InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

I think it is fair to say that IDCC has already had its correction from the highs! Other AI and Tech stocks are correcting now.

IMHO - Tomcat

IDCC’s price held inspite of the stock market losses. Go IDCC.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a2329ea-3adc-83ea-b522-edb08f85d2b8

Your read is right: PTAB institution decisions tied to the Director’s discretionary denial process are generally not appealable, while the merits appeal after a final written decision is appealable. The governing statute says the Director’s decision whether to institute inter partes review is “final and nonappealable,” and the Federal Circuit has repeatedly treated institution and related reconsideration/vacatur decisions that way.[ptablitigationblog +2]What that means• If the Director denies institution on discretionary grounds, that denial usually cannot be separately appealed.[law.cornell +1]• If institution is granted and the PTAB later issues a final written decision, that final decision can be appealed to the Federal Circuit.[justia]• The current USPTO process also bifurcates discretionary denial from merits review, with the Director making the discretionary call first and only then sending the case to a PTAB panel if institution is not denied.[honigman +1]Practical takeawaySo, “Director discretionary decisions not to take” are generally insulated from immediate appellate review, but the substantive PTAB outcome remains appealable once there is a final Board decision. In other words, the door closes early on institution discretion, but not on the ultimate merits decision.[jipel.law.nyu +3]One nuanceThere are narrow exceptions or edge cases discussed in the case law, but the default rule is still no direct appeal of a denial to institute IPR/PGR.[patentco +1]

It would be great if Amazon and Disney would read the room and just license the technology the are stealing.

IDCC is suing Amazon. Recently the PTAB refused to look at an Amazon challenge. The one case that was denied on the merits was Amazon.com Inc.'s challenge to an InterDigital VC Holdings Inc. patent on encoding and decoding video
Perplexiity says:
The decision you are tracking highlights how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to narrow the pathways for inter partes review (IPR) challenges, especially amid high-stakes multi-jurisdictional standard-essential patent (SEP) litigation.

In this instance, Amazon's challenge targeted a specific video compression (encoding/decoding) patent held by InterDigital VC Holdings Inc. While implementers frequently utilize the PTAB as a defensive domestic counterweight to global rate-setting and infringement disputes (such as the sprawling parallel actions involving Amazon and InterDigital in the UK Patents Court and the Unified Patent Court), a denial on the merits means the Board found that Amazon's petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims.

This merit-based denial effectively locks that specific patent's validity in place for the time being at the USPTO level, leaving the battle over its essentiality, infringement, and whether the underlying RAND obligations extend globally to both encoding and decoding features to play out in the federal and European courts.

Tcat the streaming adjudicated infringers remind me of the PNokio days. 

I get so tired of these "insert EXPLETIVE HERE" IP infringing companies, who have to be forced by court and lawsuit to pay for their use of IP developed by IDCC and others.

If someone violates a Disney trademark, for example, Disney sure does get its panties in a wad! Well, how about a little Quid Pro Quo!

Asking for equal treatment here!

The IDCC business model is so perfect, except for the part of having to employ a ARMY of lawyers to collect on its IP from infringers!

IMHO - Tomcat

The 268 patent was found to be valid in both the California Dolby case and the PTAB case.Now what crap Will Amazon, Disney and Dolby come up with. Here is a suggestion for resolution of all litigation. Sign the IDCC streaming license.

What was the InterDigital patent litigated in the California court where the judge did a patent evaluation and cited that some of the claims were valid?The California case you are likely referring to is the dispute involving InterDigital Madison’s U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 9,185,268 (the “’268 patent”).


This patent concerns technology for adapting or correcting image/color information when content is displayed on devices having different color capabilities. In the recent California litigation filed by Dolby, the dispute centers on whether Dolby Vision products infringe that patent and whether the patent is valid. Court filings in the PTAB record include a “Tentative Claim Construction Order” from the California district court, indicating that the district judge had already evaluated the patent and its claims during the parallel litigation. ?cite?turn0search1?turn0search7


The significance of the PTAB’s recent denial of institution (which you asked about previously) is that the Board was not persuaded that Dolby had shown a reasonable likelihood of proving the challenged claims unpatentable. As a result, the challenged claims of the ’268 patent remain in force and continue to benefit from the presumption of validity.  claim constructions favorable to InterDigital.

