Date post: | 10-Oct-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | rpradeephere |
View: | 22 times |
Download: | 1 times |
AWARE, INC. (NASDAQ: AWRE)
FEBRUARY 2012
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT 3280 PEACHTREE ROAD NE, SUITE 2670
ATLANTA, GA 30305
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
Summary
Aware, Inc. is a Massachusetts-based company focused upon signal processing and communications
technology. At $3.20, we believe the company is currently priced at a steep discount to its intrinsic value
and offers significant upside to $7.33, which could generate a return of ~130%, while having negligible
downside risk. This value is derived as follows:
Furthermore, there are reasonable scenarios under which Aware equity could be worth $10/share or more,
producing upside of well over 200%. Of note, neither of these valuations includes over $2/share of
deferred tax assets. In short, we believe Aware offers dramatic return asymmetry with pricing at a slight
premium to liquidation value and upside of 2x to over 3x.
History
Aware has its origins in the late-1980s when the company began as an IP-focused firm whose revenue
was primarily derived from government research grants. Aware’s research led to a steadily-increasing
patent trove and efforts to commercialize the company’s technology. This strategy resulted in Aware
housing several different operating businesses over the past two decades as it refined its approach to
commercializing its technology.
Ultimately, through a process of business and asset dispositions, Aware settled on two core operating
segments: (1) biometrics software and services and (2) DSL test and diagnostics software and hardware.1
These two businesses produce the bulk of annual revenue, and each has value in its own right. In addition
to the value of the operating entities, Aware offers several other components of value. The first is an IP
portfolio comprised of approximately 185 U.S. and foreign patents and 271 patent applications. These
patents cover a wide swath of technology including audio processing, image compression, video
compression and seismic data compression. Second, Aware enjoys a continued royalty stream accruing
from DSL chipset sales related to a business line it sold in 2009. Thirdly, we believe, but have been
unable to confirm, that the company also likely holds an interest in the outcome of a pending patent
lawsuit. Aware also owns its corporate headquarters.
In sum, Aware is a technology-focused firm with seven separate components of value:
(1) Biometrics software and services business
(2) DSL test and diagnostics business
1 In January 2012, Aware announced the shuttering of its DSL hardware business, which will continue to fill
previously-made orders through June 2012.
AWRE - Valuation
Value Value/Share
Biometrics business $39 $1.89
DSL business $6 $0.28
DSL royalties $8 $0.39
IP portfolio $32 $1.55
Hybrid Audio $15 $0.73
Real estate $6 $0.28
Cash $46 $2.21
Total asset value $151 $7.33
Debt $0 $0
Estimated equity value $151 $7.33
Market price $66 $3.20
Percentage upside 129%
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
(3) DSL chipset royalty stream
(4) IP portfolio
(5) Patent litigation
(6) Real estate
As developed in this Report, these value-drivers aggregate to approximately $151mm of equity value
versus a current market cap of around $66mm.
Biometrics
Markets – Aware’s biometrics business has historically centered on selling software component parts to
OEMs and government clients for inclusion in end-use biometric systems. The primary markets within
which Aware biometrics operates are:
Border control – immigration, passports, national ID cards
National defense – handheld ID devices for use in the field
Secure credentialing – personal identity verification cards
Law enforcement – FBI systems
Access control – building access
Strategy – from its past focus on component software sales to OEMs, Aware has more recently begun to
develop a services business that consults and assists with the development and construction of biometric
enrollment and analytic systems for governments and other users. This strategy has the double benefit of
creating a separate, profitable revenue source while also putting Aware in the advantageous position of
consulting on projects for which its software solutions serve as component parts (thus increasing the
chance of Aware products being used in the systems). Further, as a result, the services side of the
business serves as a leading indicator of software demand. Aware’s biometric services business targets
small projects that larger industry players do not seek based on scale.
Within the biometric systems product chain, Aware sells component and application software for
enrollment and server-based transaction management systems. Beyond the development of a
services/consulting business, Aware has also extended the software business toward providing fully-
developed applications rather than simply producing component parts for applications created by other
companies. This migration led Aware to create BioSP, its server-based transaction management system,
and other like products that represent more complete application solutions.
