Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Guess no one spent the weekend listening to the hearings 😦
My 3, I cannot type well, but I can still talk. Send me an email and I will return it with a telephone number. I will be happy to discuss this case with you. loophole73@yahoo.com
MO
loop
Sons, an IDCC win, but how big a win, who knows.
Lenovo's lawyers got quizzed a lot harder than IDCC in my speed watching view.
Decision could take a while.
Lenovo may license before decision comes out if it looks like 2 losses in a row for them.
Courts may be now seeing IDCC as a friendly Frander.
Lenovo boasted to the entire world about being the “overall winner” after the first trial in the UK. Almost to the point of being malicious. Interdigital needs to sit tight with no negotiating and wait for a favorable decision. If one does indeed come down in their favor then be tactful and do the same while putting other infringers on notice. All IMO.
Sons, an IDCC win, but how big a win, who knows.
Lenovo's lawyers got quizzed a lot harder than IDCC in my speed watching view.
Decision could take a while.
Lenovo may license before decision comes out if it looks like 2 losses in a row for them.
Courts may be now seeing IDCC as a friendly Frander.
Does anyone have an opinion about the UK appeal which concluded today.
The case can be listened to on Utube. All of the hearing dates will come up if you search Interdigital v Lenovo. Select the cases between the 10th and 14th. The first case should indicate 5 days ago, 4 days and so forth.
Gamco I doubt Samsung will be affected by the UK appeal.
I have to wonder if the Samsung arbitration ruling will have access to any information from the Lenovo appeal. Just a thought.
The UK appeal case has concluded today. The judges will issue their decision as soon as they can.
I think IDCC will win at least on the license rate, if not the interest amount paid or to be paid also.
Thanks Billy. That is an interesting opinion article…hopefully the impressions of the appeal proceedings are close to reality.
Interesting article on the Lenovo v. IDCC royalties case in Europe….
UK appeals court unlikely to affirm InterDigital-Lenovo FRAND determination: Munich court also rejected it as unreliable
I watched the first five hours. I'll try to get back to it later today.
Fish, if they pay me enough, I guess I could put out the negative report. I would then buy cheaper shares followed by recanting my previous report and offering actual facts and truth going forward. Since only 3 or 4 people would actually read my report (and most would laugh), the plan seems to be lacking any chance for success.
Oh well, guess I'll just keep enjoying the rise in price for the shares I currently have.
Good luck to all of the IDCC longs.
badgerkid -- from their friend at BofA who will put out another negative report. What a crime 1 1 1
Shorts just made the upside even more interesting. IDCC now has 4.4 million shares short on 5/31/24 compared to just 3.68 million on 5/15/24. And where exactly are they going to get those shares to cover?
Good luck to the longs in IDCC.
a shame it doesn't come with closed captions ☺️😁
I have the link working now. Take this link:
____________________
https://www.youtube
.com/live/IgzsLXKw5lM?si=-NRTWW9xgknCbfLn
________________________________
* Put those together into one link
* Past that link directly into YouTube search bar
* It is playing just fine
* I believe this link is for yesterday's proceeding
* I don't have time right now to watch it {it's over two and a half hours long}
Gam I think court is over for today
Re: YouTube link for UK Appeal: The link began to work, then I stopped it to get the link for posting. When I came back to watch it, It also gave me the unplayable message. Sorry.
Gamco in the JUVE link truck posted: go to the following paragraph and at the end touch the link.
nterDigital goes first
Judges Arnold, Birss and Nugee will now review this far-reaching FRAND ruling. The Court of Appeal is combining both appeals (case IDs: CA-2023-001492 for InterDigital and CA-2023-001489 for Lenovo) and will hear them together over the next four to five days. The court is livestreaming the hearing on YouTube.
Trickle thanks for the information and live court link. To me the judges had some pointed questions regarding the rate set by the lower court judge.
anyone get youtube link to work?
Thanks Gamco.
When I tried to post link it showed |video not playable.
YouTube link for Appeal:
Sons, here is the Youtube of yesterday hearing.
Appears they will stream all week.
Sorry, I can't provide the link, google it.
Cheers
Sons, yes , going by this article.
This appeal case seems real important.