Paullee I posted what ChatGPT provided regarding the PTAB decision.
I also think that the PTAB 268 patent decision strengthened IDCC’s hand in all of the UPC and German court decisions we are waiting on. Disney UPC appeal decision due June 16th. And Amazon decision sometime in June. And an additional patent case against Disney on June 30th in the Local Division in Düsseldorf Germany. All of the above in addition to the Separate patent wins in Brazil and additional German court wins.
Go IDCC.

The latest development is a significant win for InterDigital.
On June 2, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Director Discretionary Decision denying institution of Dolby’s IPR challenge (IPR2026-00252) against U.S. Patent No. 9,185,268, owned by InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings. The proceeding was terminated the same day. The docket status is listed as “Discretionary Denial.”  
What this means

Why investors are paying attention
The ‘268 patent is not just any portfolio patent. Public reports identified it as one of the patents connected to InterDigital’s broader enforcement campaign involving video and display technologies and disputes affecting companies such as Disney and other Dolby customers.  
A discretionary denial is generally viewed as favorable to the patent owner because:

What to watch next
The key question is whether Dolby seeks:

For now, the most concrete takeaway is that Dolby’s PTAB challenge to the ‘268 patent was stopped at the institution stage on June 2, 2026, leaving InterDigital’s patent intact and avoiding a full PTAB review.  

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a21d6ec-a49c-83ea-ac44-47eb49b3455b

Great, thanks for keeping track of this for us.

This is encouraging
The PTAB has turned down the patent challenges of Dolby Laboratories Inc.'s challenge to an InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS patent on color correcting picture content. and was Amazon.com Inc.'s challenge to an InterDigital VC Holdings Inc. patent on encoding and decoding video.

appeal at the PTAB is unlikely but court challenges may still have to play out.
M3S use your AI skills for more details

https://stocks.apple.com/AEC8tLNmKQsCGS6WKN9Umfw

https://www.thefastmode.com/technology-solutions/48760-interdigital-to-present-collaborative-sensing-breakthroughs-for-6g-at-eucnc-summit

InterDigital to Present Collaborative Sensing Breakthroughs for 6G at EuCNC Summit

Paullee it sounds to me as though the company is talking out of both sides of its mouth. Saying buy this and sell that referring to the same stock.
What the street can get away with. Such as a buy side as opposed to the sell side folks in the same company. But I guess we can be assured that opinions are never shared. “Wink wink”. 
Hedge a call with a put. The public will not notice.

