2013 | 2014 | ||||||
Price: | 17.49 | EPS | $0.76 | $0.00 | |||
Shares Out. (in M): | 59 | P/E | 23.0x | 0.0x | |||
Market Cap (in $M): | 1,031 | P/FCF | 30.0x | 0.0x | |||
Net Debt (in $M): | 0 | EBIT | 71 | 0 | |||
TEV (in $M): | 778 | TEV/EBIT | 11.0x | 0.0x |
Sign up for free guest access to view investment idea with a 45 days delay.
John Amster founded RPX Corporation (RPXC) in July 2008 as a subscription business which mitigates patent lawsuit risk for companies. At $17.49, the company is valued at 2.5x tangible book value and 4.5x trailing EBITDA. The company’s capital returns are solid (15.8% ROE with no adjustment for an overcapitalized balance sheet) and its earnings are growing. To make maters more interesting, consider the following:
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Charles River Ventures financed RPXC’s start-up. The company initially sold 9.065 million shares to the public on 5/4/2011 at $19 each (9x 2010 EBITDA). They issued an additional 1.4 million shares in a follow-on offering on 9/16/2011 for $20.49 each. The following table summarizes RPXC’s insider stock ownership.
RPXC Insider Ownership
Shares owned |
percent |
|
Beneficial owner |
(000) |
outstanding |
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers |
5,404 |
9.2% |
Charles River Ventures |
5,304 |
9.1% |
Index Ventures |
4,171 |
7.1% |
Frontier Capital Management |
3,558 |
6.1% |
Cadian Capital Management |
3,331 |
5.7% |
Federated investors |
2,901 |
5.0% |
24,669 |
42.1% |
|
|
||
John Amster (co-founder, CEO) |
2,174 |
3.7% |
Geoffrey Barker (co-founder, director) |
1,736 |
3.0% |
The table shows that venture firms still own 42% of RPXC’s shares – this represents an overhang to the share price. Mitigating this is what appears to be RPXC’s modest valuation. For instance, note that RPXC sold 105,708 shares to venture board members during April 2011 (prior to the public offering) at $14.19 per share – roughly the same price we can buy shares today and 33% below the IPO price. We suspect that the venture firms are unlikely to sell their shares at current prices, especially in light of RPXC’s demonstrated earnings growth and cash generation capability (i.e., the IPO valued the company at 9x EBITDA and it currently trades at 3.4x EBITDA).
Business
RPXC sells subscriptions to companies that want to reduce their exposure to lawsuits brought by non-practicing entities (NPEs, also known as “patent trolls”). RPXC mitigates subscriber exposure to patent lawsuits by acquiring patents and patent rights, then issuing licenses for these patents to their subscribers. This is an interesting business for the following three reasons:
1. NPE lawsuits are an increasing expense and distraction for companies. The number of NPE lawsuits increased from 145 in 2001 to 2,923 in 2012.
There are a number of explanations for the growth in NPE lawsuits, e.g., being an NPE can be lucrative. The large increase in the number of patents issued over the last half-decade likely contributes to the increased litigation. For instance, 250,000 patents were issued in 2012, up from 150,000 patents in 2005.
Regardless of the reason(s), lawsuits brought by NPEs are a growing problem for companies. The following table summarizes the number of lawsuits brought by NPEs against the most pursued companies since 2008.