With this background in mind, Aware’s current biometrics strategy is premised upon continued growth
via (a) professional services and (b) sales of more complete product offerings, both of which provide
larger and more profitable market opportunities than a purely OEM-based sales model. As discussed
further below, we believe the biometrics business is very profitable, a fact that has thus far been masked
by the remainder of Aware’s businesses. Management views 20%-30% annual top-line growth as a
reasonable goal for the segment with the possibility of landing a larger project that would drive 100%
revenue growth over 2010 numbers.
Industry/Competition – the biometrics industry is in the midst of a significant growth cycle, with ~20%
annualized growth expected to carry the industry sales from ~$4.5bn in 2011 to over $10bn by 2017.
Primary market participants within software and hardware for enrollment stations include Lockheed
Martin, Cross Match Technologies, Unisys, Science Applications International, L-1 Identity Solutions
(Safran), Northrop Grumman, Hewlett-Packard Electronic Data Systems and NEC. On the transaction
management side of the business, competitors include Safran, Avalon Biometrics, NEC and 3M Cogent.
As is evident, competition within biometrics is comprised of firms significantly larger than Aware.
Aware’s competitive advantage in this context stems from a combination of offering higher quality
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
software and having a lower cost structure. Beyond the obvious benefit of a high quality product, the
lower cost structure enables Aware to competitively bid for government contracts and ensures it is more
cost efficient for larger OEMs to buy software from Aware rather than develop it internally.
The biometrics industry has seen an uptick in consolidation as larger players have acquired smaller firms,
enabling the acquirers to complement and integrate their businesses with new technologies and
capabilities. In this vein, French defense contractor Safran SA recently closed the July 2011 acquisition
of L-1 Identity Solutions, while in October 2010 3M acquired Cogent.
Valuation – Aware biometrics has demonstrated steady topline performance over the trailing three years
and is gaining steam as the company develops the services component of its business and continues to
prove itself within the government bidding process, a contracting process in which success builds upon
itself.
Although Aware does not report biometrics results as a separate operating segment, we were able to back
into topline numbers based upon earnings call commentary and 10-K footnotes (management generally
confirmed the accuracy of our estimates). From a 2007 revenue base of $7.5mm, biometrics produced
$10mm in revenue in both 2009 and 2010. Furthermore, with the development and growth of its
biometrics services work the segment has produced, through 3Q11, incremental revenue of ~$2.7mm over
the first three quarters of 2010. On full-year 2010 revenue base of $10mm, this represents annualized
growth of well over 30%, consistent with management’s target.
Based on our analysis, we believe the biometrics business is on track for ~$13mm in 2011 revenue.
While determining the margins on the biometrics business is not possible given Aware’s failure to report
biometrics as an operating segment, the company’s overall blended gross margin for hardware and
software sales is around 75% and management has repeatedly indicated biometrics is a highly profitable
business relative to the DSL T&D business, thus suggesting gross margins over 90%.
Given the lack of margin transparency and recent precedent transactions accruing from industry
consolidation, valuing the biometrics business on a multiple of revenue is a reasonable approach. The
detail on recent acquisitions follows:
With a revenue multiple of 3.0x – significantly below both recent transaction comps – Aware’s
biometrics business is worth $39mm on 2011 estimated revenue of $13mm.
DSL Test & Diagnostics Markets – Aware’s DSL T&D business sells software and hardware products used by telephone
companies in monitoring, optimizing, diagnosing and servicing their DSL infrastructures. The hardware
business supplies modem modules to OEMs for inclusion in testing devices for diagnosing line-based
service problems. As noted above, the Company recently announced its intention to close the DSL
hardware business with shipments ceasing during summer 2012. We view this as a positive as we believe
the hardware business is unprofitable at the EBIT level and represents a drain on cash.
AWRE - Biometrics - Precedent Transactions
Date Target Buyer Value ($mm) Revenue
Jul-11 L-1 Safran $1,582 3.5x
Oct-10 Cogent 3M $662 5.7x
Mar-08 Bioscrypt L-1 $41 2.2x
Aug-06 Identix L-1 $608 8.5x
Jul-02 AIT Advanced 3M $41 3.0x
Jun-02 Visionics Identix $265 11.3x
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
The remaining DSL software business is the better of the two businesses, and provides telephone
companies with the ability to test, diagnose and optimize DSL performance from company mainframe
computers without the need for technician engagement in the field or other hardware-based solutions.
