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.
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.
Thank you - that makes sense to quote BM. So - based on that statement then it seems that they have an agreement on the rate for "inside China" sales and the arbitration is just finalizing the "Worldwide" license agreement?? The outside China number must be quite favorable for IDCC as BM stated today that the arbitration creates additional opportunity for 'negotiations' (need the transcript for his actual quote) - perhaps a small nudge up for China sales and a small nudge down for outside China and other terms favorable for IDCC?? Ahhh - the tea leaves never end!!
Data - you continue to say you believe that: ""the arbitration itself was for an "outside China" rate"" yet IDCC stated in their 10-Q "on April 9, 2014, InterDigital and Huawei initiated an arbitration with the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) jointly seeking a determination by an arbitral tribunal of FRAND royalty terms and conditions to be included in a binding worldwide patent license agreement to take effect upon issuance of the arbitration award."
Are you referring to IDCC's obvious displeasure regarding the rate the NDRC set - .0019%??
I do not recall rates being set for "inside" vs "outside" China so I defer to your knowledge.
http://ir.interdigital.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1405495-14-17&cik=
TIA
Hydro_gen
Birdie - this site lists .78 and $108.27M as earnings and revenue estimates.
http://www.dakotafinancialnews.com/interdigital-idcc-to-release-quarterly-earnings-on-thursday/295186/
IDCC's Reply Introduction
I. INTRODUCTION
The Commission sits at a crossroads. After a nearly eight year long and procedurally tortuous process in which one of the nation’s leading wireless research and development laboratories has been consistently denied justice, the Commission is poised to do what it was statutorily created to do: protect an important research-based company that conducts groundbreaking wireless research in laboratories across the United States from unfair trade practices. This path is straightforward. It is paved with a voluminous, complete, and well understood evidentiary record. It is also well-marked by the rule of law, which includes prior
decisions in this investigation by the Commission and the Federal Circuit that define how this case must be decided. And at the end of that road is an opportunity for the Commission to take a leading role in providing critical, much-needed guidance for the resolution of disputes relating to standard essential patents. FRAND licensing issues have been discussed, debated and litigated in forums across the globe, but the Commission has an opportunity here to make a major contribution to help parties resolve their issues by, as explained below, incorporating offers for binding arbitration into its analysis for determining compliance with FRAND licensing obligations and evaluating the public interest. The result would be a simplified but very fair process by which parties would be highly encouraged to have their royalty disputes resolved by qualified, neutral arbitration panels.
The other road, advocated by the Respondents here, is a nightmare, and leads nowhere good. To travel that road, the Commission would have to ignore the record in this case established over nearly eight long and expensive years, ignore long-held legal precedent, violate the rule of law, and ultimately act capriciously and unfairly by setting new rules for this case after the close of two separate evidentiary hearings. And in doing so, the Commission, like other
PUBLIC VERSION
2
agencies and courts that have tried but have been dissuaded by political winds, would miss a precious opportunity to do something positive to resolve the worldwide issues involving SEPs.
The road the Commission should take is abundantly clear.
IDCC stresses this investigation and there are 157 pages total.
Hydro_gen
Intel and HP filed a 23 page document - pretty much against IDCC. Sent to Postyle - maybe he can post it later.
July 10, 2015
By Electronic Filing
The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20436
RE: In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof,
Inv. No. 337-TA-613 REMAND
Dear Secretary Barton:
Ericsson Inc. respectfully makes the following statement in response to the June 25, 2015
notice that the U.S. International Trade Commission will review the public-interest findings of the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the Initial Determination on Remand (“RID”) in Investigation
No. 337-TA-613 REMAND. In particular, this statement addresses the ALJ’s public-interest
analysis regarding standard-essential patents and the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
(“FRAND”) licensing obligations that may be linked with such patents.
Ericsson agrees with the ALJ that FRAND licensing places obligations on both the
innovators of standard-essential patents and the users of standardized technology: all must negotiate
in good faith. When the essential-patent innovator has proceeded in good faith, but the technologyuser
has refused to negotiate toward a FRAND license in a timely manner—that is, when the
evidence demonstrates the presence of reverse hold-up—then an exclusion order may be
appropriate and necessary to encourage the parties to reach an agreement on FRAND terms.
Ericsson also agrees with the ALJ’s overarching evidence-based approach to the FRAND
issues raised in this investigation. Both the applicability of any FRAND licensing obligations and
any potential abuses involving such obligations, including threats posed by either hold-up or reverse
hold-up, should be evaluated based on evidence; mere conjecture regarding FRAND issues should
not preclude the entry of an otherwise appropriate exclusion order. RID at 36-54. Ericsson further
agrees with the ALJ that “this court is without power to judge and punish future behavior.” RID
at 63. Speculation regarding the impact of an exclusion order on the parties’ future negotiations
should play no role in the public-interest analysis. To the extent that the patents at issue are subject
to FRAND requirements, those requirements will remain in force following the entry of an
exclusion order—InterDigital, for example, would remain obligated to negotiate in good faith
toward an agreement on FRAND terms. And should a party violate any such obligations,
respondents have a remedy in a claim for breach of contract. As the ALJ explained, the interests of
respondents “are protected by the availability of a remedy in District Court should [InterDigital]
refuse to grant a license under FRAND terms…. [T]he fact that any respondent subject to hold-up
would still have a legal remedy makes it unlikely that [InterDigital], or any party so situated would
engage in hold-up, even after obtaining an exclusion or cease and desist order.” RID at 62.
July 10, 2015 Page 2
1. Ericsson is interested because it invests heavily in research and development for
open standards, and FRAND licensing is critical to that investment.
Ericsson is a leading supplier of wireless network equipment, a leading contributor to
standardized technologies, a leading member of standard-development organizations (“SDOs”), and
both a licensor and licensee of standard-essential patents. With more than 115,000 employees
globally, Ericsson is a pioneer of the modern cellular network. Looking to the future, Ericsson sees
an ever more connected world—a networked society with over fifty billion connected devices, all of
which will require increased connectivity, capacity, and functionality. To meet that need, Ericsson
currently devotes approximately 25,000 employees and almost 15% of its net sales to research and
development, much of which is focused on creating open standards for telecommunications.
Ericsson has been a major contributor to the development of global standards for mobile
telecommunications over the last 25 years, and has invested tens of billions of dollars in this effort.
Ericsson’s innovations have secured 37,000 issued patents worldwide. Ericsson has
successfully licensed its patent portfolio, with more than 100 license agreements primarily
involving standard-essential patents. The associated royalties assist Ericsson’s continuing
development of tomorrow’s telecommunications standards. As both a licensor and licensee of
standard-essential patents, Ericsson places great value on FRAND licensing, by which holders of
essential patents commit to license such patents on terms that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory.
This regime ensures that those implementing a standard are able to secure access to
the standardized technology at a fair cost, while those providing innovative technology for the
standard are able to secure a fair return on their investments. Ericsson believes that a comprehensive
and careful approach to disputes arising over essential patents is necessary to maintain the balance
between technology-users and innovators that the FRAND regime navigates so effectively.
2. Ericsson agrees that the existence and applicability of FRAND licensing
obligations should be determined based on evidence, not conjecture.
FRAND licensing balances two primary goals: (1) providing users with access to
standardized technology on reasonable terms and conditions; while (2) providing innovators with
sufficient incentive to continue contributing their technology to this pro-competitive, efficiencyenhancing
process. National Research Council, Patent Challenges for Standard-Setting in the
Global Economy at 17 (2013). Hold-up threatens the first goal by increasing user cost; reverse holdup
(or hold-out) threatens the second goal by decreasing innovator incentive. While the first goal
has historically received more attention, there is a growing consensus that the second goal is equally
significant. Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1229; Apple, 757 F.3d at 1333; In re Innovatio IP Ventures, No.
