Gogo Gadgets
Before I begin, a quick update on Twitter v. Musk: The events of the last week are once again largely noise, but Twitter has won a few important battles.
On the discovery front, Musk is having a tough time getting what he wants. Chancellor McCormick continues to demonstrate that she is not afraid of grappling with the technical details of the case, and that when it comes to Musk’s requests for Twitter to hand over troves of data, she ain’t having it. She didn’t hold back her commentary in denying Musk’s discovery motions:
“[Twitter] has difficulty quantifying the burden of responding to that request because no one in their right mind has ever tried to undertake such an effort. It suffices to say, [Twitter] has demonstrated that such a request is overly burdensome.”
On the whistleblower front, Zatko’s allegations actually support Twitter’s position that mDAU is free of spam. It seems as though, despite the appearance of collusion between Mudge and Musk (remember, the whistleblower disclosure was filed July 6, just 48 hours before Musk decided to bail on the deal), Mudge and Musk didn’t do a particularly great job of aligning their stories:
Following the whistleblower disclosure, Musk filed an “additional notice of termination” on August 29. Given that termination is sort of a binary event, it begs the question: How much more terminated can this deal get? The answer is: None. None more terminated. But Musk is not to be deterred by such things, and has predictably filed a motion to amend his counterclaims, answer, and affirmative defenses. It’s under seal, for now, so we’ll have to wait to get the full picture there. I expect it will include many references to Zatko’s disclosure, and likely a few other arguments Musk could have raised earlier which he will unsuccessfully try to slip past McCormick.
What will happen once Musk’s amended Answer/counterclaims/defenses are unsealed, you ask? McCormick is going to be faced with a decision. Either McCormick moves the trial date back and allows Musk to amend his pleadings, or she denies Musk’s request to amend and sticks to her guns.
Is it possible she allows Musk to amend but doesn’t change the trial date? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine the parties being able to conduct discovery on the amended pleadings in time for the October trial. No doubt Musk’s lawyers would have a cow if she tried.
So why would she allow the amended pleadings if it means pushing trial? McCormick doesn’t want to open the door to a Musk appeal. The Chancery has already said, in other litigation, that a whistleblower complaint can form the basis of a Material Adverse Effect. If McCormick denies Musk’s amendment outright, she risks being overturned on appeal and litigating the whistleblower details later on.
As I said in my last post, I consider the above details a risk to the timing, not the outcome, of the Chancery litigation. My belief is that McCormick will identify that (1) Zatko’s allegations actually support Twitter on the mDAU argument (Musk’s main gripe), and (2) Zatko’s other allegations are largely unsupported by evidence, but will nonetheless allow very limited discovery and a small delay in trial to quell appeal risk. I remain long $TWTR and have neither added nor sold, but the current levels are looking more and more appealing.
—————————————————————
It’s $GOGO time.
There are typically two ways to grow your business: organically or inorganically. If you’re really into DIY, or if you’ve already got a great engineering team, you might opt for organic growth. If you’re a conglomerate or a Premier League soccer team, you might opt for inorganic growth. I’m not here to say which is better, although acquiring growth seems to be working out for the Tricky Trees.
If neither of those options sounds good, you might be in luck. There’s actually one more option to grow your business, in certain circumstances—you can sue your only competitor for patent infringement and hope you’re the last business standing. Sure, some people might call that organic growth, but is it really?
This is the story of Gogo and SmartSky; the former, a dominant (or rather the only) business aviation connectivity provider, and the latter, a reinvented “startup” looking to challenge Gogo’s reign. But before we get into the details of the patent litigation, a little background is likely helpful.
When most people hear “Gogo” they think of pretty bad wifi on even worse American Airlines flights. However, in December of 2020, Gogo closed the sale of its commercial aviation unit to Intelsat for $400mm in cash. The deal, which also included ongoing revenue guarantees from Intelsat to Gogo, provided Gogo with the liquidity injection it needed to refinance its existing debt and to act more strategically with respect to its then-outstanding convertible notes and its still-ongoing 5G deployment. The remaining business was focused exclusively on the “business aviation” (private jet) market.