This offering drives significant cost savings for telcos, which is an increasing area of focus throughout
their operations given continued migration from landlines and associated deteriorating profitability.
Aware’s DSL software business also benefits from industry tailwinds deriving from increased
international DSL adoption driving demand for service assurance infrastructure and testing products.
DSL has 70% of the total broadband market with ~400mm customers. Further, there are more new DSL
subs each month than new subs for all other broadband alternatives combined. Although some are
inclined to pan the DSL technology relative to fiber, wireless and other mediums, the reality is that DSL
is the most cost efficient broadband alternative and will continue to dominate the landscape for the
foreseeable future. Optimizing DSL transmission will become increasingly important, which is precisely
the function of Aware’s line diagnostic platform software.
Strategy – the software business represents the future of Aware’s DSL operations, and the company is
working to grow this business. International telcos were at first hesitant to adopt a software-based
diagnostic and optimization approach, but over the past several years product acceptance has accelerated
and the growth trend is appealing. Accordingly, Aware has been aggressively targeting this business,
which has significantly higher margins than the DSL hardware business the Company is abandoning.
Aware has demonstrated increasing success on this front with customer wins from two different European
telcos during 2H10. Further, the company is engaged in product trials with multiple other international
telcos.
Industry/Competition – competitors within the DSL T&D business include Alcatel-Lucent, Spirent
Communications, Tollgrade Communications, JDS Uniphase, Sunrise Corporation, Fluke Corporation,
Kurth Electronic and Assia. Within the software assurance and optimization Aware’s management has
highlighted Alcatel and Assia, particularly. Assia is a VC-backed firm focused solely on this niche
market. Assia’s investors include industry backers Telefonica, AT&T, Swisscom Ventures and T-
Ventures. Alcatel’s Network Analyzer is that company’s competing product within the software
optimization market. Aware and Assia represent the only “hardware-neutral” competitors within line
diagnostics and optimization.
Value – Aware’s DSL T&D business has shown strong top-line performance. From a 2008 nadir of
$5.2mm in segment revenue and $1.6mm of DSL software sales, 2010 segment revenue grew to $10.6mm
with $4.1mm of software sales, cumulative growth of 104% and 156%, respectively. Through 3Q11,
YTD DSL software sales have increased $200k over the same year-earlier period, which implies 2011
estimated DSL software revenue of approximately $4.4mm. With the Company’s recent decision to
jettison the DSL hardware business, Aware is dropping a business that is likely to produce roughly $6mm
of 2011 revenue. Importantly, software revenue carries much higher margins than hardware, with the
latter generating 35% to 40% gross margins, according to management. We believe the DSL hardware
business was unprofitable at the EBIT level, and this business closure should have a positive cash flow
benefit over time.
While divining the margins for Aware’s remaining DSL software business is not possible, with continued
sales growth within the business, we believe the DSL software business clearly has value. Our
conversations with industry participants indicate that each of Aware’s, Assia’s and Alcatel’s competitive
software offerings have unique attributes that distinguish them from one another – one firm’s software is
best suited for different telcos depending on the customer’s systems and needs. This dynamic indicates
differentiated technology amongst the competition, and a likely market for Aware’s DSL business. Given
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
the lack of margin clarity and ability to determine segment profitability, we believe it is appropriate to
look to recent precedent transactions to determine an appropriate revenue multiple.
Tollgrade is a very applicable comp as the company designs and markets DSL test and diagnostics
software, the same business as Aware’s DSL segment. Similarly, Digital Lightwave sells fiber-optic
diagnostic and optimization products to telcos. While the latter is a relevant comp, Tollgrade is the closer
analogue as the company is focused on DSL rather than fiber-optic lines. Aware’s DSL business should
drive 2011 revenue of approximately $4.4mm, utilizing the Tollgrade multiple results in a $5.7mm
valuation of Aware’s DSL business.
DSL Chipset Royalties
In 2009, Aware exited its DSL chipset and home networking business whose associated expenses
exceeded revenues annually. To this end, the company sold all related assets (chip designs, 41
engineering employees, two patents, one patent application) for $6.75mm booking a gain of $6.2mm.
The transaction represented a favorable outcome for a business that garnered $500k to $1mm in quarterly
revenue against $1.7mm to $1.9mm in quarterly expenses. Further, as a data point for valuing Aware’s
DSL T&D business, Lantiq paid $6.75mm for the DSL chipset business which eliminated around $3mm
in annual revenue from Lantiq to Aware, an approximate 2.3x revenue multiple.