Remember it is only AI

what is navellier's free stock tip
Based on the email you are currently viewing, Louis Navellier's free AI stock pick for 2026 is InterDigital (trading under the ticker IDCC).
While the email body doesn't explicitly type out the name, it provides the exact corporate profile for the pick: a wireless and video technology company that holds over 30,000 patents and is showing 28% year-over-year sales growth. This matches InterDigital's exact intellectual property portfolio and recent financial metrics.
how can that be, Naveillier's group just sold IDCC two weeks ago
You’ve caught onto the exact paradox of institutional money management versus retail newsletter marketing. While it seems completely contradictory for Louis Navellier’s group to trim or sell a stock just two weeks ago while actively blasting out promotional emails calling it his "#1 AI stock for 2026," this happens all the time due to a few structural reasons:
1. The Disconnect Between Institutional Funds and Newsletter Marketing
Louis Navellier wears two entirely different hats:
• The Institutional Asset Manager: His firm, Navellier & Associates, manages private accounts and institutional portfolios (like the Navellier Small-Mid Cap Growth portfolio). These portfolios operate under strict, cold-hearted quantitative rules regarding position sizing, sector risk management, and profit-taking.
• The Newsletter Publisher: His retail newsletters (published via InvestorPlace or Beehiiv) are independent marketing engines. The marketing teams often draft and run large promotional "blitzes" for months at a time based on a long-term thematic thesis (e.g., "The best AI patent play for 2026"). They do not stop a massive marketing campaign just because the asset management arm rebalanced its portfolio a few weeks prior.
2. Algorithmic Rebalancing vs. Long-Term Thesis
InterDigital (IDCC) has had an incredibly volatile ride recently. After surging significantly over the past year, it faced a sharp 21% to 26% multi-day sell-off in early May 2026 before bouncing back on strong Q1 earnings on May 20.
Because Navellier’s institutional stock selection model is heavily reliant on quantitative data (like a stock's sequential "Stock Grader" momentum and risk scores), a sharp drop often triggers an automatic, algorithmic rule to cut a position or take profits to protect fund performance. His fund model can flag a stock as a technical "sell" for a quantitative portfolio, even while Navellier fundamentally believes the company’s 30,000 wireless patents make it a premier AI winner for the next few years.
3. "Model Portfolio" Delays
Newsletter promotional pitches are notorious for lagging behind real-time portfolio management. The pitch you are reading boasts that the company has "an A-rating in my proprietary Stock Grader system." Even if a recent price drop or portfolio rebalance caused his institutional side to lock in gains and exit two weeks ago, the marketing copy will continue to run until the newsletter team formally updates their "Model Portfolio" recommendations.
In short: His fund managers likely sold to lock in profits or mitigate short-term technical risk during the recent May volatility, while his marketing department is still using the underlying long-term fundamental thesis to sell newsletter subscriptions.

Tcat it was nice to close in the green today.

Tcat I could not agree with you more. After the Disney appeal decision hopefully we will be on the fast track back up.

I would prefer that these "Day Traders" would "fun" the stock price back towards $400!

IMHO - Tomcat

The day traders are having fun with the share price.

Possibilities are endless

Could it be that the profit taking is finished, and that we are at the beginning of a up cycle?

- Tomcat

InterDigital to Share 6G Leadership, Potential for ISAC and Agentic AI at EuCNC & 6G Summit
June 01 2026 - 4:00AM

InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a wireless, video, and AI technology research and development company, announced that the company will participate in the European Conference on Networks and Communications (EuCNC) and 6G Summit to demonstrate the potential for 6G research, innovation, and emerging technologies.
The EuCNC & 6G Summit is sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society, the European Association for Signal Processing (EURASIP), and the European Association on Antennas and Propagation (EurAAP), and focuses on topics ranging from 5G deployment and mobile IoT to 6G exploration and future communications systems and networks. The event will take place in Malaga, Spain from June 2 – 5, 2026.

InterDigital will demonstrate Collaborative Sensing for 6G Verticals, as part of the European Commission-funded SNS JU MultiX project, which fuses sensing measurements from cellular and Wi-Fi signals and leverages their complementary propagation characteristics to improve detection accuracy, spatial resolution, and sensing service continuity while reducing blind spots in indoor environments. This innovation reveals potential for 6G applications in smart manufacturing, device-free healthcare monitoring, and intelligent building situational awareness. The demo will be available in Booth #5 and 6.

Alongside the demo, InterDigital engineers will participate in panels and presentations throughout the EuCNC and 6G Summit.

Tuesday, June 2

Challenges and Opportunities on Agentic Networking for AI Agents in 6G

InterDigital’s Muhammad Awais Jadoon will moderate this workshop, and Sebastian Robitzsch will join a presentation exploring architecture advancements towards 6G, outlining the challenges and opportunities of AI Agents operating across one or more layers of the OSI stack leveraging agentic AI towards a fully autonomous closed-loop system. Learn more here.

Workshop on ISAC Initiatives on the European Research Framework

Sebastian Robitzsch will also moderate a panel on standardisation, exploring the challenges and opportunities for academics to contribute to (pre-)standardisation efforts such as the ETSI Integrated Sensing and Communication Industry Specification Group (ISAC ISG). The panel is composed of academics and researchers from both for and non-profit organisations. Learn more here.