JUVE also had a good summary of the Munich decision.
https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/uk-court-of-appeal-begins-five-day-hearing-interdigital-lenovo/
Cheers
InterDigital and Philips to Showcase Volumetric Streaming Technologies Empowering Immersive Sports Experiences at AWE USA 2024
Company Release - 6/11/2024
WILMINGTON, Del., June 11, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, and Philips announced an upcoming showcase at AWE USA 2024 to demonstrate how volumetric video-based codecs and streaming technologies enable completely new levels of immersivity when streaming live and eSports experiences. The AWE conference and expo will take place in Long Beach, California from June 18 – 20, 2024.
Located at Booth 233, InterDigital and Philips will jointly demonstrate their immersive technologies and contributions to video standards that enable the rendering and delivery of volumetric video experiences. Volumetric video adds the sensation of depth and parallax to traditional content by capturing 3D representations of a real-world object or scenes and translating them into a sequence of frames that can be transmitted across devices. Given the richness of volumetric data, the delivery of this video content requires special compression, and the MPEG Visual Volumetric Video-based Coding (V3C) standard defines the general mechanism for coding and streaming volumetric content.
InterDigital and Philips’ collaboration on V3C immersive codecs empowers the delivery of volumetric content, leveraging InterDigital’s expertise in immersive codecs, including video point cloud compression (V-PCC), haptics, and MPEG immersive video (MIV) extensions, alongside Philips’ expertise in MIV extensions and contributions to critical six degrees of freedom (6DoF) immersive codec and content creation pipelines for 3D rendering.
At AWE, the partners will demonstrate the application of their innovations to deliver live and recorded volumetric video for streamed sport and eSport experiences. InterDigital will showcase contributions to MPEG Immersive Video, Haptics, and Scene Description standards empowering the streaming of volumetric and sensory-enhanced content for recorded eSports gameplay. Philips will demonstrate its video technologies that enable the capture and streaming of volumetric-enhanced live sports content. Together, the partners will spotlight their contributions to the MPEG-I V3C standard and MPEG-DASH platform, which fosters the sensation of real-time telepresence and volumetric realism that can be applied across a diversity of content experiences. The partners’ V3C implementation will soon be included, in “early access mode,” in the 5G-MAG Reference Tools repositories hosted by the 5G-MAG Media Action Group (see here).
“Advancements in video codecs and volumetric streaming technologies unlock new ways of being immersed in video, especially at a time when audiences are enjoying more streamed sports content than ever,” said Lionel Oisel, VP and Head of Video Labs, InterDigital. “The complement of Philips and InterDigital’s volumetric research and innovation empowers the wide scale delivery of crisper, more dynamic immersive content across a variety of devices and use cases.”
“Sports clubs and leagues are seeking new ways to attract viewers and increase fandom. Volumetric sports content that is immersive and interactive places fans in control of how to see the action and will further grow the attractiveness of watching sports on mobile, interactive and immersive devices,” said Jako Eleveld, VP and Head of IP Licensing at Philips. “Together with InterDigital we demonstrate how standards like MPEG V3C work with our multi camera capturing and 6DoF rendering technologies to enable this for the industry.”
InterDigital and Philips will showcase at AWE US at Booth 233 from June 18 - 20. In addition, InterDigital’s Video Solutions Group Senior Director Valerie Allie and Philips Senior Scientist Christiaan Varekamp will deliver a talk on “Empowering Immersive Sports Experiences,” providing an overview of their companies’ contributions to video codecs and volumetric capture technologies that empower the sharing of scalable XR solutions across a variety of platforms, particularly for immersive sports experiences. The presentation will be delivered on Wednesday June 19 at 4:00pm PT in Room 101B.
To learn more about AWE US, please click 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.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
InterDigital Contact:
Roya Stephens
Email: roya.stephens@interdigital.com
+1 (202) 349-1714
Trick are you saying the Frand appeal decision will be rendered on Friday?
IDCC today.
LENOVO next 2 days.
IDCC rebuttal Thursday.
JUDGES decision Friday.
JUVO Patent following this, Google them.
Huge week for IDCC.
Loren Chen bragged IDCC Frand totally defensible in court, we will see.
Vegas maybe the pre market prices are bs and have no relevance to anything. We should no how the appeal went most likely in a couple of months or more, if not sooner.
my3sons87, I like the appeal. In the premarket IDCC traded over 200 shares at almost $120. When the market opened it started to sink and continued most of the day which is why I guessed someone did not like what was said at the appeal. It could be the tone or substance of the judges questions. On a lighter none IDCC has 6 form 4's sells out after the market for a total of lees than 5 shares...