In conjunction with the sale, Aware maintained the right to licensing revenue based upon DSL chipset
sales from Lantiq (the acquirer in the DSL chipset transaction) and Ikanos Communications (Aware’s
other major chipset licensing customer). Over the 4 trailing calendar years, this licensing stream has
averaged $2.3mm/year with relatively consistent numbers of $2.6mm/$1.8mm/$2.1mm/$2.7mm in
2007/2008/2009/2010. This revenue flow represents pure margin to Aware.
Aware’s DSL chipset annuity is a free cash flow claim on Lantiq’s and Ikanos’ sales. While Aware does
not control the long-term sustainability of these businesses, there is material value in these 100% margin
cash flows. As previously noted, the royalty stream has remained relatively stable over the past four
years with an average annual cash flow of $2.3mm. Capitalizing a $2mm annual cash flow with a 4x
multiple values the royalty at $8mm, which is conservative from a multiple perspective. From a DCF
vantage, assuming a 10% discount rate and that the $2mm royalty decreases on a 10-year straight-line
basis results in a $7.7mm valuation. In any event, an $8mm royalty value appears reasonable.
IP Portfolio
Background – from its inception in the late-1980s, Aware has dedicated significant resources to
developing a robust IP portfolio that totals 456 patents and applications. Much of this work has centered
on developing and evolving technology that drives its biometrics and DSL businesses, but the portfolio
also contains additional assets of value that are unrelated to its core businesses and are essentially not
valued by the market. The first category of non-core IP assets relates to DSL chipsets, LAN wireless and
home networking technology that is no longer applicable to Aware’s business following the Lantiq
transaction which disposed of these business lines. The second category of excess IP has been described
by company management as “other,” essentially a catchall for the remainder of the portfolio. Thus,
Aware’s IP can be categorized as follows:
(1) Biometrics IP
(2) DSL T&D IP
AWRE - DSL - Precedent Transactions
Date Target Buyer Value ($mm) Revenue
May-11 Tollgrade Golden Gate Capital $61 1.3x
Feb-10 Digital Lightwave Optel Capital $53 6.1x
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
(3) DSL chipsets, wireless and home networking IP
(4) Other
Portfolio Detail – determining the exact composition of an IP portfolio is not a simple or precise task. In
combing a portfolio, a helpful starting point for categorization of the various patents is the International
Patent Classification codes used to classify each issued patent.
As the adjacent table indicates, 54% of Aware’s
issued patents and applications fall within IPCs H04B
and H04L and with the inclusion of H04K, H03M and
H04J the total increases to 74% of the portfolio. The
H04B and H04L classifications relate to transmission
and transmission of digital information, while HO4K,
H03M and HO4J relate to secret communication;
coding, decoding or code conversion; and multiplex
communication, respectively. Each of these categories
is associated with communications transmission and
associated technologies.
Making a determination of the specific uses of a given
technology by simply reading the text of a patent is
not always possible. To this end, it is helpful to
analyze patent classifications across companies to
determine the general areas of technological
applicability. The table below compares the IPCs of
Aware’s patents with those of Nortel, Motorola
Mobility and Interdigital, three large firms who are
viewed as having extremely valuable patent portfolios
involving mobile communications technology. In July
2011, a consortium of technology firms acquired Nortel’s portfolio for $4.5bn, and on the heels of the
Nortel transaction, Google agreed to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5bn with many commentators
speculating the bulk of Google’s interest was founded upon Motorola’s patents. Likewise, during this
same time period, Interdigital’s stock catapulted from $40 to $70 based on reports multiple technology
firms were eyeballing the company’s intellectual property for acquisition. While much of this interest and
pricing action was driven by wireless technology which has not been a core Aware focus, the transactions
nevertheless demonstrate the increasing importance and value of intellectual property.