Wednesday, June 3

ISAC – Integrated Sensing and Communications Towards 6G

During this special session, InterDigital’s Head of Wireless Lab Europe Alain Mourad will contribute an industry presentation on ISAC towards 6G. As Chair of the ETSI ISAC ISG, Alain will provide an update on the technology’s adoption status in 5G-Advanced and outline ongoing discussions around ISAC in 6G studies in 3GPP and the ITU-R IMT-2030. Learn more here.

Thursday, June 4

Architectural Transformation towards 6G: Standardization Landscape, Enablers, and Challenges

Alain Mourad will join this industry and academia-led panel discussion around the defining architectural shifts that will shape 6G and assess how research and standardization must evolve to turn vision into impact. Learn more here.

Friday, June 5

6G Research into Standardisation: Maximising European Impact through Collaboration, Examples of Success Stories

In this special session dedicated to raising awareness of the directions, focus, priorities, and challenges that the research community should consider, Alain Mourad will provide perspective as Chair of the ETSI ISAC ISG on the lessons learned from moving research closer to standards. Learn more here.

Learn more about EuCNC and the 6G Summit here.

About InterDigital®
InterDigital is a global research and development company focused primarily on wireless, video, artificial intelligence (“AI”), and related technologies. We design and develop foundational technologies that enable connected, immersive experiences in a broad range of communications and entertainment products and services. We license our innovations worldwide to companies providing such products and services, including makers of wireless communications devices, consumer electronics, IoT devices, cars and other motor vehicles, and providers of cloud-based services such as video streaming. As a leader in wireless technology, our engineers have designed and developed a wide range of innovations that are used in wireless products and networks, from the earliest digital cellular systems to 5G and today’s most advanced Wi-Fi technologies. We are also a leader in video processing and video encoding/decoding technology, with a significant AI research effort that intersects with both wireless and video technologies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on Nasdaq.

InterDigital® is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.

For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.

InterDigital Contact:
Roya Stephens
Email: Roya.Stephens@interdigital.com
+1 (202) 349-1714

Conversation with Gemini
Appellate rulings raise questions over Brazil’s approach to preliminary injunctions
The shifting landscape around preliminary injunctions (PIs) in Brazil—particularly within high-stakes, standard-essential patent (SEP) and technology litigation—has drawn intense scrutiny from legal practitioners and appellate judges.

Historically celebrated by patent owners for its speed and strength, Brazil’s statutory preliminary injunction regime is facing new questions regarding consistency, the necessity of expert evidence, and the economic friction caused by rapid enforcement.

1. The Power of the Brazilian PI Regime
Unlike the United States, where the post-eBay equitable framework makes preliminary injunctions exceptionally rare in patent disputes, Brazil’s Industrial Property Statute (Law No. 9,279/1996) treats injunctive relief as a statutory right.

Speed Over Discovery: In a system devoid of American-style discovery, PIs can be granted ex parte (without hearing the defendant) within days or weeks based on pre-constituted evidence.

Settlement Driver: Because a PI can force a company to immediately halt product sales or disable core features, it serves as the ultimate terminal event. The vast majority of complex telecom and technology patent cases in Brazil settle long before reaching a full trial on the merits.

2. Unconditional vs. Conditional Injunctions
Appellate courts have increasingly had to grapple with how lower court judges balance the rights of patent holders against the risk of commercial disruption to defendants. This has split PIs into two practical categories:

Unconditional PIs: Take immediate effect, forcing the defendant to cease alleged infringement or pull products from the market without waiting for a deep technical assessment.

Conditional PIs: Contingent upon confirmation of infringement by a court-appointed, independent technical expert. Fines accumulate retroactively if infringement is verified, but business operations face less immediate paralysis.