Vegas do you not like the appeal which just started? Personally, I think IDCC will win on the rate appeal.
The appeal is scheduled for the entire week. So it may take a few days of presentation and response for a certain party to feel a little weak in the knees. JMHO
I am guessing that someone did not like what they heard in the UK appeal.
InterDigital Declares Regular Quarterly Cash Dividend
Source: GlobeNewswire Inc.
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, today announced that its Board of Directors has declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.40 per share on its common stock, payable on July 24, 2024, to shareholders of record at the close of business on July 10, 2024.
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:
investor.relations@interdigital.com
+1 (302) 300-1857
Paullee- Thank you! EOM
New status report on one case
June 6, 2024
VIA Electronic Filing
The Honorable Judge Joshua D. Wolson
United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
3809 U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 3-B
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Re:
InterDigital Technology Corporation, et al. v. Lenovo Holding Co., Inc., et al.
C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01590-JDW
Dear Judge Wolson,
As requested on June 4, 2024, the parties provide the following update regarding the status
of their UK proceedings:
As we informed the Court on June 30, 2023, the trial court in the parties’ FRAND
proceedings before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales issued its final Approved
Judgment on March 16, 2023 and resulting Order on June 27, 2023. On July 31, 2023, both parties
appealed this judgment. The appeal will be heard next week, between June 10 and June 14, 2024.
Pursuant to the Court’s July 18, 2023 order, Dkt. 318, the parties will notify the Court when
a decision has been issued by the UK Court of Appeal or when the UK proceedings have otherwise
concluded and a final agreement between the parties has been executed.
In light of the foregoing, and consistent with the parties’ prior request to this Court, the
parties respectfully request that this case remain stayed.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Neal C. Belgam
Neal C. Belgam
I’m a little unclear how all this affects the share price. I’m not sure if the stock price has gotten a bit ahead of itself recently or not
IDCC appeal to start on June 20th in UK.
Next round at UK Court of Appeal
The next major clash between the two opponents will take place in London on 10 June. The UK Court of Appeal will then hear InterDigital’s appeal against the well-known ruling by UK High Court judge James Mellor from 2023.
In March 2023, Mellor handed down his decision on FRAND-rate setting, which saw the court order Lenovo to pay a FRAND rate of $138.7 million. The judgment also declared both parties’ previous offers as non-FRAND. Later in 2023, presiding judge James Mellor released two further decisions in which he declared Lenovo the “overall winner” of the FRAND trial.
Ultimately, there were several reasons for this. The court found a per unit rate of $0.175 as much closer to Lenovo’s proposal of $0.16, and a “long way” from InterDigital’s contention of a blended rate of $0.53. In addition, the court found the payable lump sum “substantially lower” than InterDigital’s offer of $337 million. Furthermore, the judges found Lenovo the winner regarding comparables, and Lenovo successful on the “top down” and “conduct” aspects of the case.
JUVE Patent understands that the court has scheduled the appeal hearing for Monday 10 June and it is expected to last a week
Thank You, Data-Rox.
William Blair 44th Annual Growth Stock
Conference
June 4, 2024
Rich Brezski, CFO
https://s25.q4cdn.com/626766191/files/doc_presentations/2024/Jun/04/interdigital-presentation-william-blair-june-4-2024.pdf
OFF TOPIC: Is the website ATOMIC BOB (I think it was a stock board) still there or has it been removed from the web?
TIA
Gamco thanks for the legal case filing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:23-CV-00493-FL
INTERDIGITAL INC., INTERDIGITAL
VC HOLDINGS, INC., INTERDIGITAL
PATENT HOLDINGS, INC., and
INTERDIGITAL MADISON PATENT
HOLDINGS SAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
LENOVO PC HK LTD., and MOTOROLA
MOBILITY LLC,
Defendants.
INTERDIGITAL’S OPPOSITION TO
LENOVO’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 1 of 14
1
I. INTRODUCTION
InterDigital is a research and design company that for more than half a century has been at
the forefront of developing foundational wireless communication and digital video technologies.
D.I. 64 at 7. InterDigital’s inventions help power wireless data transfers and make modern video
streaming possible for billions of people across the globe. Id. at 8.