[Memorandum continues on next page]
AWRE Issued U.S. Patents & Apps by IPC Code
Total Patents Applications
H04B 93 H04L 38 H04B 61
H04L 92 H04B 32 H04L 54
H04K 27 H04J 11 H04K 20
H03M 22 H03M 8 G06F 15
H04J 21 G06K 7 H03M 14
G06F 19 H04K 7 H04J 10
G06K 13 H03H 5 H04M 7
H04M 11 G01R 4 G06K 6
G01R 9 H04M 4 G01R 5
H03H 8 H03D 4 H03H 3
H03D 4 G06F 4 G06T 2
H04N 4 H04N 4 G06Q 2
H04L 3 H04L 3 H04J 1
G10L 3 G10L 3 G11C 1
H04J 2 G09G 1 G08C 1
G08C 2 H04J 1 H04Q 1
H03K 2 G02B 1 H03K 1
G06Q 2 G08C 1 H04W 1
G06T 2 H03K 1
G09G 1 H03C 1
G02B 1
H03C 1
H04W 1
H04Q 1
G11C 1
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
As the table demonstrates, there is tremendous crossover amongst Aware and the comparable companies’
portfolios. H04B, the largest component of Aware’s portfolio is the first, first and third largest
components of Motorola’s, Interdigital’s and Nortel’s portfolios, respectively. Further, HO4L, the second
largest component of Aware’s portfolio is the first, third and third largest components of Nortel’s,
Motorola’s and Interdigital’s portfolios, respectively. Similarly, there is a tremendous amount of overlap
amongst the remainder of the portfolios.
Portfolio Growth & Relevance – Aware’s consistent and escalating dedication to IP creation is evident
from the trend in the number of patents issued annually.
Furthermore, from the perspective of IP relevance, Aware’s citation-to-patent ratio is very compelling
relative to other IP-focused firms that derive significant value from the sale and licensing of their assets.
[Memorandum continues on next page]
AWRE - Patent Subject Matter Comparison
Aware Patents % Total Nortel Patents % Total
H04B Transmission 63 28.9% H04L Transmission digital info 1,200 23.9%
H04L Transmission digital info 58 26.6% G06F Electric digital data processing 863 17.2%
G06F Electric digital data processing 19 8.7% H04B Transmission 643 12.8%
H03M Coding, decoding or code conversion 17 7.8% H04M Telephonic communicaiton 611 12.2%
H04K Secret communication 13 6.0% H04J Multiplex communication 581 11.6%
G06K Recognition of data 12 5.5% H04Q Selecting 569 11.3%
H04M Telephonic communicaiton 10 4.6% G02B Optical elements, systems, apparatus 220 4.4%
G01R Measuring electric variables 9 4.1% G01R Measuring electric variables 119 2.4%
H04J Multiplex communication 9 4.1% H04W Wireless communication networks 115 2.3%
H03H Impedance networks 8 3.7% HO5K Printed circuits 100 2.0%
Interdigital Patents % Total Motorola Mobility Patents % Total
H04B Transmission 985 37.3% H04B Transmission 1,198 23.3%
H04Q Selecting 470 17.8% H04Q Selecting 999 19.4%
H04L Transmission digital info 438 16.6% H04L Transmission digital info 736 14.3%
H04J Multiplex communication 244 9.2% G06F Electric digital data processing 665 12.9%
H04W Wirelesss communication 147 5.6% H04M Telephonic communicaiton 584 11.3%
G06F Electric digital data processing 121 4.6% H04J Multiplex communication 354 6.9%
H04M Telephonic communicaiton 111 4.2% H04W Wirelesss communication 233 4.5%
H04K Secret communication 82 3.1% H01Q Aerials 192 3.7%
H03M Coding, decoding or code conversion 40 1.5% G10L Speech analysis or synthesis 191 3.7%
Source: PatentBuddy.com
0
5
10
15
20
25
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AWRE - U.S. Patents Issued per Year
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AWRE - Total U.S. Patents Issued
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
Monetization – in September 2010, Aware management announced it was considering the spin-off of its
IP licensing assets. In reaction, two members of the Stafford family (which in aggregate owns 36% of
Aware and holds voting proxies for another 10%) rejoined the board of directors in January 2011,
appearing to slow the spin-off process and assess the best means of monetizing Aware’s excess IP assets.
We view the Staffords’ reengagement as a positive given maximizing shareholder value is likely their
sole concern.