11-CV-9308, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144061, at *70 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2013); Microsoft Corp. v.
Motorola, Inc., No. 10-CV-1823, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60233, at *12 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25,
2013). Limitations on the promise of a fair return—such as those caused by reverse hold-up—would
encourage a shift in investment away from open standards and toward proprietary technologies.
The respondents in this investigation argued that the patents were subject to FRAND
licensing obligations arising from the policies and rules of procedure propounded by the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”). Ericsson takes no position on the ALJ’s specific
interpretations of the relevant ETSI policies and procedures. But Ericsson agrees with the ALJ that
the applicability of any purported FRAND licensing obligations should be demonstrated through
evidence submitted by the party seeking to take advantage of those obligations. Those seeking to
July 10, 2015 Page 3
claim contract-based rights flowing from FRAND licensing obligations should be required to show,
as an initial matter, the existence and applicability of those obligations. Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link
Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1231-34 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc., 696 F.3d 872
(9th Cir. 2012). As the ALJ reasonably concluded, the Commission “need not be stampeded into
abandoning the rule of law, or burden of proof simply because the respondents shout ‘FRAND.’”
RID at 40. This is particularly true when the respondents have taken inconsistent and conflicting
positions with respect to the existence and applicability of FRAND licensing obligations in an
investigation. RID at 37. And when there is no evidence before the Commission that the patents at
issue are essential and subject to FRAND licensing obligations, then there is no reason for FRANDrelated
considerations to impact the public-interest analysis. RID at 35-40.
3. Ericsson agrees that the threat of hold-up should be evaluated based on
evidence, not conjecture, and a party’s willingness to accept an arbitral
determination of FRAND terms reflects an absence of hold-up.
After considering the developed record, the ALJ determined that there was no evidence of
bad faith on the part of the complainant (that is, there was no innovator hold-up). RID at 40-54.
Innovator (or patent holder) hold-up describes the situation in which an SDO completes the
“process of evaluating technologies and adopting a new standard, only to discover that certain
technologies essential to implementing the standard are patented. When this occurs, the patent
holder is in a position to ‘hold up’ industry participants from implementing the standard. Industry
participants who have invested significant resources developing products and technologies that
conform to the standard will find it prohibitively expensive to abandon their investment and switch
to another standard.” Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297, 310 (3d Cir. 2007).
While much has been written about the possibility of innovator hold-up, Ericsson, 773 F.3d
at 1209, Ericsson’s experience and the weight of recent authority are consistent with the ALJ’s
observations in this investigation, RID at 43-49. In Ericsson’s view, which reflects substantial
experience with open standards in the telecommunications industry, hold-up is principally a
hypothetical concern that the FRAND regime has successfully addressed. Recent judicial opinions
and scholarly analyses have reached similar conclusions. Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d
1286, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1234; Anne Layne-Farrar, Patent Hold Up and
Royalty Stacking Theory and Evidence: Where do We Stand After 15 Years of History? (“Despite
the 15 years proponents ... have had to amass evidence, the empirical studies conducted thus far
have not shown that holdup ... is a common problem in practice.”).
Regarding the Commission’s Question 7, InterDigital’s willingness to accept an arbitral
determination of FRAND terms provides further evidence of the absence of innovator hold-up.
Allowing a neutral arbitrator to set the terms of a FRAND license would ensure fair consideration
of any applicable FRAND obligations. It would further permit respondents to use and implement
the standard, and avoid any exclusion order for their products, simply by accepting the fair licensing
terms determined in arbitration. InterDigital’s willingness to accept an arbitral determination thus
demonstrates that complainant is not seeking “to ‘hold up’ [respondents] from implementing the
standard.” Broadcom, 501 F.3d at 310. The ALJ concluded that there was “no proof that
[InterDigital has] been negotiating in bad faith…. While there may be a hypothetical risk of holdup,
we have evidence that it is not a threat in this case, or in this industry.” RID at 58. Ericsson agrees.
July 10, 2015 Page 4
4. Ericsson agrees that the threat of reverse hold-up should likewise be evaluated
based on evidence, not conjecture, and delaying tactics in negotiating indicate
the presence reverse hold-up.
The ALJ determined that the evidence reflected reverse hold-up on the part of respondents.
RID at 40-54. Reverse hold-up describes a situation in which an unwilling licensee seeks to avoid a
license based on the value that the technological advance contributed to the prior art. Apple, 757
F.3d at 1333. As the ALJ explained, “[w]here a respondent uses the technology covered by a patent,
and refuses to take a license to the technology or refuses to negotiate in a meaningful way there is
reverse holdup.” RID at 52. In short, reverse hold-up occurs when a technology-user seeks to secure
below-FRAND rates or unreasonably delays negotiations toward a FRAND license. Significantly, a
reverse hold-up “is equally as ... disruptive as a ‘hold up.’” Apple, 757 F.3d at 1333.
Regarding the Commission’s Question 10, Ericsson agrees that respondents’ delaying tactics
provide evidence of reverse hold-up. As the ALJ found, “respondents were on notice that they
infringed, and needed to take a license on the patents,” since at least 2012. RID at 51. But in all that
time, respondents “fail[ed] to negotiate in a meaningful way, and refus[ed] to take a license.” RID at
54. Respondents further argued that the patents were subject to FRAND licensing obligations
arising from ETSI policies and rules of procedure. RID at 40. But as the ALJ explained, “the duty to
license under FRAND terms is only triggered if the IPRs are or become and remain essential to the
standard.” RID at 37-38. Respondents sought to have their cake and eat it too: they asserted that the
patents were standard-essential technology subject to FRAND licensing obligations, but then
proceeded to implement this purportedly essential technology with no license whatsoever. As noted
above, FRAND licensing places obligations on both sides. If the patents at issue are subject to
FRAND licensing obligations, then respondents are obligated to negotiate toward a FRAND license
in good faith. Delay tactics do not reflect good faith; they reflect reverse hold-up and threaten to
upset the balance achieved by the FRAND regime.
In such circumstances —when an implementer fails to negotiate for a FRAND license in
good faith—an exclusion order may be necessary to motivate the implementer to reach an
agreement on FRAND terms. Indeed, the U.S. Trade Representative, who has encouraged the
Commission to examine these FRAND-related issues “thoroughly and carefully on its own
initiative,” agrees that an exclusion order may be appropriate for these very reasons when a
“putative licensee” fails to negotiate in good faith or “is unable or [has] refused to take a FRAND
license and is acting outside the scope of the patent holder’s commitment to license on FRAND
terms.” U.S. Trade Rep. Williamson, Letter Regarding Inv. No. 337-TA-794 (Aug. 3, 2013). Such
an approach is further supported by U.S. obligations under the World Trade Organization TRIPs
agreement.
The ALJ concluded that “it is the respondents that have taken advantage of the complainant
and manufactured, marketed, and profited on goods without taking a license to the IP at issue.” RID
at 58. Ericsson agrees with this evidence-based approach, and applauds the ALJ for considering the
threats to FRAND licensing obligations posed both by hold-up and by reverse hold-up.