This lawsuit involves InterDigital’s pioneering inventions in the wireless communications
and video streaming space. Given the importance of these inventions in modern life, InterDigital
licenses its patents covering these inventions to major technology companies including Apple, LG,
Panasonic, Samsung, and many others. Unlike its peers, Defendant Lenovo has repeatedly refused
to take a license to InterDigital’s patents without first forcing InterDigital to pursue expensive
litigation in Germany, the UK, the ITC, and in this Court—all with the hopes of holding out to
secure a better licensing deal for InterDigital’s patented technology.
In keeping with its tactics, Lenovo’s motion to compel is an unnecessary ploy designed to
drive up InterDigital’s litigation costs. InterDigital has dedicated significant time and expense
responding to Lenovo’s 151 discovery requests, diligently providing Lenovo with proportional,
relevant discovery in compliance with the Federal Rules. The additional documents Lenovo seeks
in its motion fall into three categories: (i) documents that are wholly irrelevant to any issue in this
case; (ii) documents that InterDigital has already agreed to provide; and (iii) documents that, while
theoretically containing some minimal relevance, would be so burdensome to locate and produce
and would provide such trivial value to Lenovo, that they are not proportional to the needs of the
case.
For example, Lenovo seeks, among other things “All Documents and Communications
Relating to” “the negotiations” of InterDigital’s third-party license agreements, all of InterDigital’s
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 2 of 14
2
discussions with its licensees “Concerning the Asserted Patents,” “analysis of the proposals” to
InterDigital’s licensees, and “any meetings negotiations, discussions, agreements or other
Communications” regarding the asserted patents or related patents. D.I. 108-5 at RFP 89–91.
Lenovo claims that these (and numerous other) requests “bear on InterDigital’s valuation of the
Asserted Patents” and are relevant to its North Carolina Abusive Patent Assertions Act
(“NCAPAA”) counterclaim—specifically to whether InterDigital has offered to “license the patent
for an amount that is not based on a reasonable estimate of the value of the license,” or whether
InterDigital has offered “to license the patent for an amount that is based on the cost of defending
a potential or actual lawsuit.” D.I. 107 at 2–3 (quoting NCAPAA Factor 5 at §75-143(a)(5)).
But Lenovo does not allege any facts in its counterclaim suggesting that InterDigital
offered to license the asserted patents to it for a low-ball or litigation-cost figure. Nor could it. The
parties never discussed monetary terms for the asserted patents. And while NCAPAA Bad-Faith
Factor 5 is clearly not relevant here, in order to avoid burdening the Court with a dispute,
InterDigital has either produced, or agreed to produce, both its claim charts and its executed license
agreements with each of InterDigital’s licensees of the asserted patents. These multi-million-dollar
license agreements clearly show that InterDigital is not suing third parties merely to extract quick
settlement payments. NCAPAA Factor 5 certainly does not permit Lenovo unbounded,
disproportionate discovery into nearly every communication between InterDigital and its thirdparty licensees as Lenovo seeks through its motion. See Howard v. Coll. of the Albemarle, No.
2:15-CV-00039-D, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109242, at *11 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2016) (citation
omitted) (“Litigants may not use the discovery process as a ‘fishing expedition.’”).
Lenovo’s additional justifications based on the NCAPAA Factors are likewise unsupported.
InterDigital never “failed to conduct an analysis comparing the claims in the patent to” Lenovo’s
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 3 of 14
3
products (D.I. 107, quoting NCAPAA Factor 2). Lenovo admits InterDigital sent it a claim chart,
which compares the claims and Lenovo’s products. D.I. 107 at 5. Thus, NCAPAA Factor 2 is
irrelevant here.
Next, InterDigital has already agreed to provide the claim charts of infringement
InterDigital sent to third-party licensees. Thus, Lenovo’s arguments regarding Factor 9 (whether
InterDigital sent the same demand letter to multiple recipients) are moot.
Finally, Lenovo seeks “[d]ocuments sufficient to show Plaintiff’s contracts and agreements
with Third Parties for production of Products embodying the invention claimed in any claim of
any Asserted Patent.” D.I. 107 at 5. But, once again, InterDigital has already produced or agreed
to produce each of its agreements with third parties that allow the third parties to manufacture their
products that practice the asserted patents (e.g., the license agreements). Thus, this request is moot
as well. For these reasons and the additional reasons detailed herein, InterDigital respectfully
requests that the Court deny Lenovo’s motion.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Lenovo’s Expansive Discovery Requests and InterDigital’s Production.