When most people hear “SmartSky” they probably don’t think of anything. SmartSky Networks (formerly “Jetpool Ventures”) was founded in 2011 and has struggled with a few delays in getting their Air-to-Ground (“ATG”) network *ahem* off the ground. A lot of delays, actually (it’s not still 2016, right??). Despite these delays, it has raised nearly $500mm over the years, and has partnered with Honeywell to get its network into customers’ hands. After years of broken promises, it seems SmartSky might finally be ready to launch.
Unsurprisingly, Gogo and potential competitor SmartSky have not had the friendliest relationship. Analysts have largely just followed the headlines, with the narrative of imminent competition acting to Gogo's detriment. It’s not just SmartSky headlines, actually. Noise around SpaceX’s Starlink has also had an ongoing negative impact on Gogo’s share price. In fact, you can pretty much pinpoint key SmartSky and Starlink announcements based on the ticker alone, regardless of likely impact on Gogo’s business.
From left to right:
Jun. 9, 2021 — SpaceX’s Starlink is in talks with ‘several’ airlines for in-flight Wi-Fi (The Verge)
Jun. 10, 2021 — SmartSky Opens Southeast Corridor, Remains on Track for 2021 Launch (Business Wire)
Jun. 29, 2021 — Elon Musk’s Starlink to Deliver Internet Nearly Worldwide Within Weeks (Bloomberg)
Jul. 13, 2021 — SmartSky Moves Closer to Launch of New IFC Network with FCC Certification (Aviation Today)
Oct. 11, 2021 — SmartSky Poised To Start Airborne Internet Service (AIN Online)
Nov. 1, 2021 — SpaceX’s Starlink forms India Subsidiary, Aims to Deploy 200,000 Active Terminals by 2022 (Techcrunch)
Needless to say, Gogo has a bit of a PR issue.
But there are many reasons why, even if given one or two new options for connectivity, customers will continue to choose Gogo on the open market. For one, Gogo’s connectivity speeds shatter SmartSky’s planned speeds. This is largely due to Gogo’s combination of licensed and unlicensed spectrum (i.e., Gogo has exclusive rights to certain frequency ranges, while SmartSky must always compete with potentially-interfering communications to deliver its connection). Another reason is Gogo’s relationships. Gogo has a vice-like grip on OEMs/dealers, so many jets roll off the lot with Gogo equipment.
There are many more reasons to like Gogo in a competitive setting, but others have discussed this more eloquently than I can—check out @compound248’s interview of Gogo CEO Oakleigh “Oak” Thorne here, which I discovered last week after seeing some of his well-reasoned Twitter/Musk tweets. Of particular interest is the discussion around why Starlink may not be the concern that some analysts think it will be. However, since Starlink has not expressly addressed entry into the business aviation market (it’s got bigger, commercial aviation fish to fry), I won’t be talking about Starlink today.
What I’m concerned about today is not whether Gogo can compete with SmartSky, but whether or not Gogo will be allowed to compete.
On February 28 of this year, SmartSky filed suit against Gogo, alleging infringement of 4 of its patents, and well, wouldn’t you know it—
Sure, it recovered the following day and made new highs shortly after, but Gogo continues to be susceptible to SmartSky-related headlines, with the most recent headlines being about SmartSky’s network deployment. The takeaway? Gogo is still pricing in a lot of SmartSky negativity.
One piece of bad news within the patent lawsuit got disproportionate attention: SmartSky asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction, halting Gogo’s deployment of its 5G network. It’s sometimes hard to tell what the actual threat level of a risk factor in a 10-Q actually is (see Section 12 — SmartSky Litigation), so I’m going to try to break down the case, including the preliminary injunction, here. A quick warning—the litigation is still in the early stages, so there are many unknowns.
First things first—what are these patents all about?
SmartSky has asserted four patents, alleging infringement of at least 14 claims across all four. The four patents at issue in the case are:
Pat. No. 9,312,947 titled “Terrestrial based high speed data communications mesh network” (“the ’947 Patent”),
Pat. No. 11,223,417 also titled “Terrestrial based high speed data communications mesh network” (“the ’417 Patent”),
Pat. No. 10,257,717 titled “Wedge shaped cells in a wireless communication system” (“the ’717 Patent”), and
Pat. No. 9,730,077 titled “Architecture for simultaneous spectrum usage by air-to-ground and terrestrial networks” (“the ’077 Patent”)
The patents all generally relate to the process by which SmartSky optimizes its network to avoid interference from other communications. Because SmartSky has to use unlicensed (shared) spectrum, its network rides along on the same frequencies that other wireless broadcasters use. This can create interference and broken connections where signals compete in areas of overlapping broadcasts.