5. The RID does not equate patent infringement and reverse hold-up.
Regarding the Commission’s Question 12, Ericsson notes that the RID does not simply
equate patent infringement with reverse hold-up. To the contrary, the ALJ found reverse hold-up
July 10, 2015 Page 5
based on respondents’ infringement coupled with their awareness of the need for a license and their
failure to negotiate in good faith toward such a license. RID at 52-54. Indeed, the ALJ made clear
that, “[w]here a respondent uses the technology covered by a patent and refuses to take a license to
the technology or refuses to negotiate in a meaningful way there is reverse holdup.” RID at 52
(emphasis added). And the ALJ found that these elements were met in this investigation:
“respondents were on notice that they infringed, and needed to take a license,” yet they “fail[ed] to
negotiate in a meaningful way, and refus[ed] to take a license.” RID at 51, 54. Respondents further
argued that the patents were standard-essential and subject to FRAND good-faith licensing
obligations, yet they “clearly demonstrate[d] bad faith” in failing to negotiate toward a FRAND
agreement. RID at 53. These factual findings confirm that the ALJ did not simply equate patent
infringement with reverse hold-up: respondents’ intentional failure to negotiate in good faith was
critical to the ALJ’s determination that respondents engaged in reverse hold-up. RID at 52-54.
6. The FRAND regime eliminates any concern over the relative significance of the
features that may be covered by the patent claims.
To the extent that the patents at issue are subject to FRAND licensing obligations, those
obligations will continue to apply when there is an exclusion order—InterDigital will remain bound
to negotiate in good faith toward a FRAND agreement. And should InterDigital fail to do so,
respondents will have a breach-of-contract remedy in district court. RID at 63. These obligations
and remedies are not diminished when the patent claims cover only a portion of an accused device.
Again, to the extent that the portion of the device that is covered by the claims is standard-essential,
the FRAND commitment ensures fair and reasonable licensing terms commensurate with the value
of the covered portion. The statute governing this investigation likewise makes no distinction based
on the significance of the features that may be covered by the claims. Section 337 simply declares
unlawful the “importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the
United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles that - (i) infringe a
valid and enforceable United States patent[.]” 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)(1994).
For both of these reasons, Ericsson believes that, with respect to the Commission’s
Question 6, concerns regarding the portion of the accused devices that may be covered by the patent
claims should play no substantial role in the Commission’s public-interest analysis.
***
The ALJ’s analysis reflects a balanced and sensible approach to standard-essential patents in
section 337 investigations. Such an approach is needed to ensure the continued viability of open
standards, which provide substantial benefits to United States consumers through increased choice,
improved performance, enhanced interoperability, and reduced costs. DOJ & PTO, Policy Statement
on Remedies for Standards Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments at 5 (Jan. 8, 2013).
Sincerely,
John Moore
Vice President and General Counsel
Ericsson Inc.
Robert Earle
Vice President, IPR & Licensing, Patent Assertion
Ericsson Inc.
my3sons87 - after all is said and done - MSFT bought what we in the south call a "pig in a poke" - Nokia saved face in Finland by dumping 32,000 employees - many whom have now been fired by MSFT - Now MSFT will write down all of this "investment" and the only thing they will have is a 10 year license to the Nokia Patent Portfolio that includes the Nokia cross license from Qualcomm. MSFT is going to have to extract a lot of handset royalties to offset this Balmer blunder and even more reason for them to continue to vehemently contest paying IDCC. Nokia, btw, WILL be back in the phone business in less than 5 months and a major reason IDCC needs a court victory. Hopefully the the end of August the tea leaves will be clearer. imho.
Hydro_gen
InterDigital's Board of Directors Declares Regular Quarterly Cash Dividend, Increases Stock Buyback Authorization
WILMINGTON, Del., June 11, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a wireless research and development company, today announced that its Board of Directors has declared a regular quarterly cash dividend, as well as increased its existing stock repurchase program by $100 million.
The regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.20 per share on the company's common stock will be payable on July 22, 2015 to shareholders of record at the close of business on July 8, 2015. The company's Board of Directors authorized a $300 million stock repurchase program in June 2014. Today's increase brings the total authorization under the program to $400 million. From June 2014 through today, InterDigital has bought back 4.8 million shares for approximately $220.2 million, leaving a total of approximately $179.8 million remaining under the authorization.
"InterDigital has a tremendous track record of returning cash to shareholders, and to date has bought back roughly half the shares of the company that were ever outstanding. Our decision to continue in this direction underscores the company's confidence in future cash flows and the continued strength of the business," said S. Douglas Hutcheson, Chairman of InterDigital.
About InterDigital®
InterDigital develops technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry's most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks and a richer multimedia experience years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world's leading wireless companies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on NASDAQ and is included in the S&P MidCap 400® index.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
I HAD a control number - they also wanted a PIN number that I did NOT have. Bill did a great job - I am sure the slideshow will be released yet imho this was a complete and utter failure by IDCC. 2 questions should demonstrate the incompetence as I am sure I was not the only shareholder who had issues.
In as a GUEST because evidently I also need a PIN number along with the control number which I have...........sheeshhhh........I await my PIN to be emailed...............sheeessshhhhh. VERY disappointed in this process. Maybe next year..........
Bottom of page 52 - "Article 10 Conversion of Notes"
On any date during any calendar quarter (and only during such calendar quarter) beginning after June 30, 2011, if the Closing Sale Price for the Common Stock was more than 130% of the applicable Conversion Price on each applicable Trading Day for at least 20 Trading Days (whether or not consecutive) in the period of the 30 consecutive Trading Days ending on the last Trading Day of the immediately preceding previous calendar quarter;
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1405495/000095012311032572/w82287exv4w1.htm
We are not currently 130% ABOVE the conversion price.
Posted earlier by olddog: The “Senior Convertible Note, Note Hedge and Warrant Transactions” are summarized in Note 6 to the Financial Statements (pages 77 and 78 of the latest 10-K).
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1405495/000140549514000010/idcc-20131231x10k.htm
If you want review the actual documents they are contained in exhibits 4.1 through 10.4 in the 8-K, dated April 4, 2011.
(there are separate exhibits for the original offered amounts and the subsequent additional amounts)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1405495/000095012311032572/0000950123-11-032572-index.htm
I updated my post before reading your reply - I am also pretty sure they do NOT have to be consecutive. I deleted a bunch of files recently so I know this is no longer at my fingertips.
glennymo - pretty sure it is 20 days (total and they do not have to be consecutive) and so far this month we have done so 8 times. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=IDCC
Have a great weekend all.
Hydro_gen
Roger, you simply bitch whine and moan too much. Now I know you are going to be offended by this statement of fact yet it is not a personal attack. My opinion is not a statement defending anyone or taking any sides - it is simply a logical statement based on reading your posts. I have been here since 1999. It is one thing to knowingly bend the rules and such (ee cummings comes to my mind) yet another to ignore the same rules we all follow. I am sure this post will be deleted. Should I start to bitch shine and moan now? My point has been made. I suggest that for God and Country man - focus on the good things in life. I am sure you have plenty of IDCC stock. SMILE and be happy.
PEACE
Hydro_gen
PS FWIW - I thought the image was funny.
WILMINGTON, Del., April 29, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015.
First Quarter 2015 Financial Highlights
Total revenue was $110.4 million, compared to $57.8 million in first quarter 2014.
First quarter 2015 revenue was entirely comprised of recurring revenue, consisting of current patent royalties and current technology solutions revenue, representing an increase of 96% compared to recurring revenue of $56.2 million in first quarter 2014. This increase in recurring revenue is primarily attributable to our second quarter 2014 agreement with Samsung and other new 2014 licensees, and an increase in per-unit royalties attributable to an increase in shipments by Pegatron and our other Taiwan-based licensees.
First quarter 2015 operating expenses were $59.1 million, compared to $57.9 million in first quarter 2014. Intellectual property enforcement expenses were $11.5 million, a 32% decrease compared to $16.9 million in first quarter 2014.