Following the Staffords joining the board, Aware’s CEO and two tenured board members resigned in
spring 2011. Subsequently, in October 2011, John Stafford, Jr. was elevated to chairman of the board,
and the executive chairman – Michael Tzannes – resigned from the board to focus on heading Aware’s
patent monetization efforts. In our conversations with management, a debate amongst the board has
become apparent concerning the best means by which to monetize the excess-IP portfolio with some
favoring spin-off and others preferring alternative routes.
There are essentially 4 likely routes to IP monetization:
(1) Licensing/litigation – Aware directly pursues licenses from and/or litigates against other
companies. This route raises two primary issues: (a) Aware already houses two different
operating entities and adding a third would present increased complexity for investors and (b)
there could potentially be legal blowback risk for Aware’s operations should it pursue litigation
against other technology firms.
(2) Spin-off new entity with excess IP assets and cash – this is the route former management began to
pursue in late-2010. Typically, a spin-off would offer the benefit of tax efficiency, but given
Aware’s $41.8mm deferred tax asset this consideration is not as relevant. Further, there is a very
real question of whether it makes economic sense to split into two separate publicly-traded
entities given Aware’s market cap and lack of scale.
(3) Assign IP and retain residual interest – Aware assigns patents to other companies who then
pursue licensing and/or litigation with Aware retaining an interest in the ultimate revenues. As
noted above, in this structure, the assignor’s retained interest (net of associated expenses) is often
around 50%.
(4) Sell the patents
In terms of monetizing the current excess IP portfolio, the preferred route is likely asset sale(s) of the
patents given the significant deferred tax asset that can be used to offset gains from the transaction, a tax
asset that may otherwise be squandered by the tepid profitability of the operating businesses.
AWRE - Comparable Analysis - IP-Focused Firms
U.S. Patents Apps. Cites Cites/Patent
Aware 101 167 1,809 17.9x
Interdigital 1,339 1,193 10,409 7.8x
Nortel 4,465 1,281 73,735 16.5x
Motorola Mobility 5,353 1,569 82,558 15.4x
Eastman Kodak 16,922 3,339 171,166 10.1x
Apple 4,073 4,197 63,856 15.7x
Google 2,115 1,627 30,726 14.5x
Digimarc 632 511 29,017 45.9x
Intellectual Ventures 1,677 540 19,974 11.9x
Wi-Lan 468 166 9,209 19.7x
Rambus 1,013 558 16,155 15.9x
MOSAID 1,088 473 11,851 10.9x
Source: USPTO & PatentBuddy.com
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
Valuation – patent valuation is far from a precise science as patent beauty is truly in the eye of the
beholder. Nevertheless, there are several means by which to inform a view of value.
The first valuation approach is a “by the pound” method – assessing the total value of Aware’s patent
portfolio based on recent transactions involving similar IP. The above-referenced Nortel and Motorola
transactions provide useful data in this analysis. Nortel was a pure-play sale of Nortel’s IP. Although
Motorola involved the sale of operations and IP, the consensus view is Google assigned the vast majority
of value to Motorola’s IP for defensive and offensive use in patent litigation against Microsoft and Apple.
This is consistent with the fact that Motorola generated only $76mm in 2010 operating income on
$11.5bn in revenues, following operating losses of $1.2bn and $2.0bn in 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Nevertheless, for purposes of patent transaction comps we assume the Motorola’s operating business was
worth book value of $1.8bn, reducing the patent transaction value to $10.7bn.
As the table indicates, Nortel’s portfolio sold for
$750,000 per patent and Motorola’s for roughly
$446,000 per patent. Utilizing a $500,000 per patent
assumption, results in a $228mm value for Aware’s IP,
over 11x the current enterprise value. Even reducing
the assumption by half to $250,000 per patent, equates
to $114mm in IP value, over 5x enterprise value.
One further example of strategic patent value is offered by the recent HTC-S3 Graphics deal. In July
2011, just days after the International Trade Commission found Apple had infringed two of S3 Graphics
patents, HTC agreed to purchase S3 for $300mm, or $1.3mm per patent. While S3 is reevaluating the
deal in light of a subsequent reversal of the ITC ruling, the events demonstrate the tactical and monetary
value of well-positioned technology IP.
Finally, we note the insider purchases of Michael Tzannes, a long-time Aware employee and former
Aware CEO and executive chairman. Tzannes is also a prodigious inventor named on the majority of
Aware’s patents – if anyone knows the value of the IP portfolio, it is Tzannes. For several years prior to
the announcement of the IP spin-off in September 2010, Tzannes consistently owned 91,033 shares.