On December 15, 2023, Lenovo served its first sets of discovery requests: 114 Requests
for Production and 12 Interrogatories. See D.I. 108-2, 108-5. On January 16, 2024, InterDigital
provided its Objections and Responses to those requests including the requests at issue here: RFP
Nos. 20, 21, 58, 62, 86, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, and 97 and Interrogatory No. 4, summarized below:
? RFP 20 – documents relating to internal InterDigital meetings;
? RFP 21 – valuation of the asserted patents;
? RFP 58 – evaluation of whether the accused products infringe the asserted patents;
? RFP 62 – correspondence concerning accusations of infringement of the asserted patents;
? RFP 86 – documents concerning attempts to license the asserted patents;
? RFP 89 – documents regarding the economic terms of agreements for the asserted patents;
? RFP 90 – documents relating to discussions with licensees concerning the asserted patents;
? RFP 91 – documents relating to communications regarding the asserted patents;
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 4 of 14
4
? RFP 95 – documents identifying all people involved in licensing of InterDigital’s IP;
? RFP 96 – documents showing InterDigital’s agreements with third parties for production
of products embodying the inventions of the asserted patents;
? RFP 97 – documents regarding the licensing of any of the Asserted Patents, regardless of
whether a license or any agreement was actually executed; and
? ROG 4 – efforts to license the asserted patents.
D.I. 108-8, 108-9.
Nearly four months passed, and InterDigital heard nothing from Lenovo on these requests.
Then, on April 5, 2024, Lenovo sent a letter requesting that InterDigital supplement its response
to Interrogatory 4 (and another Interrogatory not at issue here) and produce additional documents
in response to the above RFPs within two weeks. D.I. 108-1. Lenovo’s sole basis for the purported
relevance of these requests was a vague reference to its NCAPAA counterclaim. Id. In its response
to Lenovo’s April 5th letter, InterDigital explained that it was in the process of supplementing its
response to Interrogatory 4 and disagreed that the RFPs identified by Lenovo have any relevance
to its NCAPAA counterclaim, but nevertheless, agreed to produce additional documents—many
of which InterDigital had already provided to Lenovo in a parallel ITC proceeding. D.I. 108-7 at
1, 108-6 at 1-2. InterDigital produced the majority of those documents on April 30, 2024. The
parties met and conferred about the issues in the parties’ letters on May 1st. D.I. 108-6 at 1-2.
On May 8, 2024, InterDigital produced additional documents responsive to the RFPs at
issue here and identified documents—by Bates numbers—that are responsive to Lenovo’s RFPs.
InterDigital again explained in detail why the additional documents Lenovo demands are not
relevant to Lenovo’s NCAPAA counterclaim and why their production would be disproportionate
to the needs of this case. D.I. 108-6. That same day, Lenovo served a second set of discovery
requests: RFPs 115–130 and Interrogatory Nos. 13–16.
On May 16, 2024, InterDigital supplemented three Interrogatory responses related to
Lenovo’s NCAPAA counterclaim: Rog No. 4 (efforts to license the asserted patents); Rog No. 7
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 5 of 14
5
(InterDigital’s bases for an injunction) and Rog No. 12 (InterDigital’s bases for its contention that
the NCAPAA does not apply it to it and InterDigital did not bring this litigation in “bad faith”).
D.I. 108-9. In these responses, InterDigital included Bates numbers identifying which documents
it produced related to which Lenovo interrogatory. Less than 24 hours later, without requesting to
meet and confer to attempt to resolve any lingering disputes, Lenovo filed its motion to compel.
B. The NCAPAA Factors.
Lenovo’s purported basis for the relevance of the requests at issue here are four factors
related to its NCAPAA counterclaim: Bad-Faith Factors 2, 5, and 9 and Good-Faith Factor 4.
(a) A court may consider the following factors as evidence that a person has made
a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement:
. . .
(2) Prior to sending the demand, the person failed to conduct an analysis
comparing the claims in the patent to the target’s products, services, and
technology, or the analysis was done but does not identify specific areas in
which the products, services, and technology are covered by the claims in
the patent.
. . .
(5) The person offers to license the patent for an amount that is not based
on a reasonable estimate of the value of the license, or the person offers to
license the patent for an amount that is based on the cost of defending a
potential or actual lawsuit.
. . .