Think of the frequency bands in SmartSky’s network as a particular musical note, or perhaps more accurately a particular song, which includes notes between a “middle A” at 440 Hz and an A-note two octaves higher at 1760 Hz. In other words, the network would cover everything between 440-1760 Hz. If you wanted me to listen to this song, and if we were in the same room, you could play that song via a boombox, and I would hear it.
Now let’s assume someone else is in this room with us. Let’s also assume that they have different musical tastes, and that they are not particularly respectful of your song. This disrespectful person starts playing their own music on a boombox located on the floor next to yours. So rude!
What might you do if you’re not a confrontational person? You could try to focus the speaker in my direction. You could do this by turning the boombox towards me and by narrowing the cone of the speaker diaphragm so that the sound escaped through a smaller channel. You could also throw the boombox on a table so that the speaker is closer to my ear-level. Maybe you even find a lazy Susan so that you can swivel the boombox and keep the speaker facing me while I walk around the room.
What about if I wanted to go into the room next door, but I couldn’t take the first boombox with me? What if this room also had noisy bystanders? We could set up a second boombox in that room and do the same thing! If we broadcast the same song out of both speakers at the same time, we could “pass off” the song from one room to the next.
This is more or less what the patents are about. It’s the process by which SmartSky focuses the broadcasting of its network onto a given jet, and then allows that jet to seamlessly move from one region of coverage to another.
The above example is, of course, not a perfect analogy. Unlike transverse e&m waves, longitudinal audio waves would cause you disruption even if outside of the “network” range of 440-1760 Hz. If I were to blow a whistle at 17,000Hz—outside of the song’s frequency range—while you played your song, and if you were a teenager and you could actually hear that note, it would severely detract from your enjoyment of the song. We’re conflating interference, superposition, bandwidth, and more here, but still, you get the point.
So does Gogo’s 5G network infringe any valid SmartSky patent?
Gogo certainly doesn’t think so. For Gogo’s current arguments on non-infringement, you can check out the “Declaration of Dr. William Michalson in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction” filed on May 17, 2022. I’m just going to highlight the most persuasive arguments for each patent, below.
Before I go into specifics though, it’s worth noting that SmartSky is accusing a product that it has never had a chance to inspect. Why does that matter? In order to infringe a patent claim, you have to practice every element of that claim. If I patent a widget, and I claim my invention is “a widget comprising A, B, C, D, and E,” then a widget which only practices A-D would not infringe. Mapping a detailed patent claim to a product you’ve never seen or used leaves you with a limited set of information on which to base your claims. And though Gogo would never let a SmarkSky employee go inspect its towers, SmartSky could have waited for Gogo’s 5G deployment, sent an employee to jump on a Gogo-equipped jet with some wireless sensing equipment, and then come to conclusions about whether or not the Gogo network infringed its patents. It’s understandable to want to file suit as early as possible; after all, they’ll find out more about Gogo’s tech during the discovery phase of the trial. And if you think you can enjoin your competitor from a product launch, an early filing could be worth it. But SmartSky’s complaint points only to Gogo advertising materials and speeches at conferences in support of its allegations, rather than product analysis. It’s a pretty good indication to me that this case is going to get narrowed once SmartSky starts realizing that at least some of its asserted claims aren’t strong contenders for alleging infringement:
Gogo makes sure the Court is aware of SmartSky’s factual support, or lack thereof:
It’s also worth noting that Gogo is already very familiar with one SmartSky asserted patent in particular: the ’947 patent. This is because Gogo petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trade Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) to institute an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ’947 patent back in March of 2020. An IPR is a way for anyone—not just a competitor or accused infringer—to ask the USPTO to essentially reconsider the allowance of an issued patent. Because the USPTO is not particularly well-resourced, and because it probably hurts their feelings to have their decisions questioned, they only grant petitions for IPRs if the petitioner can show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Gogo’s petition was not successful. The PTAB decided not to allow an IPR of the ’947 patent, and Gogo did not appeal this decision. Why does that matter here? Because in an IPR you’re only allowed to challenge a patent based on certain, limited grounds. It doesn’t necessarily mean the District of Delaware will agree the ’947 patent is valid.