Net income1 was $29.1 million, or $0.78 per diluted share, compared to a net loss of $1.9 million, or $0.05 per diluted share, in first quarter 2014. Non-GAAP net income2 was $33.3 million and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share ("non-GAAP diluted EPS")2 was $0.89, compared to a non-GAAP net income of $0.9 million and non-GAAP diluted EPS of $0.02 in first quarter 2014.
In first quarter 2015, the company used $7.5 million of free cash flow3 compared to $12.0 million used in first quarter 2014. Ending cash and short-term investments totaled $911.2 million.
During first quarter 2015, the company repurchased 1.0 million shares of common stock for $50.7 million, including the shares repurchased in connection with the pricing of the offering of the company's 1.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2020 (the "2020 Notes"). In addition, from April 1, 2015 through April 28, 2015, the company repurchased an additional 0.2 million shares at a cost of $8.8 million. Since initiating the $300 million stock repurchase program in June 2014, the company has repurchased a total of 4.5 million shares for $203.4 million, representing approximately 11% of the company's shares outstanding at the time the program was authorized.
"The continued growth of our recurring revenue base highlights the strength of our business, the value of our contributions to global mobile technology capability and the progress we've made in licensing based on that research," said William J. Merritt, President and CEO of InterDigital. "That business strength, and the additional potential growth we see, has put us in a tremendous position to return value to shareholders, which we continued to do last quarter through the acceleration of our stock buyback activity."
Additional Financial Highlights for First Quarter 2015
The slight increase in first quarter 2015 operating expenses compared to first quarter 2014 was primarily due to a $2.3 million increase in patent amortization primarily related to recent acquisitions, a $2.1 million increase in expenses related to commercial initiatives and the Signal Trust, and a $1.2 million increase in personnel related costs due to hiring activity in 2014. These and other increases were partially offset by $5.4 million decrease in intellectual property enforcement expenses, driven by lower costs related to the company's USITC proceedings and related actions.
Companies that accounted for ten percent or more of first quarter 2015 total revenue were Pegatron Corporation (39%) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (16%).
In first quarter 2015, the company issued $316 million of the 2020 Notes. The net proceeds from the offering were approximately $306.7 million, after deducting the initial purchaser's discount, commissions and offering expenses. A portion of the net proceeds from the offering was used to fund the cost of the convertible note hedge transactions entered into in connection with the offering of the 2020 Notes. The company also used $43.6 million of the remaining net proceeds to repurchase shares of its common stock concurrently with the pricing of the offering of the 2020 Notes.
The company's first quarter effective tax rate was approximately 38.4 percent as compared to 36.2 percent during first quarter 2014, based on the statutory federal tax rate net of discrete federal and state taxes. The increase in the effective tax rate between first quarter 2015 and first quarter 2014 relates to an increase in certain deductions that are not allowed for tax purposes.
Conference Call Information
InterDigital will host a conference call on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time to discuss its first quarter 2015 financial performance and other company matters. For a live Internet webcast of the conference call, visit www.interdigital.com and click on the link to the Live Webcast under the Events section on the homepage. The company encourages participants to take advantage of the Internet option.
For telephone access to the conference, call (888) 802-2225 within the United States or (913) 312-1254 from outside the United States. Please call by 9:50 a.m. ET on April 29 and give the operator Conference ID number 6671593.
An Internet replay of the conference call will be available on InterDigital's website in the Investors section. In addition, a telephone replay will be available from 1:00 p.m. ET April 29 through 1:00 p.m. ET May 4. To access the recorded replay, call (888) 203-1112 or (719) 457-0820 and use the replay code 6671593.
InterDigital to Present at B. Riley & Cowen Conferences
WILMINGTON, Del., April 16, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced that company executives will be presenting at two investor conferences in May 2015.
On May 14, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. PDT (11:00 a.m. EDT), William J. Merritt, President and CEO, and Richard J. Brezski, Chief Financial Officer, will present an overview of the company at the 16th Annual B. Riley & Co. Investor Conference in Los Angeles. Also, later that month, on May 28, 2015, Messrs. Merritt and Brezski will present at the Cowen and Company 43rd Annual Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in New York City, at 3:30 p.m. EDT.
Both presentations will be webcast live and accessible through the Investors section of the company's web site, www.interdigital.com. An archived replay of each presentation will be available following the conferences.
About InterDigital®
InterDigital develops technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry's most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks and a richer multimedia experience years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world's leading wireless companies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on NASDAQ and is included in the S&P MidCap 400® index.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
How much does that opening bell cynicism cost scruffy? I'm pretty sure it's free just like posting opinions on iHub. Greater exposure for IDCC on what should be a fantastic earnings day cannot be a bad thing. Now if you're talking about paying for something the 300 grand and the debt financing should cover it.
Shalom
Hydro_gen
olddog967 do you by chance also have an estimate for how much it cost in dividends on the underlying securities over the life of this unused loan? {EDIT} A quick napkin calculation I get roughly rounded 3.3 million for the past 12 months. 230M/1,000 X 18 x .80
In addition to the 2.5% interest, IDCC has been paying dividends on the underlying securities (17.958 shares per $1,000) backing the current $230,000,000 we borrowed in 2011. It will be interesting to see who underwrote this new deal. The devil will be in the details to see how this new issuance of up to $316,000,000 is structured and how it benefits whom.
mo
Hydro_gen
The MWC is NEXT week - 3/2 thru 3/5
http://www.mobileworldcongress.com/
PEACE
Hydro_gen
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
Before the Honorable Theodore R. Essex
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN 3G MOBILE HANDSETS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-613 (Remand)
Commission Investigative Staff’s Response to
Respondents’ Motion to Supplement Prehearing Briefs
Mot. Docket No. 613-100
The Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) respectfully submits this response to the
January 23, 2015 motion to supplement prehearing briefs filed by Respondents Microsoft Mobile
OY (“MMO”), Nokia Inc., and Nokia Corporation as Motion Docket No. 613-100. Respondents
seek leave to supplement their two prehearing briefs to address the Supreme Court’s recent
decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015). For the
reasons discussed below, the Staff opposes Respondents’ motion.
In its January 20, 2015 Teva decision, the Supreme Court noted that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 52(a)(6) states that a court of appeals “must not . . . set aside” a district court’s
“[f]indings of fact” unless they are “clearly erroneous[,]” and held that “this rule and the standard
it sets forth must apply when a court of appeals reviews a district court’s resolution of subsidiary
factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim.” Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 836.
Specifically, “when the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent
claims and specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history), the judge’s determination
will amount solely to a determination of law, and the Court of Appeals will review that
construction de novo.” Id. at 841. In some cases, however, the district court will need to consult -2-
extrinsic evidence in order to understand the background science or the meaning of a term in the
relevant art during the relevant time period. “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute,
courts will need to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
‘evidentiary underpinnings’ of claim construction that [the Court] discussed in Markman, and
this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. Thus, following
Teva, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s factual findings regarding extrinsic
evidence under the “clear error” standard in Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6).
In this investigation, the Commission originally accepted Administrative Law Judge
Luckern’s construction of the claim term “code” as “a sequence of chips[,]” and “synonymous
with ‘spreading code’[.]” Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-
TA-613, USITC Pub. No. 4145, Final Initial Det. at 37 (Apr. 2010). The Federal Circuit
reversed, holding that the term was not limited to spreading codes alone, and that “the plain
meaning of ‘code’ to one of skill in the cellphone communications art is a sequence of bits (if the
ones and zeros are transmitted at the ‘data rate’) or chips (if the ones and zeros are transmitted at
the faster ‘chip rate’).” InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. International Trade Comm’n, 690 F.3d
1318, 1324 (2012), reh’g denied, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Respondents have moved for
leave to supplement their prehearing briefs to add the argument that because the Federal Circuit
did not review the Commission’s construction of the claim term “code” using the “clearly
erroneous” standard of review, the Federal Circuit’s construction of that term must be set aside in
this remand proceeding. Mot. Mem. at 1 (“Applying the proper standard, the ALJ’s construction
of the crucial term ‘code’ and the consequent finding of no violation must be reinstated.”).