3. Growing Appellate Friction: Geely vs. GWM
Recent conflicting outcomes at the appellate level highlight why questions are being raised about the predictability of Brazil’s approach. In 2026, the global cell-licensing platform disputes spilled heavily into the Brazilian automotive market, resulting in contrasting appellate treatment:

Case Focus Lower Court Action Appellate Outcome Judicial Reasoning
Sun Patent Trust v. Geely (April 2026) Lower court granted an injunction targeting connected-car technology. Injunction Suspended. The appeals court stayed the order during the appeal process. Acknowledged the need to prevent premature economic disruption before complete technical clarity is achieved.
Sun Patent Trust v. GWM (May 2026) Lower court granted a PI involving 4G connectivity across 5 vehicle models; imposed heavy monthly fines. Injunction Maintained. The Rio de Janeiro appellate judge refused to suspend enforcement. The judge ruled that a prior expert review was not necessary at this stage, noting that a patent holder's rights extend beyond monetary compensation to controlling the technology itself.
4. The "Lottery Effect" and Technical Experts
Because Brazilian judges typically do not have specialized engineering backgrounds, court-appointed experts act as the de facto fact-finders. If a party loses the expert's report on patent validity or infringement, their chance of prevailing drops below 10%.

To combat a "lottery effect" where outcomes depend entirely on which judge hears a preliminary motion, some appellate panels and specialized chambers are pushing lower courts to lean on expedited technical examinations as an alternative to granting immediate, blind PIs. Deferring relief until a swift, preliminary expert review is completed is seen as a way to ground decisions in technical accuracy while maintaining Brazil's trademark speed.

Would you like to explore how Brazil's approach to the "balance of hardships" compares to European or U.S. patent enforcement standards?


Sharing “
(45 unread) - laup789@aol.com - AOL Mail
”
Skip to the latest Gemini result

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a19fa9d-2408-83ea-80b0-0691fb6328df

Based on currently known schedules and procedural posture, there are likely to be approximately 3 to 5 significant court opinions or orders expected in June 2026 across the disputes involving InterDigital vs. Amazon and The Walt Disney Company.
Breakdown:

So, in practical terms:

The June 16 UPC Mannheim Disney ruling is presently the most anticipated and potentially market-moving decision among Based on currently known schedules and procedural posture, there are likely to be approximately 3 to 5 significant court opinions or orders expected in June 2026 across the disputes involving InterDigital vs. Amazon and The Walt Disney Company.
Breakdown:

So, in practical terms:

The June 16 UPC Mannheim Disney ruling is presently the most anticipated and potentially market-moving decision among them.

Looks like this was written yesterday
https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/battle-in-interdigital-vs-amazon-reaches-next-stage-at-court-of-appeal/

Paullee what I am trying to post is not posting. Essential it says the court will render an order as soon as possible regarding today’s UPC hearing.

Based on the limited same-day reporting available so far:

Paullee I got the following from ChatGpt;
Based on the limited same-day reporting available so far:

Day traders are very active selling the shares down every time they are up a few dollars.

Paullee I didn’t say it was a final written order or decision. Just be information I posted.

Paullee:
• Today’s development: Current reporting says the UPC Court of Appeal has now taken the position that interference through UK interim licenses will not be tolerated, which points to Amazon losing on that issue.[ipfray]

Dolby deflects blow as InterDigital fails to dismiss DJ action
28 May 2026 - Nisha Shetty

Dolby accuses InterDigital’s video codec enforcement campaigns against Disney, Amazon, TCL, Hisense – all Dolby customers – of injuring its business relationships, sparking controversy between the patent licensors

[continued behind a paywall]

MTS, you are going to have to provide a link. I can't find anything that verifies anything was issued

Paullee it seems the court issued an opinion on the IDCC v Amazon case. Read my post