NPE Lawsuits / Year
Company Name |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
Total |
|
1 |
Apple |
18 |
26 |
34 |
43 |
44 |
165 |
2 |
Hewlett Packard |
27 |
27 |
36 |
34 |
19 |
143 |
3 |
Samsung |
12 |
10 |
21 |
43 |
37 |
123 |
4 |
Dell |
8 |
28 |
23 |
36 |
19 |
114 |
5 |
Sony |
13 |
22 |
20 |
32 |
22 |
109 |
6 |
AT&T |
17 |
16 |
22 |
31 |
22 |
108 |
7 |
HTC |
15 |
11 |
23 |
31 |
23 |
103 |
8 |
LG |
13 |
10 |
23 |
29 |
24 |
99 |
9 |
Microsoft |
16 |
22 |
12 |
30 |
16 |
96 |
10 |
Amazon.com |
5 |
13 |
20 |
35 |
20 |
93 |
11 |
Verizon |
13 |
13 |
17 |
25 |
24 |
92 |
12 |
|
10 |
16 |
10 |
30 |
22 |
88 |
13 |
BlackBerry |
15 |
11 |
13 |
28 |
20 |
87 |
14 |
Nokia |
13 |
14 |
14 |
24 |
10 |
75 |
15 |
Panasonic |
12 |
20 |
12 |
19 |
10 |
73 |
16 |
Toshiba |
8 |
15 |
12 |
21 |
15 |
71 |
17 |
Sprint Nextel |
12 |
14 |
8 |
18 |
15 |
67 |
18 |
Motorola Solutions |
17 |
12 |
17 |
10 |
9 |
65 |
19 |
Cisco |
9 |
13 |
15 |
16 |
8 |
61 |
20 |
Motorola Mobility |
2 |
8 |
31 |
18 |
59 |
|
21 |
Asus Computer International |
11 |
9 |
5 |
19 |
11 |
55 |
22 |
Acer |
11 |
10 |
7 |
11 |
15 |
54 |
23 |
Sony Ericsson |
7 |
9 |
11 |
20 |
6 |
53 |
24 |
Best Buy |
4 |
12 |
13 |
17 |
6 |
52 |
24 |
Intel |
10 |
15 |
14 |
5 |
8 |
52 |
26 |
Deutsche Telekom |
9 |
10 |
9 |
16 |
7 |
51 |
26 |
Wal-Mart |
7 |
5 |
12 |
16 |
11 |
51 |
28 |
Kyocera |
8 |
7 |
10 |
13 |
10 |
48 |
29 |
eBay |
4 |
7 |
9 |
15 |
12 |
47 |
29 |
IBM |
4 |
13 |
12 |
10 |
8 |
47 |
totals |
328 |
412 |
462 |
708 |
491 |
2401 |
Note that retailers and telecom companies are also featured in this list – we conclude that NPE lawsuits are a growing problem (see next table for the costs associated with NPE lawsuits).
2. There is a great deal of inefficiency in the patent market; much of this inefficiency accrues to NPEs and their attorneys at the expense of inventors and companies (practicing entities). The following table summarizes the cost of NPE litigation since 2008.
NPE Settlements Since 2008 (000)
Year |
Legal fees |
Settlements |
Legal fees + settlements |
Legal fees / settlements |
2012 |
5,000,000 |
5,900,000 |
10,900,000 |
85% |
2011 |
4,800,000 |
5,300,000 |
10,100,000 |
91% |
2010 |
3,700,000 |
3,900,000 |
7,600,000 |
95% |
2009 |
3,000,000 |
3,000,000 |
6,000,000 |
100% |
2008 |
2,600,000 |
2,700,000 |
5,300,000 |
96% |
The table shows that NPE’s were able to extract $10.9 billion of value from target companies in exchange for patent licenses during 2012, up from $5.3 billion in 2008: this is definitely a growing market. The data also indicate that, of the $10.9 billion, $5 billion went to legal fees – one could conclude that this is an inefficient market! There is also inefficiency in the $5.9 billion of settlements – the NPEs aren’t the inventors and they aren’t volunteers.
3. RPXC is able to close a portion of this inefficiency while generating earnings for its shareholders. It does this by acquiring patents that are of interest to its subscribers, either from inventors or from NPEs. It then grants licenses to these patents to all its subscribers. When RPXC buys patents directly from inventors or from practicing companies holding the patents, RPXC eliminates the legal costs plus the NPE’s margin from the transaction. When RPXC buys patents from an NPE, RPXC is able to eliminate the legal costs – either way, RPXC and its subscribers win.
At this point, there is one member-owned organization, Allied Security Trust, which performs a similar service as RPXC. Allied Security Trust’s ownership structure makes it well suited to acquire patents that it is able to get its ten members to agree to purchase, but we infer that its decision making process is slower than that of RPXC. So far, there seems to be room for both organizations in this market.
How good of a business?
RPXC was founded in July 2008 and taken public in May 2011, so there is not a great deal of operating history. Here are the company’s capital returns, sans adjustment, since 2010.