The Staff opposes Respondents’ motion. As the Administrative Law Judge has
repeatedly recognized, claim construction is not at issue in this remand proceeding, which is -3-
limited to the topics remanded by the Commission for the Judge’s consideration. See Revised
Comm’n Order (Mar. 24, 2014). Those topics did not include any claim construction issues.
Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge has excluded testimony and evidence relating solely
to claim construction. See, e.g., Order No. 55 (Jan. 22, 2015) (granting motion in limine to
exclude testimony and supporting evidence directed to claim construction for “successively
transmits signals”) (“As set forth in the ALJ’s previous orders, claim construction is outside the
scope of this remand investigation.”). The Staff submits that further “prehearing” briefing on the
topic should not be allowed, either.
In the Staff’s view, not only is the issue outside of the scope of the Commission’s
Remand Order, but it is outside of the scope of purview to the Commission, as the Federal
Circuit has explicitly decided the correct construction of the claim term “code.” InterDigital
Commc’ns, LLC, 690 F.3d at 1324. Under the mandate rule, with regard to issues “actually
decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication[,]”
a court below must adhere to a matter decided in a prior appeal unless one of three
“exceptional circumstances” exist: (1) subsequent evidence presented at trial was
substantially different from the original evidence; (2) controlling authority has
since made a contrary and applicable decision of the law; or (3) the decision was
clearly erroneous “and would work a manifest injustice.”
Banks v. United States, 741 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Gindes v. United States,
740 F.2d 947, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Toro Co. v.
White Consol. Indus., Inc., 383 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
The Staff submits that none of the three “exceptional circumstances” identified in Banks
apply here. In particular, Teva is not a “contrary and applicable decision of the law” that would
justify a departure from the mandate rule. See Banks, 741 F.3d at 1276. Teva clarified that when
the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s claim constructions, it should review subsidiary
factual findings about extrinsic evidence according to the “clearly erroneous” standard set forth -4-
in Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6), rather than reviewing them de novo. The Commission’s factual
determinations, however, are reviewed according to the “substantial evidence” standard. E.g.,
Bourdeau Bros., Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 444 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Jazz
Photo Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n, 264 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hyundai
Elec. Indus. Co. v. International Trade Comm’n, 899 F.2d 1204, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(E). Teva did not address the substantial evidence standard, and therefore is
not a directly “contrary and applicable decision of the law.” The Staff submits, therefore, that
neither the Administrative Law Judge nor the Commission itself is at liberty to set aside the
Federal Circuit’s claim construction, as Respondents’ additional briefing would request.
The argument that Respondents seek to add to their prehearing briefs is not relevant to
any issue pending before the Administrative Law Judge, and asks for relief that cannot be
granted under the mandate rule. Accordingly, the Staff submits that Respondents’ motion should
be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lisa A. Murray
Margaret D. Macdonald, Director
Jeffrey T. Hsu, Supervisory Attorney
Lisa A. Murray, Investigative Attorney
OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street SW, Suite 401
Washington, DC 20436
202-205-2734
202-205-2158 (facsimile)
January 30, 2015Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof Inv. No. 337-TA-613 (Remand)
Evidentiary Hearing in ITC Remand of Nokia/Microsoft Mobile Investigation Commences
WILMINGTON, Del., Jan. 26, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced the commencement of the evidentiary hearing in the remand of U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC" or the "Commission") investigation No. 337-TA-613 (the "613 Investigation") of the company's complaint against respondents Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc. and Microsoft Mobile Oy (collectively, "Nokia and Microsoft Mobile"). In the 613 Investigation, InterDigital seeks an exclusion order prohibiting the importation into the United States of Nokia and Microsoft Mobile devices with 3G WCDMA capabilities that infringe two InterDigital patents.
In its opening arguments, InterDigital noted the positions that the Office of Unfair Import Investigations Staff (the "Staff") has adopted in the Staff's prehearing brief. The Staff supports InterDigital on all issues, including infringement of both of the asserted Power Ramp-Up patents and all public interest issues, including those related to licensing of standards-essential patents on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory ("FRAND") terms. The Staff therefore recommends that the Administrative Law Judge find that Nokia and Microsoft Mobile have violated Section 337 and that an exclusion order should issue.
With respect to the FRAND issues, the Staff agrees with InterDigital that InterDigital has not engaged in "patent hold-up," and that Nokia and Microsoft Mobile are unwilling licensees and have engaged in reverse patent hold-up. This refusal to license by Nokia and Microsoft Mobile is relevant to showing that it would not be against the public interest to issue exclusionary relief if a violation of Section 337 is found. The Staff's opinions are not binding on either the Administrative Law Judge presiding at the hearing or the Commission.
The 613 Investigation was remanded to the ITC from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that the Commission had erred in interpreting certain claim terms in InterDigital's patents. Those erroneous interpretations, which led to the Commission's finding of no infringement and therefore no violation as to the two patents that were the subject of the appeal, were reversed.
About InterDigital
InterDigital develops technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry's most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks and a richer multimedia experience years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world's leading wireless companies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on NASDAQ and is included in the S&P MidCap 400® index.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
CONTACT: Patrick Van de Wille
Email: patrick.vandewille@interdigital.com
+1 (858) 210-4814
Yes, IDCC is part of the Innovation Alliance.
http://innovationalliance.net/about-us/
PEACE
Successful Year for InterDigital's Innovation Partners
Doken, Shah Lead Effort to Drive InterDigital's Open Innovation Strategy and Corporate Development Initiatives
WILMINGTON, Del., Dec. 15, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- With today's announcement of a new research agreement with the Institute for Management Cybernetics (IfU) in Aachen, Germany, mobile technology research and development company InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC) took the opportunity to highlight the tremendous success of its Innovation Partners group. Launched in 2013, the group drives the company's open innovation strategy and supplements InterDigital's core longtime strength in connectivity.
From a standing start in 2013, the group has achieved several impressive milestones:
Research agreements with 13 inventors, representing some of the leading-edge scientists, university researchers and inventors around the world;
Three projects resulting from partnerships with private industry research partners, including VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, a multi-technological applied research organization in Northern Europe, and today's latest announcement with IfU, an elite private research institute in Germany;
Three projects resulting from university partnerships, including with McGill University in Canada, one of the world's top universities and ranked #1 in Canada for ten years in a row according to MacLean's;
Two research collaboration and investments in emerging technology companies;
Four acquisitions in complementary technology areas focused on Content and Context - key elements of what the company calls The Living Networksm; and
By year-end, a total of more than 100 inventions, also focused on Content and Context.
Innovation Partners has been driven by two seasoned industry veterans:
Serhad Doken, Vice President, Partner Development, leads InterDigital's external partnering activities. Mr. Doken contributes more than two decades of experience in the technology industry, including tenures with companies such as Qualcomm, Cisco Systems and Nortel Networks. Mr. Doken joined InterDigital in 2009 and has been involved in mapping out the company's technology vision and strategy. He holds a B.S and a M.S. in Computer Engineering from Bosphorus University in Istanbul, Turkey.