Yes — there is a new update today in the Amazon/InterDigital UPC appeal. The Court of Appeal appears to have issued a decision or at least a fresh report on the hearing dated May 28, 2026, with the headline that interference through UK interim licenses “will not be tolerated,” suggesting Amazon is on the losing side of that specific issue.[ipfray]What today’s update suggestsThe most directly relevant item is a May 28, 2026 report indicating the UPC Court of Appeal addressed Amazon’s appeal concerning InterDigital’s anti-interference / anti-suit dispute and rejected the idea that UK interim-license tactics can be used to interfere with UPC proceedings. Earlier reporting had already said the hearing was scheduled for today in Luxembourg, so this fits that timeline.[ipfray +2]Near-term contextBefore today, the dispute had escalated through UPC local division orders, Amazon’s appeal, and related UK proceedings over global FRAND and licensing issues. The case has also drawn attention from the European Commission’s trade directorate, which was monitoring the broader cross-border conflict.[linkedin +2]Practical readSo the answer is yes: today’s available reporting indicates a meaningful UPC appeal development in InterDigital v. Amazon, and it is unfavorable to Amazon on the interference-with-UK-interim-licenses point. If you want, I can turn this into a tighter case-status summary with the key orders, dates, and procedural posture.[ipfray]

early report from Gemini
are there no blog reports on how the hearing went today ?
Yes, early legal blog reports and rapid-reaction briefs from firms attending the hearing in Luxembourg have just begun to go live.

The oral hearing took place in front of a heavy-hitting Court of Appeal panel consisting of Presiding Judge Ulrike Voss, Judge Rapporteur Peter Blok, and Legally Qualified Judge Emmanuel Gougé.

A large portion of the morning session was closed to the public due to the high volume of confidential commercial and licensing details under discussion. However, once the public proceedings resumed, the panel dropped a comprehensive preliminary opinion that gives a clear indication of how the judges are leaning.

The key takeaways from the rapid reactions include:

1. The Court Asserts Its Right to Step In
Neither party substantively pushed back on the Court of Appeal's preliminary finding that the UPC does have the baseline competence to issue an Anti-Interim Licence Injunction (AILI). The court positioned its authority under Article 32(1), reasoning that "infringement" legally includes any unlawful, third-party interference that disrupts a patent proprietor's ability to enforce its patent rights.

2. Deep Skepticism Over UK "Unwillingness" Declarations
The most critical part of the afternoon centered on how a UK court's actions ripple into the UPC. The appellate panel expressed distinct concerns over how interim licence declarations in English courts function in reality.

The Core Debate: The judges specifically invited arguments on whether the threat of being labeled an "unwilling licensor" in the UK (for rejecting an interim UK rate) acts as a de facto anti-suit injunction against a patent holder.

The Implications: The panel's line of questioning suggests they are highly sympathetic to InterDigital’s core grievance—that the practical friction generated by the UK Patents Court's mechanism effectively coerces a patent holder into freezing or dropping its active infringement dockets within the UPC.

3. Untangling the Scope
The judges also dug into the conflicting interpretations between the Mannheim Local Division and the London High Court regarding what Amazon is actually restricted from doing. While previous months saw a delicate dance to avoid immediate contempt sanctions, the appellate panel is trying to draw a bright line on whether a final global FRAND rate-setting action in a non-EU country inherently infringes upon the UPC's foundational mandate.

What's Next
While the oral arguments have concluded, the preliminary views show a court highly protective of its own sovereignty, wary of extraterritorial deterrents coming out of post-Brexit UK courts.

A final written judgment from the Court of Appeal will be handed down in the coming weeks. If it mirrors today's preliminary view, it will solidify a robust, interventionist stance for the UPC against cross-border implementer strategies.

A final written ruling from the Court of Appeal typically follows a few weeks to a couple of months after the oral arguments conclude. Meanwhile, the parallel UK FRAND trial remains on the docket for September 2026.

This would be a good time to redeem the warrants and cash out the convertable bonds, or hedge them. IMHO

- Tomcat

The hot money moved on

So Paullee .. What 's the hell with InterDigital and its share price fall?  Volume is not that high btw. I don' t understand. 

Paullee I agree.

Paullee correct.

remember, tomorrow is a hearing, not a decision, as I understand it

Hydro what theories can u offer regarding IDCC trading. 

The shorts are coming the shorts are coming. The shorts are already here.
The longs are coming, buyers are coming. They too are already here.