In order to get a patent issued in the first place, your invention has to be “patentable” under 35 U.S. Code § 101 (e.g., “gravity” is a force of nature and not patentable subject matter), “novel” under 35 U.S. Code § 102 (i.e., you have to be the first one to have invented it), and non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art under 35 U.S. Code § 103 (e.g., you might have been the first person to use a microplane to shred up some super rad jeans, but that doesn’t mean you can slap a new name on it and go patent the “Lycra-plane”—we all already know a microplane is really good at shreddin’).
When IPRs first became a thing following the 2011 passing of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), people had been griping about all of the garbage software patents granted in the “.com” era for over a decade. These patents were frequently directed to abstract or generic concepts, with the added words “by a computer” (e.g., “transfer of data from point A to point B, wherein such transfer is accomplished by a computer”), and were largely criticized as uninventive digitalizations of previously manual processes. In other words, these patents basically just said “do this thing we’ve known about for a while, but add quick maths.”
In implementing this new IPR procedure where anyone could challenge a patent, the USPTO had created a problem for itself. It was going to get a metric sh*t tonne of requests for patent invalidations. In order to limit the number of IPRs filed with the PTAB, the USPTO had a great idea: only allow people to challenge a patent for failing to be novel under §102, or for failing to be non-obvious under §103. Challenging a patent based on §101 grounds in an IPR wouldn’t be allowed. If the USPTO somehow screwed up and issued me a patent for “inventing” gravity (which is not patentable subject matter under §101), then an IPR would simply not be the right method to challenge it.
SmartSky therefore knows that Gogo has tried, and failed, to convince the PTAB of §102 and §103 issues with the ’947 patent, which has given them deserved confidence as to the overall validity of the patent. But SmartSky also knows that, in district court litigation, Gogo can challenge a patent on §101 grounds, so they’ve included specific language in their complaint to preempt any Gogo invalidation attempts:
Is that inclusion convincing? Not really. Gogo will still litigate the issue, and there’s a chance it will be successful. The ’947 patent’s claim 1 (one of two independent claims asserted against Gogo) kinda just says “use a software-defined radio located at one tower to point the beam at the plane and then do it again with the next tower when the plane moves into a new region.” Is it more than a digital application of a generic concept? Well, we just came up with an analog version, above, which no doubt had been done in some form before the 2005 priority date of the ’947 patent. I’ll let you ponder it.
Notably, Gogo is not precluded from re-asserting invalidity on §102 and §103 grounds in this district court litigation, but having already tried—and lost—on that front at the PTAB, §101 is likely to be a better bet. This is all, of course, only relevant if Gogo is found to infringe the patents. If Gogo doesn’t infringe, it really doesn’t matter if the patents are valid or not.
Non-Infringement of the ’947 and ’417 Patent
For all of the non-infringement analysis, I’m choosing just 1 representative claim to avoid putting everyone to sleep. I’m also combining the analysis on the ’947 and ’417 patents because they share a common parent application (i.e., the patent specifications are the same, so it makes sense to talk about them together). Perhaps the best argument of non-infringement is that Gogo’s 5G network does not make a connection with a new tower before breaking the connection with the old one. The SmartSky patents require a simultaneous connection with two towers. The ’947 patent claim 1 recites:
Gogo’s response in the opposition to the preliminary injunction calls out the difference:
This is actually important for another reason—even if Gogo’s 5G network does infringe, Gogo can likely “invent around” the ’947 and ’417 patents by implementing a small break in the connection. Are breaks in connection ideal? No. But would you really notice a fraction-of-a-second break in your Wifi connection every 15-30 minutes or so as you move across tower coverage? Probably not. There’s a risk that “continuous” is interpreted at the Markman stage as allowing small breaks, but given the context of the pass off and overlapping coverage, I think that’s a long-shot argument for SmartSky.
Non-Infringement of the ’717 Patent
The best non-infringement argument, in my mind, is elegantly simple. The ’717 claims appear to call for a single radio which can communicate with both licensed and unlicensed spectra:
Gogo’s solution uses two:
Non-Infringement of the ’077 Patent
I’ll be honest—I think the non-infringement arguments presented by Gogo relating to the ’077 patent independent claim are the weakest in the bunch. Gogo asserts that its base stations don’t broadcast “towards the horizon",” as is enumerated in the independent claim:
Is the Court really going to believe that Gogo’s towers broadcasting horizontally is not “towards the horizon”? Seems like a stretch, but that’s a discussion better addressed at the Markman hearing.