Neal Shah, Vice President, Corporate Development and Strategy, drives InterDigital's corporate development efforts. Mr. Shah brings to his role 15 years of experience in M&A, corporate development and strategy, and joined InterDigital in 2012. Prior to InterDigital, Mr. Shah served as Managing Director of Evercore Partners' corporate advisory business focused on technology, telecom and intellectual property, and previously held similar roles at Expedia Inc. and Microsoft Corporation. He holds a B.S. in Economics with a concentration in Finance from The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
"The mobile space is broadening very rapidly, and it's essential for InterDigital to continue to involve itself in innovation that is adjacent to InterDigital Labs' core areas of expertise. Over the past year, our Innovation Partners group has made targeted investments in emerging technology companies, broadened our intellectual property portfolio significantly, and funded research with prolific inventors, renowned research institutes and universities. The efforts of Serhad and Neal in broadening our exposure to innovation and commercial initiatives represent an important contribution alongside our own core research efforts," said William J. Merritt, President and CEO of InterDigital.
For more information on InterDigital, please visit: www.interdigital.com. For additional details on Innovation Partners, please visit: http://www.innovation-partners.com/about_us.
About InterDigital®
InterDigital develops technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry's most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks and a richer multimedia experience years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world's leading wireless companies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on NASDAQ and is included in the S&P MidCap 400® index.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
CONTACT: Patrick Van de Wille
Email: patrick.vandewille@interdigital.com
+1 (858) 210-4814
InterDigital's Innovation Partners Enters Into Research Agreement With Germany's IfU
WILMINGTON, Del. , Dec. 15, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced that its Innovation Partners unit has entered into a development agreement with the Institute for Management Cybernetics (IfU) in Aachen, Germany , an associated research institute of RWTH Aachen University .
RWTH Aachen is the largest technical university in Germany , with strong links to various industry partners. The research agreement is largely focused on the Internet of Things (IoT), distributed systems, and smart city technologies and solutions. The research will be led by Dr. Max Haberstroh and overseen by Dr. Sabina Jeschke , director of the Institute Cluster IMA/ZLW & IfU. Dr. Jeschke's research investigates models of distributed artificial intelligence in cyber physical systems, heterogeneous robotics, and Big Data technology.
"Access, analysis, and communication sit at the crossroads of next generation Big Data, crowd-sourced data, and emerging cyber-physical industry initiatives. The IfU team shares our vision, and is an exceptional partner in our efforts to develop intelligent technologies that can enable new services and business creation for both the public and private sectors," said Serhad Doken, Vice President, Partner Development at InterDigital and head of Innovation Partners .
"We are facing the genesis of a new type of intelligence based on plurality, heterogeneity and spatial distribution of its subcomponents - the intelligence of a distributed system. Accessing the knowledge of these systems allows for new ways to understand the environment and its changes. It enables intelligent and resource-conserving control models, and leads to new services and products. With InterDigital, we found a partner who is really driven to 'make a change,'" said Dr. Jeschke .
Innovation Partners is InterDigital's technology sourcing initiative based on partnerships with leading technology firms, inventors, universities and research organizations worldwide. Innovation Partners recognizes the importance of external research partnerships to capitalize on opportunities to expand the company's research and development efforts in response to the evolution of the mobile industry.
About InterDigital®
InterDigital develops technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry's most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks and a richer multimedia experience years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world's leading wireless companies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on NASDAQ and is included in the S&P MidCap 400® index.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
CONTACT: Patrick Van de Wille
Email: patrick.vandewille@interdigital.com
+1 (858) 210-4814
SELF DELETED since the initial message was STRANGELY ALSO DELETED??? Seems like strange things have once again taken over.............
PEACE and OUT!!!!!!
Sorry, that is above my pay grade to comment on. Inadvertently I left the next sentence out: "Moreover, InterDigital argues that any further delay would be prejudicial as the asserted patents are set to expire in 2016."
PEACE
Hydro_gen
This was imho interesting: The ALJ finds that InterDigital should be given the opportunity to present evidence as to Whether Qualcomm chips in the currently imported Nokia phones meet the “signal” limitation as construed in the 613 Revised Remand Opinion. The record regarding the Qualcomm chips in Nokia’s currently imported products has not yet been developed in this remand proceeding and, per the Commission’s Revise Remand Order, that is one of the tasks assigned to the ALJ.
From the FREE USITC website - simply sign up for an account.
PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of ,
CERTAIN 3G MOBILE HANDSENTS Inv. N0. 337-TA-613
AND COMPONENTS THEREOF REMAND
ORDER NO. 51; DENYING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS Do NOT
INFRINGE THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS.
7,190,966AND 7,286,847AND MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF
THEVINVESTIGATION I I ‘
(November 20, 2014) .
On October 6, 2014, respondents Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc. and ~Micros0ftMobile
Oy (collectively “Respondents”) filed a motion for summary determination that the accused
products do not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 (“the ’966 Patent”)
and 7,286,847 (“the ’847 Patent”) and motion for termination of the investigation. (Motion
Docket No. 613-093.) i
On October 16, 2014, complainants InterDigital Communications Corporation and
InterDigital Technology Corporation (collectively “InterDigital”) filed aresponse opposing the
motion on substantive grounds and, proposing in the alternative, that the current remand
proceedings be stayed pending completion of the appeal of Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (“the 800
Investigation”) before the United State Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal
Circuit”). - '
On that same day, the Connnission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) filed a response opposing
Respondents’ motion. I
1. PUBLIC VERSION
On October 23, 2014, Respondents filed a motion for leave to file a reply and reply.
(Motion No. 613-094.) On November 3, 2014, InterDigital filed an opposition to Respondents’
reply. Motion No. 613-094 is hereby GRANTED. _
In the instant investigation, Respondents filed a motion for summary determination that
itsproducts,thosethatcontain_ andQualcommchips,donotinfringethe
’966 and the ’847 Patents based on the Commission’s opinion and findings in Inv. No. 337-TA
868 (“the 868 Investigation”) that the Qualcomm chips in that investigation fail to meet the
“successively [transmits/transmitted] signals” limitation. Respondents assert that, tmder the
doctrine of issue preclusion, the ALJ is “compelled” to find that its products do not infringe the
asserted patents. (Memo. at 1.) Respondents argue that the Qualcomm chips that are used in its
devices in this investigation are the same as the non-infringing Qualcomm chips used in the 868 \
Investigation accused products. (Memo. at 2.) Consequently, Nokia’s products that use the
same Qualcomm chips do not infringe. Respondents further assert that its products that use the
I chips also do not infringe as they “function in the same relevant way as the Qualcomm
chipsets accused of infringing the PRU [“Power Ramp Up”] patents in the 868 Investigation.”
(Memo. at 18.)
In response, InterDigital argues that issue preclusion does not apply in this instance
because the issue in the 868 Investigation is different from that in the instant proceedings.
Specifically, InterDigital argues that the issue resolved in the 868 Investigation “was whether
devices using Qualcomm chipsets met the phrase ‘successively transmits signals’ construed as
‘successively [transmits/transmitted] sequences of chips or bits not modulated by data;” whereas
the issue in the instant investigation is “whether the accused devices using Qualcomm chipsets
2u .
PUBLIC VERSION
meet the ‘signal’ limitation construed —by the Federal Circuit and the Commission—as ‘a
sequence of chips,’ not limited to ‘a spreading code or a portion of a spreading code.”’ (Opp. at
13.) InterDigital further argues that issue preclusion does not apply to N0kia’s products that
contain I chipsets. (Opp. at 19-20.) InterDigital ftu'ther proposes that “at most, the ALJ should
stay the 613 Remand pending the 800 appeal.” (Opp. at 21.) InterDigital argues that the issue
on appeal from the 800 Investigation is highly relevant to Respondents’ motion for summary
determination and any early summary determination in the 613 Remand would be prejudicial to
InterDigital. Consequently, InterDigital argues that “if the ALJ concludes that the 868
construction of ‘successively transmits signals’ with a not modulated by data limitation applies
to the 613 Remand Opinion, the right solution would be for the ALJ to stay the 613 Remand
proceedings so the Commission may retain jurisdiction over it, and then either revisit summary
determination or proceed with the investigation upon issuance of the Federal Circuit’s decision
in the 800 Appeal.” (Opp. at 23.)