(9) The person making the claim or assertion sent the same demand or
substantially the same demand to multiple recipients and made assertions
against a wide variety of products and systems without reflecting those
differences in a reasonable manner in the demands.
(b) A court may consider the following factors as evidence that a person has not
made a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement:
. . .
(4) The person makes a substantial investment in the use of the patent or in
the production or sale of a product or item that the person reasonably
believes is covered by the patent. “Use of the patent” in the preceding
sentence means actual practice of the patent and does not include licensing
without actual practice.
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 75-143.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 6 of 14
6
III. ARGUMENT
Lenovo’s sole relevance argument for the expansive discovery it now seeks is a vague
relationship to its NCAPAA counterclaim. But, Lenovo’s requests seek information far beyond the
narrow scope of the NCAPAA factors, and any potential relevance they may have is far outweighed
by the burden to InterDigital. Moreover, InterDigital has already provided responsive
documents—including documents that demonstrate the value of the asserted patents.
A. NCAPAA Bad-Faith Factor Five Does Not Justify Lenovo’s Expansive
Discovery Requests.
NCAPAA Bad-Faith Factor 5 provides the sole basis for the purported relevance of the
majority of the requests at issue, which collectively seek every document related to any negotiation
between InterDigital and any company it had licensing discussions with concerning the asserted
patents. Lenovo does not separately consider how each of its requests is relevant to Factor 5,
instead alleging that they all relate to the asserted patents’ “valuation.” See D.I. 107 at 4.
Bad-Faith Factor 5 relates to low-ball or litigation-cost patent licensing demands, which
may be indicative of bad-faith assertions of patent infringement. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-143(a)(5)
(requiring an offer from InterDigital to Lenovo “to license the patent[s] for an amount that is not
based on a reasonable estimate of the value of the license,” or that is based “on the cost of
defending a potential or actual lawsuit.”). It simply does not apply here.
InterDigital has never provided a demand to Lenovo to license the asserted patents for a
specific dollar figure—the parties’ licensing discussions never reached that point as Lenovo
ignored all of InterDigital’s requests to discuss the asserted patents. Put another way, Bad-Faith
Factor 5 cannot apply because InterDigital never made a low-ball or litigation-cost demand. Thus,
NCAPAA Factor 5 is not a basis for Lenovo to seek any documents, let alone every communication
that may in some way relate to licensing.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 7 of 14
7
Moreover, InterDigital has already produced (or is in the process of producing) every
executed license agreement for the asserted patents and all claim charts (technical comparisons
between the asserted patents and the accused products) it sent to its licensees. Thus, to the extent
that licensing documents have any relevance to Bad-Faith Factor 5, InterDigital has already
produced hundreds of documents and is in the process of producing more. To the extent Lenovo’s
motion seeks more, it should be denied.1 See Mohammed v. Daniels, No. 5:13-CT-3077-FL, 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106089, at *5 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 2015) (Flanagan, J) (“Due to the vague nature
of plaintiff’s discovery requests and in light of the large volume of materials defendants already
provided plaintiff, plaintiff’s current discovery requests appear to be a fishing expedition.”).
Lenovo does not dispute InterDigital’s production of these documents. D.I. 107 at 7
(acknowledging that InterDigital has “already collected and produced” requested information in
the parallel ITC case and has “reproduced a subset” of that information in this case).
Even if Lenovo’s discovery requests were marginally relevant to Bad-Faith Factor 5, any
such relevance is not “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Lenovo’s requests encompass enormous volumes of highly sensitive
communications regarding InterDigital’s licensing—many of which are privileged or are subject
to third-party non-disclosure agreements. For example, RFP No. 86 seeks documents and
communications concerning any attempt to license the Asserted Patents, RFP No. 90 seeks
1
To accomplish this production, InterDigital is actively seeking approval from third parties (e.g.,
Apple), as required by its licenses, to produce documents in this litigation.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 8 of 14
8
documents and communications relating to negotiations with licensees, and RFP No. 97 seeks
documents and communications relating to efforts to license the Asserted Patents, regardless of
whether any license was executed. Lenovo’s requests are not proportional under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1) as any theoretical relevance of these third-party communications is clearly outweighed
by the prejudice InterDigital faces in collecting a huge number of sensitive documents, almost all
of which require third-party approval. See Va. Dep’t of Corr. v. Jordan, 921 F.3d 180, 188-89 (4th
Cir. 2019) (“Proportionality requires courts to consider, among other things, whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. This relieves parties from the
burden of taking unreasonable steps to ferret out every relevant document.”); Cruz v. Bd. of
Supervisors, No. 91-1547, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 187, at *7 (4th Cir. Jan. 7, 1993) (“In this case,
[plaintiff] requested a vast amount of highly sensitive material with little or no notion of what he
might find, in what can properly be termed a ‘fishing expedition.’”).