Following the spin-off announcement, in April and May 2011, Tzannes invested $1.02mm to purchase
321,000 additional shares. Tzannes’ investment was effected through the exercise of essentially at-the-
money options ($3.18 average basis) that were not scheduled to expire until October 2013; thus, the
option exercises were the effective equivalent of open market purchases. In the nine months following
Aware’s decision to pursue IP monetization, Tzannes – who developed and heads Aware’s IP efforts –
invested cash to increase his share ownership by 4.5x. We believe this is a bullish indicator of value.
IP Spin-Off Announced
Patent Transaction Comps
Total Patents & Price per
Seller Price Apps. Patent
Nortel $4.5bn 6,000 $750k
Motorola $10.7bn 24,000 $446k
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
Nevertheless, for purposes of assigning value to the IP portfolio, we take a conservative approach and
capitalize Aware’s R&D on trailing five-year basis. Assuming straight-line depreciation of R&D
investment from 2006 to 2010 results in IP asset value of $32mm. However, utilizing a twenty-year
capitalization/depreciation schedule – consistent with the time length of patents – produces an IP asset of
$85mm or over $2.50/share of incremental value (additional upside of 78%). The reasonableness of using
a twenty-year capitalization/depreciation schedule is highlighted by the fact that several of the patents
transferred to Hybrid Audio were filed in the early 1990s, demonstrating the long-term potential value of
technology patents.
Patent Litigation – Hybrid Audio
A final, option-like Aware value driver relates to patent infringement litigation surrounding several
Aware patents. In December 2010, Aware assigned four patents to Hybrid Audio, LLC. Hybrid Audio is
a Texas-based entity whose management is associated with Technology, Patents & Licensing, Inc., a
Pennsylvania firm focused on developing, acquiring, managing and monetizing patent assets.
Three of the four assigned patents fall under IPC code G10L, which covers audio analysis and
processing. These were the only G10L patents within Aware’s portfolio. Although Aware has provided
little disclosure relating to the patent transfer or Hybrid Audio, our diligence leads us to believe Aware
conveyed the patents for $300,0002 and retained ~50% interest in any future net proceeds from litigation
or licensing. Our discussions with IP attorneys indicate patent assignors often retain a percentage of
future proceeds. Further, subsequent conversations with Aware’s management confirmed – although they
would not address Hybrid Audio specifically – that in patent assignments geared toward monetization by
the assignee Aware would typically retain 50%+/- interest in future net proceeds.
The belief that Aware structured a deal with Hybrid Audio for the latter to pursue patent infringement
claims is bolstered by the fact that simultaneous with the assignment Hybrid Audio filed federal suit in
the Eastern District of Texas against HTC, Apple, Dell, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, RIM and Samsung.
The claimed infringement involves one of the four assigned patents and relates to the processing of audio
information under MP3 on products including iPod, iPhone 4, iPad, iTunes, XOOM and DROID.3
While handicapping the value of patent litigation is difficult, the Hybrid Audio suit certainly appears to
involve a colorable claim and significant potential value. Plaintiff’s counsel is McKool Smith, a national
trial law firm with a patent litigation focus. McKool secured several recent victories in infringement suits
against Microsoft, including a $290mm claim in favor of i4i Limited Partnership that was upheld by the
U.S. Supreme Court in June 2011. In short, McKool is a very
successful law firm, having secured more of the 100 largest U.S.
courtroom verdicts than any other firm in the country during
2008 and 2009.4 Importantly, McKool takes IP infringement
cases on a contingency fee basis, which means the firm has
significant economic risk should the lawsuit prove unsuccessful,
and must therefore diligence and select its clients carefully. This
suggests McKool sees merit and material value in the Hybrid
Audio suit.
A second positive aspect of the case is its venue in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, site of the above-referenced Microsoft suit and a great venue for patent suits. The judges within
2 The only patent revenue recognized during 2010 occurred in Q4, the same period as the Hybrid Audio assignment.
3 The other 3 patents not part of the lawsuit may serve as defense in the litigation or constitute fuel for future suits.
4 McKool was also named by Managing Intellectual Property magazine as one of the four top patent firms in the
United States.