Let’s break down what it would take for SmartSky to win a preliminary injunction in Delaware.
The standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction is pretty much the same in Delaware as it is in every other federal court in this country, with the only variations being nuances in interpretation of the below factors. In order to win a motion for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff (here, SmartSky) must show:
a likelihood of success on the merits (i.e., you have to show you’re probably going to win the whole case)
a likelihood of irreparable harm, if the injunction is not granted
the balance of equities and hardships weighs in your favor, and
the injunction is in the public interest.
Importantly, the 4 items above are factors and not elements. What does that mean? If any one of them is strongly in favor of the moving party, it can outweigh the others.
Here’s the problem with SmartSky’s argument: even if they’re likely to succeed on the merits under factor 1, the other 3 factors likely don’t weigh in their favor.
Irreparable harm, for example, is typically found in situations where you can’t “unring the bell,” making monetary damages inadequate. An example would be where the defendant’s infringement destroyed plaintiff’s brand loyalty. But it’s hard for SmartSky to argue irreparable harm when Gogo is the only product on the market right now. What harm can there really be to SmartSky at this stage? I’m sure we could come up with a long list of harms if we tried, I’m just not sure any of them would be particularly persuasive, let alone persuasive enough to enjoin Gogo.
The balance of equities and hardships is also not in SmartSky’s favor. Gogo has deployed 121 of its 150 5G towers—no small CapEx feat. To demand Gogo shut down 5G during the pendency of the litigation is a pretty big ask, and one that the Court would not grant lightly.
Finally, an injunction is probably not in the public’s best interest. There’s a lot of debate as to what “public interest” really means. Suffice to say, failing to issue an injunction at this stage likely would not preclude a satisfactory judgment for SmartSky in the future if they win the litigation, and the public at large should not have connectivity halted due to a legitimate dispute between the only existing provider and a new market entrant.
Regardless of the particular factors and weighting among them, preliminary injunctions are a toss-up following the Supreme Court’s 2005 eBay decision. A 41% chance of being enjoined might sound like a lot, but parties moving for preliminary injunctions are a self-selecting bunch. Most parties who ask for a preliminary injunction are threatened by imminent competitive harm, and again—SmartSky doesn’t have a product. Is it the end of the world if SmartSky wins the injunction? Probably not. SmartSky would have to post a bond, and Gogo could either invent around the patents or run the same equipment on the existing 4G network, to my knowledge.
Do we know anything about the court which sheds light on the likelihood of the preliminary injunction, or the litigation in general?
Unfortunately, the answer is a larger “no” than usual. In years past, this case would have almost surely been snatched up by Judge Leonard Stark. Stark was the District of Delaware’s resident patent expert, presiding over more than 2,400 such cases in his time on the Court. But in November of 2021, President Biden appointed Stark to the Federal Circuit (where patent cases get appealed). Stark was subsequently sworn in as a judge of the Federal Circuit earlier this year.
Apparently the data shows Stark was a plaintiff-friendly (patent-owner-friendly) judge; however in my experience litigating in front of Judge Stark, he was always pretty even-handed—sometimes to an annoying degree. We used to joke that he would “split the baby” to such an extent that you could pretty much guarantee he would schedule hearings in the exact mid-point of the parties’ respective date requests, even if it was on Christmas.
Nonetheless, it seems the consensus is that Stark’s departure bodes well for defendants, and that’s good news for Gogo. Does that change the preliminary injunction analysis? Not really. It’s still hard to get a PI. Moving the hurdle one millimeter higher won’t matter.
For now, the case is presided over by a magistrate judge who will handle discovery disputes. I’ll keep an eye on where this case is ultimately assigned, as the implications extend to all patent cases in Delaware, not just this one.
What does Gogo have to say about all of this?
Oak gave his two cents on the litigation during an earnings call earlier this year:
“Our patent attorneys and engineers have studied the entire SmartSky patent portfolio, and we know these four patents very well. I can assure you we do not infringe on those patents, and we will fight this lawsuit with extreme vigor.”
