party to the investigation. In the notice announcing initiation of an investigation, the Commission identifies the entities that may participate in the investigation as parties, namely, the complainant or complainants that allege a violation of Section 337, the respondent or respondents that are alleged to have violated Section 337, and the OUII staff attorney, who is formally known as the Commission Investigative Attorney. ************************ www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/documents/337_faqs.pdf
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 17:04:48 GMT -5
I am not a Pro-- But I will hold my shares and expect that they will be held whole and that the retiree unsecured claim of $635 million will be paid out-- I do not buy more shares since I could be wrong --- no idea on odds, just saying what my plans are...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 16:43:00 GMT -5
Did they too drink the Kool-Aid "Two weeks before Kodak retiree benefits expire, the company is meeting with former workers. Kodak and the court-appointed Official Committee of Retirees met with retirees on Monday night at 6:30 pm. Two more meetings are scheduled for Tuesday at the Theatre on the Ridge. The town hall meeting will cover the health and survivor benefits set to expire December 31st. Kodak can't afford the 10 million a month cost for benefits. There is also a settlement of about $650 million that is for retirees. There are 56,000 retirees and their spouses. The Official Committee of Retirees is expected to determine how to divide those funds up, that will also be a topic of discussion at the meetings. Meeting times are 9 - 10:30 am and 1 - 2:30 pm at the Theatre on the Ridge in Rochester " rochesterhomepage.net/fulltext?nxd_id=360432
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 15:25:13 GMT -5
The only real news from all this is that the case is on going and apple is dragging their feet and the judge is not happy with them in my opinion...
The fact that the deposition of the HTC expert got moved out till 1-13-13 seems like nothing will happen this year. But it was described as out of time and I have no idea what that means…
Again this in the ITC case not Kodak's appeal of the validity of 218 in Federal court...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 15:21:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 15:06:32 GMT -5
Yep
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 14:58:52 GMT -5
There are two Apple docs from 12-17-12 377-TA-831... Both seem to say Apple claimed a defense, Kodak requested a summery judgment and Apple conceded to save time causing Kodak to withdraw request for summery judgment on Apple claim...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 14:44:24 GMT -5
Nope I did a search on Kodak and 831 and it did not pull up the doc from today; did search just on 831 and today’s doc shows up.
Filed 12-18-12 Just HTC council Leo Lam subscribing to the protective order…
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 14:29:44 GMT -5
New doc Filed 12-17-12 Joint motion by HTC and Kodak for deposition of Michael Bove Jr who is retained by HTC as an expert in 377-TA-831 and is the principal research scientist at MIT Media Laboratory; deposition by Bove as HTC expert of noninfringement of 218 to be taken out of time on January 13, 2013
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 11:40:35 GMT -5
I would think current Kodak share holders are made whole and Kodak owns part of new private Patent Company with outside money (Apple Google and or banks) of $500 million... NOL would want to be transferred to new company -- the assumption here is that Apple and others would be paying royalties to the new patent company tax free till NOLs consumed...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 11:10:10 GMT -5
Kind of thinking that Apple is trying to under mine the patents-- If patent A sights Patents B and Patent C -- instead of dealing with patent A apple is claiming ownership of or trying to say the sighted patents B and or C are invalid— So if this is the case then Kodak has two things to prove first the patents are valid hence the ITC case and also who owns them in the Gropper case. If Gropper ruled Apple owned or owned in part the patents then the ITC case might stop, so perhaps that is why Kodak first wants the ITC case to proceed before Gropper rules on ownership. I feel like I am just speculating on these patent cases… Any insight or thoughts? – Thanks
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 10:36:41 GMT -5
Gotta go. But keep track Fork. Ya think this is coming to a head? Not really I think the court could rule on 218 but the ITC thing seems a bit out based on Apple seeming to drag its feet...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 10:29:30 GMT -5
I refreshed the page and some more materialized. Take a look. - Commission Investigative Staff's Response to Respondent Apple Inc.'s Separate Statement of Material Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Determination of No Domestic Industry for the '084, '391, '161 and '605 Patents - Commission Investigative Staff's Response to Apple Inc.'s Motion for Summary Determination of No Domestic Industry for the '084, '0391, '161, and '605 Patents DUDE, those are some of the other 8 remaining patents in question. Again not a lawyer but "Motion for Summary Determination of No Domestic Industry for the '084, '0391, '161, and '605 Patents" to me sounds like Apple is saying since they are not generating money they are invalid-- I think when you file a patent you have to sell items using that patent but again not sure on this-- If I am correct then Apple it would seem is trying to invalidate patents they also claim to own-- which would imply that they don't own them and they know it-- Perhaps Kodak wants these Apple claims resolved by the ITC before Gropper says Kodak owns them-- perhaps Apple too wants that since if Gropper ruled Kodak owns the patents then Google might purchase them -- Again perhaps there is a deal on the table between parties and based on the ITC cases the sale number adjusts ...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 10:21:14 GMT -5
Missed that thanks -- Hard to keep track of all this stuff-- I still wonder why Gropper has not ruled on those 8 patents... Well, you know, Kodak's the one who kept adjourning. I'd think the Honorable Judge already knows how he'd rule. I am assuming he will rule they are owned by Kodak, am I wrong? Not sure why Kodak would want to drag his ruling out unless it helps them to negotiate debt down...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 10:15:44 GMT -5
Missed that thanks -- Hard to keep track of all this stuff-- I still wonder why Gropper has not ruled on those 8 patents...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 10:11:02 GMT -5
Thanks newyork, I saw them but since they are not posted hard to get much more than-- Apple is dragging its feet and pulling motions they think the judge will rule against...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 3:40:44 GMT -5
I like the idea of selling everything to Samsung for the 8B it's worth so we can all move on and Kodak can be a great back pocket R&D for Samsung to keep making kick ass products. Would be nice but I am guessing Kodak’ share price will rise slowly with small steps and not fast and final like people want. In an effort to reward long term investors not short timers... Just guessing...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on Dec 18, 2012 3:37:21 GMT -5
Taking it a step further; what if all of Kodak’s debt gets shifted to this new company/entity; this new company/entity then raises money to service Kodak’s debt until the IP generates enough to buyout or pay off the different debts. Then new money generated would be shared by Kodak and this new investor. Under this concept; debt (including unsecure debt) is gone but not defaulted on other than exit financing, pension liability is gone, Kodak has cash for operations and paying off or servicing what is not shifted…
|
|