The Staff also opposes Respondents’ motion for summary determination. Staff argues
that there are material facts in dispute, namely that Respondents’ own expert disagrees that all
chipsets in the accused devices function in materially the same manner as the Qualcomm chips in
the 800 and the 868 Investigations. In other words, Staff argues that the infringement issue
decided in the 800 and 868 Investigations are not identical to the infringement issue in the instant
proceeding. (Staff Resp. at 12-15.) Staff further argues that even if there were no genuine issues
of material fact, the issue of whether issue preclusion applies is outside the scope of the remand
before the ALJ and should be decided by the Commission. (Staff Resp. at 15-16.) Staff further
argues that granting summary determination at this time would, in essence, be a Wasteof judicial
3i ’ PUBLIC VERSION
resources given the procedural posture of the 800 and the 868 Investigation and the instant
proceedings, namely that a Federal Circuit decision on either investigation could “extinguish”
any preclusive effect based on those investigations. (Staff Resp. at 16-17.)
While Respondents’ motion poses some serious questions, the ALJ finds that those
questions are not ripe for summary determination. First, the decisions in the 800 and 868
Investigations were related to Qualcomm chips —there Wereno findings on any U chips in those
investigations. Moreover, the Commission has specifically held that the ‘ chips meet the
“signal” claim limitation. (Revised Remand Opinion at 16.) Respondent’s motion relating to the
I chips requires that the ALJ simply ignore the Commission’s Opinion and specific findings of
infringement on the those chips and simply extend findings related to Qualcomm chips.
Respondents provide no explanation as to how and on what legal basis the ALJ can simply
ignore the Con1mission’s specific findings regarding the I chips and substitute the findings on
the Qualcomm chips. Respondents’ motion simply performs a cursory analysis of whether issue
preclusion can apply to the I chips in a vacuum —it fails to take into account that there are
actual binding findings on these chips and, as such, whether there is any basis for allowing the
ALJ to ignore such findings. ,
Second, the AL] finds that in order to grant Respondents’ request, he would be required
to adopt the Commission’s claim construction and findings from the 800 and the 868
Investigations. As noted in the 868 investigation, While the 868 lnvestigation’s claim
construction of “successively [transmits/transmitted] signals” does not directly conflict with the
Commission’s claim construction of “signals” in this investigation, the Commission’s
infringement finding in the 613 Opinion, i.e.,.that PRACH preamble satisfies the “signal”
4 ._ PUBLIC VERSION
limitation, does conflict with the Cormnission’s non-infringement findings in the 868 and the 800
Investigations that the PRACH preamble does not satisfy the “successively
[transmits/transmitted] signals” and “successively [sends/sent] transmissions” limitations,
respectively. InterDigital is correct in arguing that the “issues” presented in the 613 Remand are
not identical to those in the 800 and 868 Investigations and that wholesale adoption of those
constructions and findings is not proper. The ALJ disagrees, however, with lnterDigital’s
implication that the decision and findings in the 613 Remand on the Qualcomm chips need not
be resolved against the decisions on the Qualcomm chips in the 800 and 868 Investigations since
they are “merely overlapping.” While the argument could certainly be made that the claim terms
are different '(“signals” vs. “successively [transmits/transmitted] signals” vs. “successively
[sends/sent] transmissions”), a review of the claim language of the claims for all of the Power
Ramp Up patents across all 3 investigations shows that the element and function that these claim
elements‘describe are, in fact, the same. Thus, the Comrnission’s directly conflicting findings
regarding the PRACH preamble on identical, if not ftmctionally equivalent products, may have
to be resolved at some point in time, but the ALJ simply declines to do it at this time and on
summary detenninationl Moreover, should the Federal Circuit reverse the Commission’s
findings in the 800 Investigation, no further conflict would exist since the Commission’s findings
in the 868 Investigation would likely be reversed as well. As such, the ALJ finds that summary
determination of issue preclusion is not appropriate.
_ The ALJ notes, however, that a stay of this investigation pending the completion of the
800 Appeal is not an unreasonable request, especially given the time line of the Federal Circuit
1Indeed, as Staff pointed out, it is not clear whether such a task is properly within the scope of the Remand Order
issued by the Commission in this investigation. .
5PUBLIC VERSION
Appeal in the 800 Investigation and the remainder of the procedural schedule in this
investigation. However, InterDigital’s proposal of a stay is premised on the ALJ’s finding that
summary determination is appropriate. (Opp. at 22-23.) As set forth above, the ALJ finds that
summary determination is not appropriate. The ALJ further finds that a stay of the investigation
is inappropriate for procedural reasons. The ALJ finds that InterDigital should be given the
opportunity to present evidence as to Whether Qualcomm chips in the currently imported Nokia
phones meet the “signal” limitation as construed in the 613 Revised Remand Opinion. The
record regarding the Qualcomm chips in Nokia’s currently imported products has not yet been
developed in this remand proceeding and, per the Commission’s Revise Remand Order, that is
one of the tasks assigned to the ALJ. Moreover, InterDigital argues that any further delay
would be prejudicial as the asserted patents are set to expire in 2016. (Id. at 22, note 10.) Thus,
absent InterDigital’s agreement or request that a stay be issued for this remand proceeding (and
agreement from Nokia and Staff), the ALJ declines to further delay the proceedings.
In sum, the ALJ finds that there are disputed material facts that preclude .summary
determination as set forth supra. While the ALJ also agrees that a stay of the instant remand
investigation is not an unreasonable request, the stay proposed by InterDigital is premised on the
ALJ finding that issue preclusion applies (which he has declined to do) and, absent agreement
from all of the parties, the ALJ declines to prejudice InterDigital by forcing a stay of the instant
proceedings.
' Motion No. 613-093 is hereby DENIED.
Within seven days of the date of this document, each party shall submit to the Office of
the Administrative Law Judges a statement as to whether or not it seeks to have any portion of
6 .this document deleted from the public version. Any party seeking to have any portion of this
document deleted from the public version thereof shall also submit to this office a copy of this
document with red brackets indicating any portion asserted to contain confidential business
information. The parties’ submissions may be made by facsimile and/or hard copy by the
aforenientioned date. The patties’ submissions concerning the public version of this document
need not be filed with the Commission Secretary.
SO ORDERED. e '
_"p‘T'l?lieo7;l)oreR.Essex' _
Administrative Law Judge
w
. v ¢
7
7CERTAIN 3G MOBILE HANDSETS AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. N0. 337-TA-613
(Remand)
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
~ I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER NO. 51 has been served by V
hand upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Lisa A. Murray, Esq., and the following
parties as indicated, on December 4, 2014.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade‘Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436 ‘
On Behalf of Complainants InterDigital Communications and
InterDigital Technology Corporation:
Maximilian A. Grant, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
On Behalf of Respondents Nokia Corporation. Nokia Inc.. and
Microsoft Mobile Oy:
Marsha E. Diedrich, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16thFloor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
II Via Hand Delivery
U Via Express Delivery
Via First Class Mail
U Other:
U Via Hand Del
Posted earlier by olddog: The “Senior Convertible Note, Note Hedge and Warrant Transactions” are summarized in Note 6 to the Financial Statements (pages 77 and 78 of the latest 10-K).
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1405495/000140549514000010/idcc-20131231x10k.htm
If you want review the actual documents they are contained in exhibits 4.1 through 10.4 in the 8-K, dated April 4, 2011.