B. InterDigital Already Produced Documents Responsive to RFP No. 58.
Lenovo argues that its RFP No. 58—seeking “Documents sufficient to show
[InterDigital]’s analysis, consideration, testing, or evaluation of whether any Accused Product
Infringes any claim of the Asserted Patents . . . .”—is relevant to Bad-Faith Factor 2 of its NCAPAA
counterclaim. D.I. 107 at 4. Bad-Faith Factor 2 of the NCAPAA applies if InterDigital “failed to
conduct an analysis comparing the claims in the patent to [Lenovo’s] products, services, and
technology, or the analysis was done but does not identify specific areas in which the products,
services, and technology are covered by the claims in the patent.”
As Lenovo acknowledges, InterDigital has already produced claim charts that compare the
asserted patent claims to the accused Lenovo devices. D.I. No. 107 at 4–5. These charts were
created prior to this lawsuit, clearly demonstrate Lenovo’s infringement, and are directly
responsive to Lenovo’s Request No. 58. Further, InterDigital has produced additional claim charts
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 9 of 14
9
previously sent to Lenovo detailing its infringement of the Asserted Patents. D.I. 108-9 at 55–56.
These documents provide, on a claim limitation-by-limitation basis, InterDigital’s contentions
regarding Lenovo’s infringement of the Asserted Patents. Accordingly, once again, Lenovo has the
documents responsive to its Request.
Yet, Lenovo asserts that “InterDigital should be compelled to produce documents for all
other investigations it performed into the practice of the products when evaluating whether to
assert its claims.” D.I. No. 107 at 5. It is unclear as to what is meant by “other investigations.”
Regardless, InterDigital again confirms it has produced the documents it has in its possession
responsive to this request.
C. NCAPAA Bad-Faith Factor 9 Is Inapplicable Here, but Regardless,
InterDigital Has Already Produced Documents Responsive to RFP 62.
Lenovo asserts that InterDigital should be forced to produce additional documents
responsive to RFP No. 62, which, in broad terms, seeks documents regarding “any
Communication, including demand letters” informing Lenovo or third parties that they infringe
the asserted patents. D.I. 108-5 at 25. Specifically, Lenovo asserts that it “seeks. . . other demands
InterDigital has made that are relevant to . . . factor [9].” D.I. 107 at 5. InterDigital never sent a
“demand” to Lenovo. But Bad-Faith Factor 9 only applies if InterDigital “sent the same demand”
to Lenovo as it did to “multiple recipients.” See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-143(a)(9). Because
InterDigital never sent Lenovo a demand at all, Bad-Faith Factor 9 is inapplicable here.
Regardless, InterDigital has provided (or shortly will produce) all executed licenses and
claim charts created during the process that led to the licenses, which disclose InterDigital’s
contentions. Accordingly, to the extent that factor nine has any marginal relevance, Lenovo already
has or shortly will have responsive documents. To the extent that Lenovo seeks additional
documents, such request is foreclosed by Rule 26’s proportionality requirement.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 10 of 14
10
D. InterDigital Already Produced Documents Responsive to Request No. 96.
Finally, Lenovo asserts that it needs additional documents responsive to RFP No. 96, which
requests “Documents sufficient to show Plaintiff’s contracts and agreements with Third Parties for
production of Products embodying the invention claimed in any claim of any Asserted Patent.”
D.I. 108-5 at 32. As explained above, InterDigital has or shortly will produce all licenses with third
parties relating to the Asserted Patents. The licenses specifically provide the terms by which
licensed third parties may produce “products embodying the invention claimed in any claim of any
Asserted Patent.” Id. Thus, this request is moot, and the Court should deny this portion of Lenovo’s
motion.