RPXC Capital Returns
EBITDA / |
EBIT / |
Earnings / |
|
Period |
assets |
(tan. assets - CL+ST debt) |
equity |
Q1 2013 |
34.7% |
24.1% |
15.5% |
2012 |
29.4% |
13.1% |
10.8% |
2011 |
24.8% |
10.4% |
9.7% |
2010 |
34.2% |
12.2% |
18.9% |
Note that the company’s returns deteriorated in 2011 – this was due to the large influx of cash the business received from the IPO. Given that cash represents 32% of the company’s current market capitalization and the company is a growing start-up, its returns are phenomenal. The story gets better. Consider the following two characteristics of RPXC’s business:
Cash Flow Summary since 2008
Cash from |
Capex + |
Cash from |
|||
(000) |
Operations |
Acquisitions |
Finance |
||
9 ME 3/31/13 |
156,526 |
(84,824) |
4,174 |
||
12 ME 12/31/12 |
91,377 |
(134,921) |
(4,650) |
||
12 ME 12/31/11 |
120,348 |
(106,678) |
165,079 |
||
12 ME 12/31/10 |
120,134 |
(73,141) |
(26,911) |
||
12 ME 12/31/09 |
17,582 |
(23,510) |
20,567 |
||
totals |
349,441 |
(338,250) |
154,085 |
Conclusion
RPXC is building a unique business which generates high returns on capital and is increasing subscribers, GAAP earnings and cash flow. The company’s balance sheet is overcapitalized and the business may be purchased for 3.4x trailing EBITDA (less than you would pay to acquire your neighborhood dry cleaner). We conclude that RPXC is an Absolute Value.
Patent and NPE Industry Background
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued 253,000 utility patents in 2012, up from 225,000 in 2011. The cost of obtaining a patent is generally between $10,000 and $15,000. Patents provide exclusive rights to the patent owner, usually for a period of 20 years. Patents are negative rights – if a patent owner thinks that someone is infringing on an owned patent, the owner must negotiate an agreement with the infringer and, if that fails, sue the infringer. Inventors wishing to enforce their patents against large companies are at a disadvantage, so an industry of intermediaries has evolved called non-practicing entities (NPE’s). NPE’s typically partner with inventors and/or purchase patents from inventors with the intention of enforcing the patent rights against companies that may be infringing on the patents. The following is a list of the largest NPE’s.
Non-practicing entity |
Public / private |
US Patent's held |
Intellectual Ventures |
private |
20-25k |
Round Rock Research LLC |
private |
3,510 |
Rockstar Consortium LLC |
private |
3,399 |
Interdigital |
public (IDCC) |
2,961 |
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) |
private |
2,349 |
Mosaid Technologies Inc |
private |
1,996 |
Rambus |
public (RMBS) |
1,629 |
Tessera Technologies Inc |
public (TSRA)) |
1,332 |
Acacia Technologies |
public (ACTG) |
1,238 |
IPG Healthcare 501 Limited |
private |
1,096 |
Walker Digital LLC |
private |
892 |
Wi-Lan |
public (WILN) |
838 |
Global OLED Technology LLC |
private |
802 |
Commonwealth Scientific / Industrial Research Org.(CSIRO) |
private |
740 |
Scenera Research LLC |
private |
413 |
STC.UNM (aka Science & Technology Corporation @ UNM) |
private |
410 |
Intertrust Technologies Corp |
private |
323 |
Altitude Capital Partners |
private |
302 |
Innovative Sonic Ltd |
private |
253 |
Interval Licensing LLC |
private |
237 |
IpVenture Inc |
private |
208 |
Pendrell Corp (aka ICO Global Communications Ltd) |
public (PCO) |
206 |
Cheetah Omni LLC |
private |
200 |
Alliacense |
private |
198 |
Illinois Computer Research (James Parker et al) |
private |
197 |
show sort by |
Are you sure you want to close this position RPX CORP?
By closing position, I’m notifying VIC Members that at today’s market price, I no longer am recommending this position.
Are you sure you want to Flag this idea RPX CORP for removal?
Flagging an idea indicates that the idea does not meet the standards of the club and you believe it should be removed from the site. Once a threshold has been reached the idea will be removed.
You currently do not have message posting privilages, there are 1 way you can get the privilage.
Apply for or reactivate your full membership
You can apply for full membership by submitting an investment idea of your own. Or if you are in reactivation status, you need to reactivate your full membership.
What is wrong with message, "".