(there are separate exhibits for the original offered amounts and the subsequent additional amounts)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1405495/000095012311032572/0000950123-11-032572-index.htm
THANKS! I hope that whatever falls out it does not stifle innovation and a common standard can indeed be set and we can avoid the pitfalls of another CDMA vs GSM market fragmentation.
PEACE
Hydro_gen
Data - what did I miss? i.ot and M2M appear to be another competitive & fractured standard setting tug of war. OIC (unspecified rate) & Allseen (zero rate) are working 'together' and IDCC is working with The Partner Type 1 organizations in oneM2M:
ARIB: Association of Radio Industries and Businesses, Japan
ATIS: Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, US
CCSA: China Communications Standards Association
ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute
TIA: Telecommunications Industry Association, US
TTA: Telecommunications Technology Association (TTA), Korea
TTC: Telecommunication Technology Committee, Japan
Lots of papers here also: http://www.onem2m.org/technical/published-documents
Having not stayed at a Holiday Inn lately most of this is above my pay grade. Yet - I did not see IDCC listed in the OIC or Allseen member lists. Thanks for the insight!
PEACE
Hydro_gen
In a quick search looks like IDCC is a member of oneM2M: http://www.onem2m.org/membership/current-members
I did not see them listed on either of the listed initiatives in the article. https://allseenalliance.org/about/members or
http://openinterconnect.org/about/members/
FWIW About oneM2M
oneM2M is a global organization creating a scalable and interoperable standard for communications of devices and services used in M2M applications and the Internet of Things. Formed in 2012 by seven of the world’s preeminent standards development organizations, oneM2M membership today consists of thought leaders from a broad range of industries, including industrial manufacturers and suppliers, consumer device manufacturers, component suppliers, and telecommunications service providers. oneM2M specifications provide a framework to support applications and services such as the smart grid, connected car, home automation, public safety, and health. oneM2M Partner standards development organizations are: ARIB (Japan), ATIS (U.S.), CCSA (China), ETSI (Europe), TIA (U.S.), TTA (Korea), and TTC (Japan). Additional partners contributing to the oneM2M work include: the BBF (Broadband Forum), Continua, HGI (Home Gateway Initiative), the New Generation M2M Consortium - Japan, and OMA (Open Mobile Alliance).
oneM2M actively encourages industry associations and forums with specific application requirements to participate in oneM2M, in order to ensure that the solutions developed support their specific needs. For more information, including how to join and participate in oneM2M, see: www.onem2m.org.
InterDigital Adds Former Nokia Executive Kai Oistamo to Board of Directors
WILMINGTON, Del. , Nov. 17, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced the appointment of Kai Öistämö to the company's Board of Directors. Mr. Öistämö contributes more than two decades of wireless industry experience at Nokia, including nine years on the Nokia leadership team.
At Nokia, Mr. Öistämö led corporate strategy and business development as Executive Vice President, Chief Development Officer from 2010 until his departure earlier this year. In this role he was responsible for strategic partnerships and alliances. Previous roles during his 23-year tenure at Nokia included positions as Executive Vice President leading both the Devices and Mobile Phones businesses.
"Kai contributes an extensive industry and leadership background that will provide valuable guidance for InterDigital," said Steven T. Clontz , Chairman of the Board of InterDigital . "Kai's vast experience with acquisitions, divestments and partnerships in the wireless space, and knowledge of the industry at a strategic investment level, will provide highly relevant insight for InterDigital from its R&D efforts to new business development."
"The addition of Kai as a director is tremendous, and underscores the Board's efforts to broaden the scope of its expertise at this crucial juncture for the mobile industry," said William J. Merritt , President and CEO of InterDigital. "He understands the critical role of core research and development in the mobile industry and is able to pinpoint trends and technologies transforming the market. With a greater focus on the Internet of Things and 5G, InterDigital will directly benefit from Kai's deep familiarity with the evolution of mobile."
Mr. Öistämö holds a doctorate degree in technology and a master's degree in engineering from Tampere University of Technology in Finland . He serves on the Board of Sanoma Corporation and currently acts as an advisor to Nokia. He is also Chairman of the Board of the Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation in Finland (Tekes), of Oikian Solutions and of Tampere University .
IF I recall correctly IDCC is authorized for 100M shares. Anything beyond that # will require shareholder approval.
I cannot imagine why all of these posting posers would own this company if they do not think they can make $$ from these levels. Someone will buy my shares at a much higher price.
PEACE
Hydro_gen
Samsung previously did not have a license so therefore technically, not semantically, the license is NEW. Samsung is the #1 phone manufacturer and people are unhappily parsing semantics - smh.
PEACE
Hydro_gen
new
n(y)o?o/Submit
adjective
1.
not existing before; made, introduced, or discovered recently or now for the first time.
"new crop varieties"
synonyms: recently developed, up to date, latest, current, state-of-the-art, contemporary, advanced, recent, modern, cutting-edge, leading-edge More
Thank you for your addition olddog967. The point I am attempting to make is that Nokia is still in the cell phone business and that they can start selling Nokia branded handsets again in 2016 and it is important that IDCC continue to keep Nokia in litigation - or eventual settlement. Thanks again.
Hydro_gen
Nokia is "not an NPE" is simply not true. 14 months from TODAY they can sell Nokia branded phones in the USA. Why do you think Nokia so desperately wanted out of the 337 investigations?? Here is ONE link from September 2013:
"Under the terms of the deal, Nokia can't license the Nokia brand to anyone that might use it to sell mobile phones for a period of 30 months. And should Nokia wish to re-enter the devices market itself, it can use the Nokia name for its own kit from the start of calendar 2016. So in theory, in just over two years, Nokia could launch its own line of mobile devices again alongside Microsoft's own Nokia-branded feature phones. Six months after that, it could begin licensing its name to another manufacturer, meaning there could theoretically be three companies selling phones under the Nokia brand."
http://www.zdnet.com/despite-the-microsoft-takeover-whats-left-of-nokia-can-still-make-mobile-phones-and-soon-7000020214/
As I posted earlier, Nokia rid themselves of a lot of "dead wood" that MSFT now has to burn allowing Nokia to save face. After all - MSFT is paying $720,000,000 a YEAR for licensing Nokia's portfolio that includes the license Nokia had with Qualcomm. Nokia will reemerge and it is important that IDCC win the legal issues against Nokia and MSFT. imho
PEACE
Hydro_gen
PS - thank you g hors for all the insight you, along with others, provide!
Nokia Will Return, Hints At 2016 For Finland's Next Smartphone
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2014/10/26/nokias-not-finished-with-mobile-hints-at-2016-for-finlands-next-smartphone/?partner=yahootix
PEACE
Hydro_gen
InterDigital Announces Date for Third Quarter 2014 Financial Results
Company to Host Conference Call on October 30, 2014
WILMINGTON, Del., Oct. 16, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a wireless research and development company, today announced that the company will release its third quarter 2014 financial results before market open on Thursday, October 30, 2014. InterDigital executives will host a conference call that same day at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time to discuss the company's financial performance and other company matters.
For a live Internet webcast of the conference call, visit www.interdigital.com and click on the link to the Live Webcast under the Events section on the homepage. The company encourages participants to take advantage of the Internet option.
For telephone access to the conference, call 800-967-0627 within the U.S. or 913-312-0980 from outside the U.S. Please call by 9:50 a.m. ET on October 30 and ask the operator for the InterDigital financial call.
An Internet replay of the conference call will be available on InterDigital's website in the Investors section. In addition, a telephone replay will be available from 1:00 p.m. ET October 30 through 1:00 p.m. ET November 4. To access the recorded replay, call 888-203-1112 or 719-457-0820 and use the replay code 9000806.