In semiconductors, in addition to the large deals we signed with Kioxia and WD, which will continue to add to that recurring revenue, we continue to have tremendous traction in the logic space and seeing what other companies are doing that. And so very, very bullish on our efforts to achieve the revenue targets that we’ve set out for the semiconductor business. And then lastly, on new verticals, we continue to just increase our pipeline there. And so the number of opportunities has really increased significantly as we look at over the course of this year in terms of what we’re pursuing. And so all 3 of those are tracking to our expectations, and we’re very excited about the growth opportunities there.
Operator: We’ll go next now to Hamed Khorsand at BWS Financial.
Hamed Khorsand: So the first question I had was on the Starz renewal, are you able to talk about what kind of rate you achieved with them on the renewal rate? How significant of a step up it is for you?
Paul Davis: Yes. We can’t get into specifics, Hamed, just because of confidentiality, but we’re very pleased with another multiyear agreement. Certainly, this is a space that we’ve talked about a lot as being important. And Starz is really a premium offering, and it really sets a great precedent for us as we’re trying to look to expand the number of OTT licenses we have in the next few years.
Hamed Khorsand: And secondly, on your comments about the Canadian operator renewal not taking place. And when you were expiry, there a disclosure that was 50% of the operators were being sued and 50% land or license. I’m assuming that Shaw and Rogers were under license and is the other operator now Rogers? And how are you going to about coming up with a form of settlement given that Rogers is now much a larger operator?
Paul Davis: Yes. We can’t get into the who of that Canadian pay-TV operator that we no longer expect to be to get the renewal from. But what I can tell you is that Rogers is not a current licensee of ours. And so when we look at the entire Canadian pay TV landscape, our goal, as I said in our prepared remarks, is to get Shaw back as a pain licensee and to get the rest of the Canadian pay-TV operators under license. That has not changed, and we still feel like our patent portfolio is still very relevant to the entire Canadian Pay-TV landscape, and we feel like they should all be under license to our portfolio. .
Hamed Khorsand: Okay. And then lastly for me is on your comments about accommodating for payments for 2024, how much of those payments are onetime in nature?
Keith Jones: So I think another way to look at it is that part of our business model is that for many of these situations, we ask customers to pay in advance be it an annual fee in a lot of that revenues that I’m referring to relates to that. So it wouldn’t have been revenue to us. It has been a prepayment, if you will, in deferred revenue. So just simply from negotiating and adjusting and trying to land where we wanted to on a longer-term deal, we said, fine, don’t pay us right now at this moment. you can pay us in early 2024. And they agreed and quite frankly, it was good for them. It’s good for us. So we maintained the longer economics of it. So it’s not necessarily at all kind of a onetime payment. It’s just kind of the structure and what we leverage in our company of getting advanced payments on long-term contracts.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] We’ll go next now to Matthew Galinko at Maxim Group.
Matthew Galinko: Can we start with the — I think you mentioned the — you have the semiconductor assets as part of litigation with NVIDIA. Can you talk about how ending that RECONNECT does that enable more meaningful conversations on the newer assets on the semiconductor side? Or can you talk a little bit about the financial?
Paul Davis: Sure, Matt. Happy to touch on that. the litigation that we settled with NVIDIA was, as you mentioned, related to some legacy IP. It was not in connection with either our hybrid bonding or our advanced processing portfolios, which we believe currently have tremendous value, especially in the logic space, as we’ve noted. In any situation, where when you’re litigation, it’s hard to get past the — what’s on the table and the litigation to have other conversations. And so whether that’s within video or any other party, frankly. And so settling that really kind of resets the discussions and now we believe we’re going to be able to have more meaningful discussions about those more advanced technologies that we have in our portfolio.
Matthew Galinko: Got it. Okay. And then just on the high-level ’24 outlook. I’m just wondering if we could take operating cash flow projections, just proxy of what you’ve talked about and used that as what you might — how you might scale your debt payments? Or as we think about modeling ’24, especially around debt, similar rate to pay down to ’23? Or how should we be gauging that? .
Keith Jones: It’s a great question. One of the statements that you’ve made at separation and that we continue to make today is our commitment to paying off that debt prior to maturity. And there’s a clear pathway for that. We, as a management team, are committed. So I would roughly say that the pace that you’re seeing us at this year of making reductions in our overall principal amount, we’ll carry that forward and in particular, in 2024. We’ve talked about that we want to stay committed to that pace, while our leverage ratio until it reaches 1.3x. And in 2024, we won’t quite it below that measure, but we will consistently look to retire that debt amount
Operator: Thank you. And it appears we have no further questions this afternoon. Mr. Davis, I’ll hand things back to you, sir, for any closing comments.