Recent McKool Infringement Verdicts
Defendant Verdict ($mm)
SAP 345
Microsoft 106
Microsoft 290
Boston Scientific 250
AT&T 156
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
the District have developed an interest in patent litigation and ensure speedy process and case resolution.
Additionally, the judge assigned to the Hybrid Audio suit, Judge Leonard Davis, is experienced in IP
litigation and technologically knowledgeable having worked as a computer programmer prior to law
school.
An attempt to put a definitive dollar estimate on the value of the Hybrid Audio litigation would be foolish
– there are simply too many variables and unknowns. However, in light of McKool’s past successes and
contingency fee structure, we believe it is reasonable to assume McKool sees litigation value greater than
$100MM. The firm has multiple $100MM+ IP infringement verdicts over the past several years, and
given the incentives and risks inherent in contingency fee representation and the expense of IP suits,
McKool’s business model is predicated upon only pursuing cases with significant value potential.
Assuming McKool sees at least $100mm in infringement value, the Hybrid Audio litigation would
represent $30mm in value to Aware net of a 40% contingency fee and 50% profit share with Hybrid
Audio. While any value realization from Hybrid Audio is admittedly speculative, we believe there
appears to be real potential for significant value associated with the relationship, and further the suit
represents purely incremental value on what is an already undervalued business. For valuation purposes,
we apply a 50% discount to the valuation above to arrive at $15mm of litigation value. Without the
discount, Hybrid Audio would represent an additional $0.75/share of value (additional upside 23%).
Real Estate Value
Aware owns its 72,000 square foot headquarters in
Bedford, Massachusetts. The structure was
constructed in 1982 and sits on 4.03 acres of property.
Aware acquired the property in 1997 for $6.7mm, and
it is currently assessed at $5.7mm. This equates to an
appraised value of $79 per square foot. Given recent
Bedford office comp transactions in the $85 to $150
per square foot range, the assessed value of $5.7mm /
$78 per square foot passes the reasonableness test.
In any event, at $5.7mm, Aware’s real estate
represents 28% of Aware’s enterprise value.
Conclusion & Other Value Considerations
In sum, based on our analysis, we believe Aware
currently trades at 44% of a sum of its conservatively
valued parts with a newly reconfigured board and
management that is working to actively catalyze value
recognition through asset monetization.
Moreover, there are components of value that this analysis has not considered. We have assigned no
value to Aware’s $64.5mm of federal NOLs/credits and $18.6mm of state NOLs/credits, which comprise
a total DTA of $41.8mm. There is currently a valuation allowance taken against the entirety of the DTA,
but this asset may represent real value of $2/share as the company considers asset sales the gains from
which the DTA can offset.
Finally, the limited downside risk of an Aware investment bears noting. Taking only cash and accounts
receivable and assuming $5.7mm in real estate value against total liabilities of $3.2mm results in $2.51 of
AWRE - Headquarters Comps
Comp Year
Date SqFt Value $/SqFt Built
2010 25,000 $2,750,000 $110 1971
2007 50,000 $4,250,000 $85 1979
2007 40,000 $3,750,000 $94 1975
2006 40,000 $6,250,000 $156 1984
PRIVET FUND MANAGEMENT FEBRUARY 2012
per share liquidation value. Accordingly, Aware trades for only a 28% premium to liquidation value,
which is all the more meaningful for a company generating positive free cash flow. This 28% downside
to liquidation value contrasts with upside of 129%, a roughly 5x upside-downside ratio. Moreover,
conceivable scenarios exist in which Aware’s IP and litigation value offer additional upside of
$3.25/share for a potential total return of over 230%. Most importantly, a buyer of Aware is paying
nothing for this IP optionality as the Company trades at only a slight premium to true liquidation value
and the biometrics business has clear value. We believe the asymmetry of return is compelling.
Information, opinions or recommendations contained herein are solely for informational purposes. The
information used and statements made have been obtained from sources considered reliable but Privet
Fund Management LLC neither guarantees nor represents its completeness or accuracy. Such
information and the opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice. As of the date
hereof, Privet Fund Management LLC and its affiliates own securities of Aware, Inc. For further
information, see Privet Fund Management LLC’s Schedule 13D filed with the SEC. Privet Fund
Management LLC and its affiliates may either increase or decrease their positions in Aware, Inc. without
notice. This document is not intended as an offering or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the
securities mentioned or discussed.