Apparently Gogo’s patent attorneys have been busy, because SmartSky’s patent portfolio isn’t that small.
There’s probably not too much to read into Oak’s statement; a CEO should always be the company’s biggest cheerleader, and I’d fully expect him to vehemently deny the risk to the business. That being said, I listened to that call, and there was just something about the tone of his voice that said “I can’t believe I have to address this.” No one should place any weight on that part of my analysis, but it’s worth a listen for yourself.
SmartSky was listening to Oak’s comments, too. They tried to assert that these public statements placed Gogo’s advice of counsel at issue (the advice Gogo’s patent attorneys gave saying Gogo didn’t infringe these patents), thus waiving attorney-client privilege and warranting SmartSky’s access to the documents detailing the advice. Judge Thynge heard oral arguments on the issue and ultimately sided with Gogo, shutting down SmartSky’s request:
What’s the timeline on the litigation?
We’re in the early innings of this thing (the green bar, in the above)—somehow still dealing with the pleadings after over 6 months. SmartSky petitioned the the Court to allow a sur-reply to Gogo’s motion to dismiss and moved for a preliminary injunction early, and without discovery. Typically, a plaintiff would either (1) move for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and then, subsequently, a preliminary injunction or (2) would petition the court for expedited discovery on which to then move for a preliminary injunction. Preliminary injunctions are fairly heavy remedies, so you want to demonstrate that you’ve done some homework before petitioning for one. Instead, SmartSky filed its complaint, then shortly after moved for a preliminary injunction in which it asserted new theories of infringement. Gogo’s counsel was quick to highlight this in their briefing, moving to strike the new arguments:
For now, the preliminary injunction ruling is still outstanding. We should expect a ruling in the next couple of months, as things have been moving at a snail’s pace so far. Overall, a typical patent case can take anywhere from 18 months to 3 years, so at 6 months in, and with not much accomplished, we’ve got a lot of runway ahead of us.
What’s the potential financial impact on the Gogo business?
We won’t know exactly how much SmartSky will claim in damages until the expert discovery phase, but it’s safe to say that, having dumped nearly $500mm into its business to play catch-up with Gogo, SmartSky will be asking for a lot. I’m just not convinced SmartSky will get much.
Even if SmartSky is successful in this litigation, the post-eBay era makes a permanent injunction less likely. Permanent injunctions are actually reasonably common where a patent owner wins an infringement suit, but courts have said there is no presumption of irreparable harm to the patentee where they haven’t commercialized the invention prior to the lawsuit, as is the case here. It’s more likely than not that SmartSky would be granted a reasonable royalty. After all, as far as monetary damages go, SmartSky doesn’t really have lost profits at the moment because it doesn’t have a product (any existing sales of future service contracts are likely de minimis). A reasonable royalty would allow Gogo to continue to operate its business by paying SmartSky for the proportional value of the patents practiced. And given that using unlicensed spectrum in general is only a part of Gogo’s 5G, a reasonable royalty probably wouldn’t pose a serious threat to Gogo’s financial well-being.
Still, win or lose, the process itself is a cost to Gogo. Gogo has spent at least $5mm on SmartSky litigation so far, including the 2020 IPR. That number can easily rise to $12-15mm over the course of this case, with about $5mm of that being weighted at the back-end for trial costs if it doesn’t settle sooner. For a company with projected 2022 FCF of $35-45mm and projected 2025 FCF of $200mm, it’s not an immaterial sum. The good news for Gogo investors is that the 2022 FCF numbers are pulled down by the nearly-completed 5G rollout costs (as evidenced by the projected 2025 FCF jump), so Gogo is in great financial health heading into 2023 and beyond.
In the mean time, Gogo has some investor relations work to do. Oak and private equity firm GTCR—Gogo’s two largest shareholders—continue to increase their combined 50%+ stake. The market doesn’t appear to be impressed with the insider conviction though. Just take a look at the chart from today, below. For all you fans of technical analysis out there, this is what we like to call “pretty ugly.” I can’t tell you where it will curl back upwards, but I’m placing a large bet that it will.
I am long , with a price target range of $25-30. I view any SmartSky headlines which negatively impact the stock, and which do not reflect material changes to Gogo’s ability to both win and keep customers, as buying opportunities.