IV. CONCLUSION
InterDigital has clearly produced (or agreed to produce) the vast majority of what Lenovo
seeks. The remainder has either no relevance to this case or such minimal relevance that it is far
outweighed by the tremendous burden of searching for, collecting, and producing sensitive
communications with third parties that, even if produced, would have negligible importance in
resolving the issues related to Lenovo’s misguided NCAPAA counterclaim. InterDigital
respectfully asks this Court to deny Lenovo’s Motion it its entirety.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: May 31, 2024 /s/ M. Scott Stevens
M. Scott Stevens
NC State Bar No. 37828
Kirk T. Bradley
NC State Bar No. 26490
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
Vantage South End
1120 South Tryon Street, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone: 704-444-1025
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 11 of 14
11
Fax: 704-444-1935
scott.stevens@alston.com
kirk.bradley@alston.com
Philip C. Ducker
CA State Bar No. 262644
Katherine G. Rubschlager
CA State Bar No. 328100
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-243-1000
Fax: 415-243-1001
phil.ducker@alston.com
katherine.rubschlager@alston.com
Ryan W. Koppelman
CA State Bar No. 290704
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 S. Hope St., 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
ryan.koppelman@alston.com
Special Appearance Pursuant to L.R. 83.1
Forthcoming
Neal A. Larson
GA State Bar No. 599069
TX State Bar No. 24106190
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
neal.larson@alston.com
Special Appearance Pursuant to L.R. 83.1
Forthcoming
Jenny J. Wang
NC State Bar No. 61255
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27601
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 116 Filed 05/31/24 Page 12 of 14
12
Telephone: (919) 862-2200
Facsimile: (919) 862-2260
jenny.wang@alston.com
Christopher L. McArdle
NY State Bar No. 4823654
Ravi Shah
NY State Bar No. 5720149
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
90 Park Ave., 15th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212-210-9400
Fax: 212-210-9444
Chris.McArdle@alston.com
Ravi.Shah@alston.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
InterDigital, Inc. InterDigital VC Holdings,
Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., and
InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS
The remaining 2024 Notes mature tomorrow along with the associated calls expiring. Not sure about the warrants, but would expect that they will expire in daily tranches for the next three months like the 2016 warrants did. Currently the warrants are in the money(exercise price $109.43?). Share price has been following same pattern as 2016 when those Notes matured. I expect the share price to keep rising as the warrants expire and as any shorts associated with the 2024 Notes get covered. In the money warrants should cause some stock dilution. The notes and calls should cancel each other out after IDCC pays the principal back.
Paullee Lenovo needs to be bought to their knees when it comes to IPR.
not sure it helps us, but just fun to read
LATEST NEWS AND ANALYSIS
Lenovo denied UK injunction against Ericsson as tactical gambit falls flat
Device-maker suffers setback in battle to have global dispute determined by English courts.
Followers
|
879
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
432707
|
Created
|
01/05/02
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
The principle objective of the iHub message boards is to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio while encouraging the exchange of all points of view. Moderators are an important part of making our message boards beneficial to all participants and readers. Moderating a stock-specific board, particularly those which are controversial due to many divergent perspectives or newsworthy events, can be a challenging and time consuming role. The time and effort expended by our Members who volunteer their time to fulfill this valuable role is greatly appreciated and our Moderators should be treated with the respect they deserve for donating their time and efforts to the collective benefit of our community. Company-specific boards are the lifeblood of iHub. The Moderators' role is simple to define for company-specific boards:
To promote the civil exchange of on-topic dialog that complies with the Investors Hub Terms of Service. |
It is no accident that neither the above definition nor the Terms of Service makes mention of investment sentiment, shareholder interests, or considerations such as "the good of the company." That is because the TOS are blind to investment sentiment. In order to be a successful Moderator and conduct a board within the scope of iHub's TOS, it is critical that Moderators distinguish their role and privileges as Moderator from their role and privileges as a posting Member. That is often easier said than done, particularly on active boards with both the typical and atypical controversy.
If a post does not fit into any of these categories the post must not be removed.
Some posts fall into a "gray" area and are borderline depending upon the way they are read. As inclusion is favored over exclusion, please err or the side of not removing posts if they are not clear violations. Please use the "Report TOS Violation" button at the bottom of the post with your comments if the post is not egregious in nature and Site Admins will review the message.
Bottom line: Please use your best judgment in removing posts based on the above guidelines and let us know if you have any questions or need any help. And keep in mind that post removal and non-removal have to be given the same emphasis. It is not permissible, for example, to remove a post that calls someone a "pumper" while not also removing a post that calls someone a "basher". Investor sentiment, including your own, can NOT be part of the removal/non-removal decision.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |