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.
Liren Chen
President and CEO at InterDigital, Inc.
Rajesh, Milind and Doug are the best experts in our industry to explain 6G. This is a great opportunity to learn from them.
Join #InterDigital next week at the #6GSymposium inviting leaders in technology, policy, and business to discuss the fundamental issues facing #6G development. Hear from InterDigital's #CTO Rajesh Pankaj, Head of #l. #standards ushering in new wireless capabilities and services.
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Flnkd.in%2Fg9y2CpS%3Ftrk%3Dfeed-detail_main-feed-card_reshare-text
The day's volume traded was 882.93k and that may be a farewell salute to some short players. Have a great weekend!
Jefferies analyst Blayne Curtis says InterDigital set “strong” long-term targets and provided significant detail on the ongoing business, adding that the largest update at the company’s investor day was the quantification of the streaming potential. While the event provided a good view into the opportunity ahead, and the firm sees more room for the upside case following the investor day, it still views InterDigital as “a show me story” without more evidence on the ability to get China smartphone vendors and greenfield streaming companies to pay. Jefferies has a Hold rating and $130 price target on InterDigital shares.
sammdogg1 - I had the same thought about the transmission! LOL
orientbull - I certainly agree. This is (in my opinion) the best presentation the company has ever offered. If you have registered for the live presentation, you may submit questions at this time.
InterDigital CEO Calls Company an "Engine" in Telecomm Industry
05 SEP 2024
Liren Chen, CEO & President of InterDigital (IDCC), says his company has "one of the most profitable portfolios" in the industry. He joins Oliver Renick to talk about InterDigital's partnerships with Alphabet (GOOGL) and Apple (AAPL), and how the company is positioning itself in the A.I. trade.
https://schwabnetwork.com/video/interdigital-ceo-calls-company-an-engine-in-telecomm-industry
lumpy3 - You've caught the same connection regarding the Germany exclusion situation with Lenovo that I noticed. Looking at the link from Lenovo about the new products they will introduce, I feel some are definitely covered in this litigation with InterDigital.
Maybe our Investor Day event on Tuesday will help us understand.
Why would Lenovo choose Germany to promo their newest laptops? Makes me wonder???
Berlin, Germany – 5 September 2024 – Lenovo™, a global leader in technology innovation, proudly announces a series of groundbreaking products at Lenovo Innovation World 2024, each designed to redefine the future of professional computing and artificial intelligence. At a special event hosted in Berlin, the highlights include the newly designed premium...
https://news.lenovo.com/pressroom/press-releases/lenovo-unveils-groundbreaking-ai-pc-innovations-at-lenovo-innovation-world-2024-to-power-business-users-in-the-ai-era/
.
InterDigital, Inc. (IDCC): Legal Challenges and Revenue Fluctuations Make It a Risky AR Stock
Fatima Farooq
Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 10:40 PM EDT
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/interdigital-inc-idcc-legal-challenges-024005897.html
Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 10:40 PM
IDCC to Demonstrate Cutting Edge Video Innovation: Stock to Gain?
InterDigital, Inc. IDCC recently announced that it will demonstrate its leading-edge Video innovations, such as Advanced HDR by Technicolor and the V3C (Video Based Coding) Immersive Platform, at the International Broadcasting Convention (IBC) 2024. The IBC 2024 is set to take place in Amsterdam from Sep. 13-16.
The company is set to display its MPEG Visual Volumetric V3C Immersive Platform, a collaborative innovation of IDCC and Philips. The solution enables visualization, testing, and demonstration of volumetric content, and supports real-time V-PCC (Video-based Point Cloud Compression) and MPEG Immersive Video rendering on various devices.
One of the major highlights at IBC will be the Advanced HDR solution. Co-developed with Philips, the technology is designed to deliver consistent, high-quality HDR (High Dynamic Range) content across various devices and markets. At the Ultra HD Forum, IDCC will showcase the benefits of Advanced HDR solutions for different broadcasting standards, including the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) in the United States and Brazil's digital television broadcasting standards, Sistema Brasileiro de Televisão Digital.
In collaboration with its partners Ateme, Fraunhofer and Hisense, InterDigital will also showcase encoder and display solutions that utilize innovative technologies, including Advanced Video Coding, Versatile Video Coding, HDR, Advanced HDR and more.
Moreover, InterDigital will display the use of Advanced HDR in Europe’s live sports events and content distribution in the United States. The solutions efficiently facilitate automatic and tunable conversions of SDR (Standard Dynamic Range) to HDR and vice versa to support all distribution formats. Such features are particularly vital for live sports broadcasts and other emerging use cases where maintaining visual quality across different devices is crucial.
Will IDCC Stock Gain From Steady Technological Innovation?
Demonstration of Advanced HDR and the V3C Immersive Platform not only underscores InterDigital technological leadership but also highlights its capability to deliver state of art video technology to match the evolving trends in the global media and entertainment industry. Volumetric video technology is gaining traction, driven by rising demand for immersive and interactive content. Management’s strong emphasis on innovation and portfolio expansion tailored to current market shifts bodes well for its long-term growth prospects.
The stock has gained 58% over the past year compared with the industry’s growth of 45.8%.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/idcc-to-demonstrate-cutting-edge-video-innovation-stock-to-gain/ar-AA1pFcVt
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.,
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, and
LENOVO PC HK LIMITED,
Defendants.
LENOVO’S PARTIAL OBJECTION TO THE ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a)
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 152 Filed 08/27/24 Page 1 of 9
1
I. INTRODUCTION
To ensure a complete examination of InterDigital’s licensing activities, Lenovo requests
that the Court modify one small, but critical part of the August 13, 2024 Order (“Order”). ECF
No. 145 at 3-5. On August 13, 2024, Magistrate Judge Numbers compelled InterDigital to
produce most of the discovery Lenovo requested. The Order denied Lenovo’s requested relief in
one key respect, however. The Order erroneously concluded that “offers that InterDigital has
made to others to license its patents are not relevant to the claims and defenses.” By narrowly
focusing on which demand would qualify under the statute as the bad-faith act, the Order
overlooked the core of Bad-Faith Factor 5. Bad Faith Factor 5 expressly compares InterDigital’s
bad-faith demand to Lenovo with InterDigital’s ostensibly good-faith demands to others (which
are likely to reflect “reasonable estimate[s] of the value of the license.”). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-
143(a)(5). Because good-faith offers that InterDigital has made to others to license its patents
reflect reasonable estimates of the value of the license, InterDigital’s offers to others are relevant
to the bad-faith offers InterDigital made to Lenovo. That makes these highly relevant offers
discoverable. Modification of the Order under Rule 72 is called for because the Order rests on a
misapplication of the law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A proper application of Bad Faith Factor 5
must account for the comparison between the unlawful bad-faith offer to Lenovo and good-faith
offers to others. Discovery of these good-faith offers should be permitted.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Review of Magistrate Judge Rulings
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and Local Rule 72.4(a) when a party timely objects to a
Magistrate Judge’s order, the District Court judge must consider “and modify or set aside any
part of [such] order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A
factual finding is clearly erroneous when the [] court is left with the definite and firm conviction
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 152 Filed 08/27/24 Page 2 of 9
2
that a mistake has been committed.” TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot, 572 F.3d 186, 188 (4th Cir. 2009).
“A ruling that is contrary to law is one where ‘the magistrate judge has misinterpreted or
misapplied applicable law.’” Jones v. Campbell Univ., No. 5:20-CV-29-BO, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 134762, at *10 (E.D.N.C. July 19, 2021) (quoting Kounelis v. Sherrer, 529 F. Supp. 2d
503, 518 (D.N.J. 2008)). “‘Contrary to law’ indicates plenary review of legal conclusions,” i.e.,
review de novo. Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-29-FL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
163473, at *17 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2021).
B. Scope of Discovery
A party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery rules are to be “accorded broad
and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose that civil trials in the federal courts no longer
need be carried on in the dark.” Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114-15 (1964). The
scope of discovery is broad. Beach Mart v. L&L Wings, No. 2:11-CV-00044-F, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 201134, at *4 (E.D.N.C. May 5, 2015). When a party fails to answer an interrogatory or
to produce documents, the party seeking such discovery may move for an order compelling an
answer and production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). The party opposing a motion to compel bears
the burden to demonstrate why discovery should not be granted. Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic
Games, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 503, 533 (E.D.N.C. 2012), aff’d, 551 F. App’x 646 (4th Cir. 2014).
III. ARGUMENT
A. InterDigital’s Offers to License the Patents to Others Are Evidence of
InterDigital’s Own Good-Faith Estimate of Value for Bad Faith Factor 5
InterDigital’s good-faith estimates of the value of the Asserted Patents during licensing
negotiations with others is material to Lenovo’s NCAPAA counterclaim. Under the NCAPAA,
“t is unlawful for a person to make a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement,” which the
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 152 Filed 08/27/24 Page 3 of 9
3
statute measures using twelve bad-faith factors. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-143(a). Central to
Lenovo’s counterclaim is Bad Faith Factor 5, which considers the bad-faith value of the
patentee’s licensing demand compared to the good-faith value of the patent license: “[t]he person
offers to license the patent for an amount that is not based on a reasonable estimate of the value
of the license . . . .” Id. § 75-143(a)(5).
Shortly after the Court denied InterDigital’s motion to dismiss Lenovo’s NCAPAA
counterclaim, Lenovo asked InterDigital to supplement responses to specific discovery requests
and produce documents related to the counterclaim, including Interrogatory No. 4. That
Interrogatory seeks, in part, a detailed description of InterDigital’s “efforts to license, or
otherwise exploit the Asserted Patents and/or Related Patents or Applications in the United
States.” ECF No. 108-9 (Lenovo’s Interrogatory No. 4). The Interrogatory also explains that a
complete response would include “all terms of such agreements, including all drafts, licensing
fees and/or licensing Rate[.]” Id. Because InterDigital refused to produce all responsive
information or respond fully to this interrogatory, Lenovo moved to compel. ECF No. 106. The
court granted nearly all of Lenovo’s requested relief, denying only discovery related to Bad Faith
Factor 5. ECF No. 145.
But the Order misunderstands Bad Faith Factor 5. The Order concludes that the focus of
Bad Faith Factor 5 is InterDigital’s unlawful bad-faith demand to Lenovo. Order at 5. While
that is part of Bad Faith Factor 5, it is not what is fully contemplated by the factor. It is true that
with respect to Bad Faith Factor 5, what matters is whether InterDigital made a bad-faith demand
to Lenovo. But that cannot be confirmed without knowing what good faith demands were made
to others. The text of Bad Faith Factor 5 confirms that additional information can be used to
determine whether InterDigital’s offer to Lenovo was in bad faith. Factor 5 considers the value
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 152 Filed 08/27/24 Page 4 of 9
4
of the patentee’s licensing demand relative to the value of the patent license: “[t]he person offers
to license the patent for an amount that is not based on a reasonable estimate of the value of the
license[.]” Id. § 75-143(a)(5). The plain language of the factor compares the value of
InterDigital’s unlawful bad-faith demand to Lenovo against “a reasonable estimate of the value
of the license,” i.e., good-faith valuations. Id. While the factor is focused on InterDigital’s bad-
faith demand to Lenovo the Order erred by not considering that InterDigital’s good-faith offers
to others informs the factor’s the comparison—the “reasonable estimate of the value of the
license.” Id. Because of this misapplication, the Order prevents Lenovo from juxtaposing
InterDigital’s bad-faith demand to Lenovo with InterDigital’s ostensibly good-faith offers to
others.
InterDigital’s good-faith offers to others are probative of the “reasonable estimate of the
value of the license” and are thus discoverable. “A discovery request is relevant if there is any
possibility that the information sought might be relevant to the subject matter of [the] action.”
Hicks v. Hous. Baptist Univ., No. 5:17-CV-629-FL, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8382, at *5
(E.D.N.C. Jan. 17, 2020). Properly applies, InterDigital’s good-faith offers to others bear on Bad
Faith Factor 5 because those offers reflect the value of the license. See, e.g., Curtis Mfg. Co. v.
Plasti-Clip Corp., 933 F. Supp. 94, 100 (D.N.H. 1995) (“One such factor is the prior or existing
royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in question. Related to this factor
is evidence of prior offers to license by the patentee.”); 6A Chisum on Patents § 20.03 (2024)
(“If the owner chooses to exploit the patent through offering licenses at an established royalty
rate, that rate is the appropriate basis for recovery.”). The Federal Circuit has held that even
“license proposals,” which are akin to InterDigital’s offers to others, “should carry considerable
weight in calculating a reasonable royalty” and may be relevant to determining a reasonable
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 152 Filed 08/27/24 Page 5 of 9
5
royalty. Unisplay, S.A. v. Am. Elec. Sign Co., 69 F.3d 512, 519 (Fed. Cir. 1995). InterDigital’s
good-faith offers to license the Asserted Patents to others are thus probative of the Bad Faith
Factor 5’s inquiry into the “reasonable estimate of the value of the license.” The Court should
therefore modify the Order and compel InterDigital to produce all offers to license the Asserted
Patents in negotiations with others.
B. Modification of the Order to Compel InterDigital to Produce Valuations of
the Asserted Patents in Negotiations with Others is Warranted
Modification of the Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and Local Rule 72.4(a) is
appropriate here because the Order “misapplied applicable law.” Jones, No. 5:20-CV-29-BO,
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134762, at *10. The Order correctly observes (at 3), that when called
upon to interpret a North Carolina statute, the Court must use the interpretative methodology set
out by the North Carolina Supreme Court. See Wynn v. Frederick, 385 N.C. 576, 581, 895
S.E.2d 371, 377 (2023); see also Wells v. Liddy, 186 F.3d 505, 528 (4th Cir. 1999). The
interpretative framework in North Carolina is purposivism. See Whitmire v. Southern Farm
Bureau Life Ins., 52 F.4th 153, 157 (4th Cir. 2022). The North Carolina Supreme Court
explained how courts should apply purposivism to interpret state statutes: “courts should always
seek to give effect to the legislative intent, which may be discerned by consideration of the
purpose of the statute, ‘the evils it was designed to remedy, the effect of proposed interpretations
of the statute, and the traditionally accepted rules of statutory construction.’” State v. Gaines,
332 N.C. 461, 469, 421 S.E.2d 569, 572 (1992) (quoting State v. Tew, 326 N.C. 732, 738, 392
S.E.2d 603, 607 (1990)). The goal of this methodology is “to determine the meaning that the
legislature intended upon the statute’s enactment.” State v. Rankin, 371 N.C. 885, 889, 821
S.E.2d 787, 792 (2018). The intention of the legislature is derived “from the plain language of
the statute, then from the legislative history, the spirit of the act and what the act seeks to
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 152 Filed 08/27/24 Page 6 of 9
6
accomplish.” Id. And “where [a] statute is ambiguous or unclear as to its meaning, the courts
must interpret the statute to give effect to the legislative intent.” Frye Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v.
Hunt, 350 N.C. 39, 45, 510 S.E.2d 159, 163 (1999).
The Order correctly looks first to the plain words of the Bad Faith Factor 5 to determine
the legislature’s intent. Order at 3. But it erred when it concluded that the plain language of Bad
Faith Factor 5 requires the bad-faith factor to be conducted in a vacuum—without reference to
any evidence of what the defendant considers to be a good-faith offer to others. Id. The plain
words of Bad Faith Factor 5 consider the value of the patentee’s licensing demand relative to a
reasonable estimate of the value of the patent license: “[t]he person offers to license the patent
for an amount that is not based on a reasonable estimate of the value of the license[.]” Id. § 75-
143(a)(5). The plain language, therefore, contemplates comparison of InterDigital’s demand of
Lenovo with other “reasonable estimate[s] of the value of the license,” which includes
InterDigital’s own good-faith offers to license the Asserted Patents in negotiations with others.
Id. Lenovo should be able to compare InterDigital’s bad-faith demand to Lenovo with
InterDigital’s good-faith demand to others. Because the plain language of Bad Faith Factor 5
unambiguously considers a comparison between InterDigital’s demand of Lenovo and other
estimates of the value of a license, the Order should have applied the factor as written and
allowed discovery into the offers made by InterDigital to others. Wynn, 385 N.C. at 581; see
also Eisenbise v. Crown Equip. Corp., No. 15-CV-972-AJB-WVG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
194898, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2015) (holding “misapplication of the Federal Rules” was
subject to de novo review). InterDigital’s good-faith representations about the value of the
Asserted Patents in negotiations with others are highly relevant to Bad Faith Factor 5 and thus
InterDigital should be compelled to produce them.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 152 Filed 08/27/24 Page 7 of 9
7
IV. CONCLUSION
For reasons above, the Court should modify the Order and compel InterDigital to
produced the valuations of the Asserted Patents in negotiations with others.
Dated: August 27, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Raymond M. Bennett
Raymond M. Bennett (NC Bar No. 36341)
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27601
Tel: (919) 755-2158
Fax: (919) 755-6068
Ray.Bennett@wbd-us.com
Jacob S. Wharton (NC Bar No. 37421)
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
One West 4th St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27601
Tel: (919) 747-6609
Jacob.Wharton@wbd-us.com
Adam Shartzer
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1000 Maine Ave SW
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: (202) 626-6380
shartzer@fr.com
Special Appearance Pursuant to L.R. 83.1
Jack R. Wilson IV
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1000 Maine Ave SW
Washington, D.C. 20024
Tel: (202) 626-6415
jwilson@fr.com
Special Appearance Pursuant to L.R. 83.1
Attorneys for Defendants
Lenovo PC HK Limited, Lenovo (United States)
Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 152 Filed 08/27/24 Page 8 of 9
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 27, 2024, the foregoing document was served upon all
counsel of record via the CM/ECF system.
/s/ Raymond M. Bennett
Raymond M. Bennett
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 152 Filed 08/27/24 Page 9 of 9
Roth MKM Maintains Buy on Sequans Communications, Maintains $3 Price Target
Benzinga 08/26/2024 10:18
SQNS
Roth MKM analyst Scott Searle maintains Sequans Communications (NYSE:SQNS) with a Buy and maintains $3 price target.
An hour left in today's trading and there's been 1.3 million shares that have changed hands already.
Meet InterDigital’s top licensing lawyer
Angela Morris
16 August 2024
Women in IP: Julia Mattis scored licence renewals with Apple in private negotiations, has praised Samsung’s willingness to arbitrate over licensing terms, and testified in InterDigital’s UK trial against Lenovo
https://www.iam-media.com/article/meet-interdigitals-top-licensing-lawyer?utm_source=Meet%2BInterDigital%25E2%2580%2599s%2Btop%2Blicensing%2Blawyer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IAM%2BDaily
Block trades with over 1.5 million shares changing hands with another 35 minutes till close.
Block trade @ 2:03 EST: 307.1 k @ $136.20 EOM
Paullee - Maybe the Investor Day on September 10th will have some surprises.
_____________________
InterDigital Announces 2024 Investor Day
August 01 2024 - 8:45AM
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, today announced that the company will host an Investor Day on Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. ET at the Jay Conference Center Bryant Park in New York City.
The event will feature presentations by members of the senior management team, including President and Chief Executive Officer Liren Chen, Chief Technology Officer Rajesh Pankaj, Chief Licensing Officer Eeva Hakoranta, and Chief Financial Officer Rich Brezski. Topics will include company vision and growth strategy, innovation, licensing, and a financial overview. A question and answer session will follow the presentations.
In-person attendance for this event requires pre-registration. Investors and analysts should register via InterDigital’s Investor Relations website at https://ir.interdigital.com.
Investors and analysts can also attend the event virtually at https://ir.interdigital.com. A replay of the event, as well as a copy of the presentation, will be available following its conclusion.
Lenovo Gets Partial Victory In Patent Suit Information Fight
By Travis Bland · Listen to article
Law360 (August 13, 2024, 5:30 PM EDT) -- A federal court has ordered technology company InterDigital to hand over certain records to Lenovo as part of a patent infringement suit, reasoning that the latter company met the pleading standards under North Carolina law.
InterDigital must produce documents showing any communication accusing others of infringing specific video coding technology involved in the lawsuit, according to the court's Monday order.
"InterDigital says that it never sent a demand to Lenovo," the court said. "But given the broad definition of the term 'demand' and the substantial litigation that has occurred between the parties, the court finds it impossible to believe that InterDigital never sent correspondence to Lenovo accusing it of patent infringement or suggesting that it needed to obtain a license to the asserted patents."
In the same ruling, the court concluded that the North Carolina Patent Assertions Act wasn't broad enough to force InterDigital to give up all the records Lenovo requested.
InterDigital had argued that it shouldn't have to send any documentation of demands because other information the company was providing would suffice, but the court rejected that contention, saying the other information wouldn't satisfy Lenovo's request.
InterDigital's argument that handing over any demand letters or similar documents was disproportionate to Lenovo's needs was "unpersuasive," the court said.
However, Lenovo didn't succeed in convincing the court to require InterDigital to produce documents on offers to license patents to third parties.
The court found that the North Carolina Patent Assertions Act provision on showing bad faith in asserting a patent didn't address whether patent licensing deals between parties outside of lawsuits could be used as evidence of bad faith.
But other parts of the act did address third parties, the court said. If North Carolina lawmakers wanted the bad faith provision to include interactions with parties outside a lawsuit, it could have written that into the law as it did in other sections.
"But it did not," the court said. The bad faith provision "focuses only on offers to license a patent that are made between the parties to this litigation and not offers made to others."
InterDigital told the court it was producing contracts showing that it operated in good faith in asserting the patents and getting in touch with the parties in those contracts to get sharing permission, according to the order, and the court required the technology company to create a log of any contracts prohibited from sharing.
Lenovo and InterDigital came to agreements on documents concerning the latter's evaluations of alleged infringing products, according to the order.
In September 2023, several InterDigital entities sued Lenovo, claiming it infringed five patents that "enable wireless file-sharing between devices" and are important to "delivery and consumption of an enormous amount of video content on a daily basis."
A Lenovo counterclaim accused InterDigital of abusing its patents under the North Carolina patent law.
In July, the North Carolina federal court cut claims in InterDigital's infringement suit, finding some of the patents to be invalid.
The court gave judgment on the pleading to Lenovo concerning two of InterDigital's wireless transfer technologies, ruling that the patents were for common ideas of transferring information without any concrete improvements and thus ineligible for being patented. But the court refused to throw out infringement claims based on InterDigital's wireless video transfer technology.
Along with the remaining claims for infringement on the video transfer patent, claims remain on an allegation that Lenovo is misusing two other patents.
InterDigital filed a parallel action before the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking a ban on imports of purportedly infringing products, including the Lenovo ThinkPad laptop and Motorola Edge+ smartphone, according to ITC records.
Chinese technology giant Lenovo, in the summer of 2023, walked away the "overall winner" in a London court judgment on costs in its long-running dispute with InterDigital over fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory licensing rates for wireless patents.
Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,250,877; 8,674,859; 9,674,556; 9,173,054; and 8,737,933.
InterDigital is represented by Richard Kamprath of McKool Smith and M. Scott Stevens, Philip C. Ducker, Katherine G. Rubschlager, Ryan W. Koppelman, Neal A. Larson, Jenny J. Wang and Adam D. Swain of Alston & Bird LLP.
Lenovo is represented by Adam R. Shartzer and Jack Wilson of Fish & Richardson PC, Jacob Steven Wharton and Raymond M. Bennett of Womble Bond Dickinson LLP and Matthew J. Dowd and Robert J. Scheffel of Dowd Scheffel PLLC.
The case is InterDigital Inc. et al. v. Lenovo Group Ltd. et al., case number 5:23-cv-00493, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:23-CV-00493-FL
InterDigital, Inc., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Order
Lenovo (United States) Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff InterDigital, Inc., a research and design company for wireless communications
and digital video technology, claims Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc. is infringing on
several of its patents. In response, Lenovo brought a counterclaim against InterDigital under the
North Carolina Patent Assertions Act (NCAPAA). Lenovo has filed this Motion to Compel (D.E.
106) seeking discovery for its counterclaim. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the court
will grant Lenovo’s motion in part.
I. Background
InterDigital is a research and design company for wireless communication and digital
video technology. Mem. in Opp. at 2, D.E. 116. InterDigital licenses its patents to several
technology companies, including Lenovo. Id. In September 2023, InterDigital brought a patent
infringement suit against Lenovo in this court claiming that Lenovo was infringing on several of
its patents. Compl., D.E. 1. Before suing here, InterDigital asked a U.K. court to set a global
royalty rate for a Lenovo license of certain InterDigital patents. Mem. in Supp. at 2. InterDigital
also asserted different patents against Lenovo in the International Trade Commission. Id.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 145 Filed 08/13/24 Page 1 of 7
2
In response, Lenovo brought a counterclaim against InterDigital under the North Carolina
Abusive Patent Assertions Act (NCAPAA). Answer to Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 179–87, D.E. 71.
Lenovo claims that InterDigital’s assertions of patent infringement are abusive and made in bad
faith. Id. It maintains InterDigital failed to conduct an analysis sufficient to identify the specific
infringement by the products. Id. ¶ 187. And it believes that InterDigital is attempting to license
these patents for an amount that is not based on a reasonable estimate of the value of the license.
Id. ¶ 188.
To support its claim, Lenovo sought discovery on topics it feels are relevant to its
NCAPAA-related allegations. When InterDigital balked at providing that discovery, Lenovo
filed this motion to compel. Mem. in Supp. at 2.
II. Discussion
The Federal Rules allow parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Rules provide several tools, including interrogatories and requests for
production, to obtain discovery from other parties. Id. 33, 34.
The Federal Rules also allow a requesting party to move to compel if the responding
party’s discovery responses are incomplete or inadequate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party
resisting or objecting to discovery “bears the burden of showing why [the motion to compel]
should not be granted.” Mainstreet Collection, Inc. v. Kirkland’s, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 238, 241
(E.D.N.C. 2010). To meet this burden, the non-moving party “must make a particularized
showing of why discovery should be denied, and conclusory or generalized statements fail to
satisfy this burden as a matter of law.” Id.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 145 Filed 08/13/24 Page 2 of 7
3
A. Discovery Related to Bad Faith Factor No. 5
The NCAPAA lists several factors that a court may consider as evidence of whether a
party made an assertion of patent infringement in good faith or in bad faith. Lenovo claims that
several of its discovery requests relate to Bad Faith Factor 5:
(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.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75–143(a)(5). The parties disagree, however, about whether this factor focuses
on offers to license the patent made only to the allegedly infringing party or whether it
encompasses offers to license the patent that the patentee has made to anyone.
Resolving this question requires a federal court to interpret North Carolina state law. In
doing so, this court must “‘predict’ how the Supreme Court of North Carolina would rule on that
issue.” Knibbs v. Momphard, 30 F.4th 200, 213 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Rhodes v. E.I. du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88, 96 (4th Cir. 2011)). Discerning how the state’s highest court
would resolve that question requires looking, first, at any opinions from that court on the issue.
Stahle v. CTS Corp., 817 F.3d 96, 100 (4th Cir. 2016). If no opinions exist from that court, then
this court may consider opinions from the state’s intermediate appellate court, treatises, “and ‘the
practices of other states.’” Twin City Fire Ins. v. Ben Arnold-Sunbelt Beverage Co. of S.C., 433
F.3d 365, 369 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Wade v. Danek Med., Inc., 182 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir.
1999)). When engaging in this analysis, a federal court “should respond conservatively when
asked to discern governing principles of state law.” Rhodes, 636 F.3d at 979–80. And it “should
not create or expand [a] State’s public policy.” St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Jacobson, 48 F.3d
778, 783 (4th Cir. 1995).
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 145 Filed 08/13/24 Page 3 of 7
4
North Carolina’s appellate courts have not wrangled with the scope of Bad Faith Factor
5. But the Supreme Court of North Carolina has explained its approach to statutory
interpretation. When interpreting a statute that court is attempting to determine the intent of the
legislature that enacted the law. Wynn v. Frederick, 385 N.C. 576, 581, 895 S.E.2d 371, 377
(2023). To do so, the court first looks to “the plain words of the statute[.]” Id. If court concludes
the statute is unambiguous, it will “apply the statue[] as written. Id. (alteration in original). But if
the statute is ambiguous, a North Carolina court must “look to other methods of statutory
construction such as the broader statutory context, ‘the structure of the statute[,] and certain
canons of statutory construction’ to ascertain the legislature’s intent.” Id. (quoting Elec. Supply
Co. of Durham v. Swain Elec. Co., 328 N.C. 651, 656, 403 S.E.2d 291, 294 (1991)).
The plain language of Bad Faith Factor 5 provides no guidance on the scope the North
Carolina legislature intended to give it. The structure of the NCAPAA, however, does. The
remainder of the Act shows that when the North Carolina General Assembly wished for a court
to consider conduct that goes beyond the parties before the court, it knew how to do so.
For example, another Bad Faith Factor focuses on whether “[t]he 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[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75–
143(a)(9). And among the Good-Faith Factors listed in the statute is whether “[t]he person has
demonstrated good-faith business practices in previous efforts to enforce the patent, or a
substantially similar patent, or has successfully enforced the patent, or a substantially similar
patent, through litigation.” Id. § 75–143(b)(6).
Had it wished to do so, the North Carolina General Assembly could have drafted Bad
Faith Factor 5 to include offers to license a patent that were made to others or offers made in
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 145 Filed 08/13/24 Page 4 of 7
5
other cases. But it did not. So the court concludes that, given the structure of § 75–143, the
Supreme Court of North Carolina would find that Bad Faith Factor 5 focuses only on offers to
license a patent that are made between the parties to this litigation and not offers made to others.
See Evans v. Diaz, 333 N.C. 774, 779–80, 430 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1993) (“Under the doctrine of
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when a statute lists the situations to which it applies, it
implies the exclusion of situations not contained in the list.”). Thus offers that InterDigital has
made to others to license its patents are not relevant to the claims and defenses here. The motion
to compel on this point is denied.
B. Request for Production No. 58
In Request for Production 58, Lenovo seeks documents showing InterDigital’s evaluation
of whether any accused product infringes any claim of the Asserted Patents and the resulting
determination to bring this action based on that evaluation.
The parties agreed that they have resolved their dispute over this discovery request. Hr’g
Tr. at 31:1–5, D.E. 123. Thus the court denies this portion of Lenovo’s motion as moot.
C. Request for Production No. 62
In Request for Production 62, Lenovo asks InterDigital to produce documents showing
any communication in which it accused another person of infringing the asserted patents. It
claims this request is relevant to Bad-Faith Factor 9:
(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.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75–143(a)(9). The statute defines “demand” as:
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 145 Filed 08/13/24 Page 5 of 7
6
(2) Demand.--A letter, e-mail, or other communication asserting or claiming
that a target has engaged in patent infringement or should obtain a license
to a patent.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75–142.
InterDigital says that it never sent a demand to Lenovo. Resp. in Opp. at 9, D.E. 116. But
given the broad definition of the term “demand” and the substantial litigation that has occurred
between the parties, the court finds it impossible to believe that InterDigital never sent
correspondence to Lenovo accusing it of patent infringement or suggesting that it needed to
obtain a license to the asserted patents. So the court rejects this argument.
Additionally, InterDigital says it should not have to supplement its response because it
“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.” Id. InterDigital has
not persuaded the court that providing executed licenses and claim charts satisfies its obligation
to respond to Request 62.
And while it asserts that requiring it to produce any other documents would violate Rule
26’s proportionality requirement, id., it provides no evidence to support that position. So this
argument is also unpersuasive. See Mondragon v. Scott Farms, Inc., 329 F.R.D. 533, 549 n.4
(E.D.N.C. 2019).
As a result, the court will grant the motion to compel with respect to Request 62.
InterDigital must fully respond to Request 62 within 14 days from the entry of this order.
D. Request for Production No. 96
Finally, Lenovo seeks documents showing InterDigital’s contracts and agreements with
third parties to produce products using the invention claimed in any claim of the asserted patents.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 145 Filed 08/13/24 Page 6 of 7
7
Lenovo claims this information is relevant to Good-Faith Factor 4, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75–
143(b)(4), which focuses on whether a party makes a substantial investment in the use of these
patents. InterDigital says that it either has or will produce these agreements and is obtaining
third-party approval to produce them.
InterDigital must produce documents responsive to Request 96 no later than 14 days after
entry of this order. To the extent InterDigital believes that it is contractually prohibited from
disclosing a responsive document, it must produce a log describing, generally, the withheld
document and the basis for withholding it. This log must be produced no later than 14 days after
entry of this order. The parties must meet and confer about documents contained in the log no
later than 14 days after its production. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on the
timing or manner of production of those documents, they should contact Judge Numbers’s case
manager and the court will set a hearing to resolve the matter.
III. Conclusion
For all these reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part Lenovo’s motion to
compel. D.E. 106. Because this motion was granted in part and denied in part, each party will
bear their own costs.
Dated:
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated:
______________________________________
Robert T. Numbers, II
United States Magistrate Judge
August 12, 2024
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL-RN Document 145 Filed 08/13/24 Page 7 of 7
Super Micro Computer CEO Wants AI Data Centers To Go Green
PATRICK SEITZ08:00 AM ET 08/09/2024
It's not easy being green when you're in the data center business. But Charles Liang, chief executive of Super Micro Computer (SMCI) — a data center specialist playing a key role in the artificial intelligence frenzy — wants to help in the fight against climate change.
Liang said his company, better known as Supermicro, can help its cloud-computing customers reduce the carbon footprint of their data centers. After all, those giant, windowless buildings that house computer systems running websites, cloud services and nascent AI applications use massive amounts of electricity.
Supermicro is promoting liquid-cooled computer systems instead of traditional air-cooled systems to save customers money on their energy bills. And by using less power, those systems are better for the environment.
"Before, people did not pay much attention to liquid cooling and green computing," Liang, who is also the company's founder, told Investor's Business Daily. "But recently, because AI demand is so strong, lots of customers have started to suffer the problem of power shortage."
Liquid cooling, he added, "can help them save up to 40% of energy power."
No Premium Price For Liquid Cooling
Supermicro is even taking a short-term profit hit to advance liquid-cooled data centers.
The San Jose, Calif.-based company late Tuesday missed earnings estimates for its fiscal fourth quarter ended June 30 as it held down pricing for direct liquid cooling (DLC) server systems. Supermicro also guided below views for earnings in the current quarter ending Sept. 30.
SMCI stock tumbled 20.1% to 492.70 the day after the earnings news.
Rosenblatt Securities analyst Hans Mosesmann reiterated his buy rating on SMCI stock after the report. He set a price target of 1,300.
"Supermicro is strategically leveraging the increasing popularity of liquid cooling ahead of (Nvidia's (NVDA)) H100/200 and the Blackwell transition to benefit from DLC-class solutions," Mosesmann said in a client note. "The rub for some investors is that the management will not sell DLC at premium prices as they believe in (the) strategic opportunity in secular hyperscale engagement."
Head Start Over Dell Technologies
Supermicro has a significant lead over rival Dell Technologies (DELL) in making liquid-cooled data centers, investment bank Barclays said in a recent report. Dell likely won't reach large volume shipments of DLC racks until year-end 2024 or even 2025, Barclays analysts said.
The company also has advantages in its ability to deploy liquid-cooled systems more quickly than competitors, Barclays said. Plus, Supermicro has the ability to convert air-cooled data centers into liquid-cooled facilities, Liang said.
"We have not officially announced and promoted that yet, but we have that capability and are ready with some successful stories in that area," he told IBD. "We are trying to grow the business by having customers convert their data centers to liquid cooling."
Super Micro Computer started ramping its production of liquid-cooled systems this year.
"In the next few months, 40% of the data centers we build for customers will be liquid cooled — at least," Liang said.
Super Micro Computer Is Engineering Company
Supermicro's liquid-cooled systems cost as much as air-cooled systems now, he said.
"Customers spend zero dollar extra for liquid cooling and then every month they save money from energy costs," Liang said. "It will be a big bonus for customers to go for liquid cooling."
Supermicro's systems can support both room-temperature water and chilled water, he said. The systems are so efficient at transferring heat from data center processors that the water exits the system "not that hot, still touchable," Liang said.
Super Micro Computer is headquartered in Silicon Valley to be close to leading technology partners including Nvidia, AMD (AMD), Intel (INTC) and Broadcom (AVGO), he said. More than half of Supermicro's employees are engineers. This enables them to work with chipmakers to optimize systems for data center operators, Liang said.
Supermicro's sales have surged amid the AI infrastructure spending wave. More than 50% of Supermicro's business comes from AI systems now, Liang said.
Super Micro Computer: A CEO's Passion For Trees
When Liang isn't promoting green computing, he focuses on helping the environment by planting trees.
"That's my personal passion," he said.
In the past 15 years, Liang and his family have planted about 1,000 oak trees in Silicon Valley. He also funds a project called the Green Earth Foundation to plant drought-resistant trees in the Sahara Desert.
As part of the United Nations' Great Green Wall Initiative, the group is targeting planting 10 million trees this year in Africa and 50 million trees next year.
"It's my way to give back to our one and only Mother Earth," Liang said at the Computex trade show on June 4.
No Premium Price For Liquid Cooling
Supermicro is even taking a short-term profit hit to advance liquid-cooled data centers.
The San Jose, Calif.-based company late Tuesday missed earnings estimates for its fiscal fourth quarter ended June 30 as it held down pricing for direct liquid cooling (DLC) server systems. Supermicro also guided below views for earnings in the current quarter ending Sept. 30.
SMCI stock tumbled 20.1% to 492.70 the day after the earnings news.
Rosenblatt Securities analyst Hans Mosesmann reiterated his buy rating on SMCI stock after the report. He set a price target of 1,300.
"Supermicro is strategically leveraging the increasing popularity of liquid cooling ahead of (Nvidia's (NVDA)) H100/200 and the Blackwell transition to benefit from DLC-class solutions," Mosesmann said in a client note. "The rub for some investors is that the management will not sell DLC at premium prices as they believe in (the) strategic opportunity in secular hyperscale engagement."
Head Start Over Dell Technologies
Supermicro has a significant lead over rival Dell Technologies (DELL) in making liquid-cooled data centers, investment bank Barclays said in a recent report. Dell likely won't reach large volume shipments of DLC racks until year-end 2024 or even 2025, Barclays analysts said.
The company also has advantages in its ability to deploy liquid-cooled systems more quickly than competitors, Barclays said. Plus, Supermicro has the ability to convert air-cooled data centers into liquid-cooled facilities, Liang said.
"We have not officially announced and promoted that yet, but we have that capability and are ready with some successful stories in that area," he told IBD. "We are trying to grow the business by having customers convert their data centers to liquid cooling."
Super Micro Computer started ramping its production of liquid-cooled systems this year.
"In the next few months, 40% of the data centers we build for customers will be liquid cooled — at least," Liang said.
Super Micro Computer Is Engineering Company
Supermicro's liquid-cooled systems cost as much as air-cooled systems now, he said.
"Customers spend zero dollar extra for liquid cooling and then every month they save money from energy costs," Liang said. "It will be a big bonus for customers to go for liquid cooling."
Supermicro's systems can support both room-temperature water and chilled water, he said. The systems are so efficient at transferring heat from data center processors that the water exits the system "not that hot, still touchable," Liang said.
Super Micro Computer is headquartered in Silicon Valley to be close to leading technology partners including Nvidia, AMD (AMD), Intel (INTC) and Broadcom (AVGO), he said. More than half of Supermicro's employees are engineers. This enables them to work with chipmakers to optimize systems for data center operators, Liang said.
Supermicro's sales have surged amid the AI infrastructure spending wave. More than 50% of Supermicro's business comes from AI systems now, Liang said.
Super Micro Computer: A CEO's Passion For Trees
When Liang isn't promoting green computing, he focuses on helping the environment by planting trees.
"That's my personal passion," he said.
In the past 15 years, Liang and his family have planted about 1,000 oak trees in Silicon Valley. He also funds a project called the Green Earth Foundation to plant drought-resistant trees in the Sahara Desert.
As part of the United Nations' Great Green Wall Initiative, the group is targeting planting 10 million trees this year in Africa and 50 million trees next year.
"It's my way to give back to our one and only Mother Earth," Liang said at the Computex trade show on June 4.
https://www.investors.com/news/technology/super-micro-computer-smci-stock-ai-data-centers-green-computing/
Paullee - Thanks for posting the Seeking Alpha article. All good stuff!
pochemunyet - I remember you following IDCC all the way back to the Raging Bull days!
InterDigital Announces 2024 Investor Day - I've been involved with InterDigital for over 25 years and I can NOT recall an event of this nature. Any thoughts about what the company wants to accomplish with this event? It seems [to me] that this will be more than the typical "dog and pony show"........?????
___________________________________________________
InterDigital Announces 2024 Investor Day
August 01 2024 - 8:45AM
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, today announced that the company will host an Investor Day on Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. ET at the Jay Conference Center Bryant Park in New York City.
The event will feature presentations by members of the senior management team, including President and Chief Executive Officer Liren Chen, Chief Technology Officer Rajesh Pankaj, Chief Licensing Officer Eeva Hakoranta, and Chief Financial Officer Rich Brezski. Topics will include company vision and growth strategy, innovation, licensing, and a financial overview. A question and answer session will follow the presentations.
In-person attendance for this event requires pre-registration. Investors and analysts should register via InterDigital’s Investor Relations website at https://ir.interdigital.com.
Investors and analysts can also attend the event virtually at https://ir.interdigital.com. A replay of the event, as well as a copy of the presentation, will be available following its conclusion.
IDCC recent update of target prices:
https://1drv.ms/i/s!AugPcmDMvK4Yy26JYElnpu01yUap?e=PmX6H4
Oreeno $140.00 - New all-time high $140.03. EOM
Oreeno $139.00 - New all-time high $139.19 - EOM
Oreeno $138.00 - New all-time high $138.51- EOM
Point & Figure chart:
https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/pnf.php?c=idcc,p
jealmc79 - I can't profess to really understand the Convertible Notes and related warrant transactions. However, I have tried to comprehend them. Bottom line for me; I like the current price per share now better than the share price before these transitions! LOL
InterDigital - Q2 - 2024 Earnings Transcript
In Q2, we repaid the $126 million of remaining principal on our 2024 notes. We also issued a net 324,000 shares to cover the conversion premium. However, the resulting dilution was fully offset by corresponding options we held and exercised under our related note hedge transactions.
InterDigital, Inc. - Form 10-Q - as of June 30, 2024
2027 Notes, and Related Note Hedge and Warrant Transactions
On May 27, 2022, we issued $460.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 3.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2027 (the "2027 Notes"). The net proceeds
from the issuance of the 2027 Notes, after deducting the initial purchasers' transaction fees and offering expenses, were approximately $450.0 million. The 2027 Notes
bear interest at a rate of 3.50% per year, payable in cash on June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing on December 1, 2022, and mature on June 1, 2027,
unless earlier redeemed, converted or repurchased.
The 2027 Notes will be convertible into cash up to the aggregate principal amount of the notes to be converted and in respect of the remainder, if any, of the
Company’s obligation in excess of the aggregate principal amount of the notes being converted, pay or deliver, as the case may be, cash, shares of the Company’s
common stock or a combination thereof, at the Company’s election, at an initial conversion rate of 12.9041 shares of Common Stock per $1,000 principal amount of
Notes (which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $77.49 per share). From the period January 1, 2024 through September 30, 2024, the holders
of the 2027 Notes have the right, but not the obligation, to convert any portion of the principal amount of the 2027 Notes. As such, the 2027 Notes are included in
"Current portion of long-term debt" in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023.
The 2027 Notes are the Company’s senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with any of the Company’s current and any future
senior unsecured indebtedness. The 2027 Notes are effectively subordinated to all of the Company’s future secured indebtedness, if any, to the extent of the value of
the related collateral, and the 2027 Notes are structurally subordinated to indebtedness and other liabilities, including trade payables, of the Company’s subsidiaries.
On May 24 and May 25, 2022, in connection with the offering of the 2027 Notes, we entered into convertible note hedge transactions that cover, subject to
customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately 5.9 million shares of common stock, in the aggregate, at a strike price that initially corresponds to the initial
conversion price of the 2027 Notes, subject to adjustment, and are exercisable upon any conversion of the 2027 Notes. Also on May 24 and May 25, 2022, we entered
into privately negotiated warrant transactions, whereby we sold warrants to acquire, subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately 5.9 million shares
of common stock. As of June 30, 2024, the warrants under the 2027 Warrant Transactions had a weighted average strike price of $106.31 per share, subject to
adjustment.
2024 Notes, and Related Note Hedge and Warrant Transactions
On June 3, 2019, we issued $400.0 million in aggregate principal amount of Senior Convertible Notes due in 2024 (the "2024 Notes") that bore interest at a
rate of 2.00% per year, payable in cash on June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing on December 1, 2019, and matured on June 1, 2024. During second
quarter 2022, we repurchased $273.8 million in aggregate principal amount of the 2024 Notes in privately negotiated transactions concurrently with the offering of the
2027 Notes. We repaid the remaining $126.2 million in aggregate principal at maturity on June 1, 2024.
On May 29 and May 31, 2019, in connection with the offering of the 2024 Notes, we entered into convertible note hedge transactions (collectively, the "2024
Note Hedge Transactions") that covered, subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately 4.9 million shares of common stock, in the aggregate, at a
strike price that corresponded to the conversion price of the 2024 Notes, subject to adjustment, and were exercisable upon any conversion of the 2024 Notes. On
May 29 and May 31, 2019, we also entered into privately negotiated warrant transactions (collectively, the "2024 Warrant Transactions" and, together with the 2024
Note Hedge Transactions, the "2024 Call Spread Transactions"), whereby we sold warrants to acquire, subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately
4.9 million shares of common stock at an initial strike price of approximately $109.43 per share, subject to adjustment.
At maturity on June 1, 2024, the Company issued 0.3 million shares to settle the 2024 Notes that had been converted by holders. This issuance was
effectively offset by our receipt of 0.3 million shares from the settlement of the 2024 Note Hedge Transactions. No shares have been issued related to the 2024 Warrant
Transactions as of June 30, 2024, and warrants to acquire 1.6 million shares of common stock at an initial strike price of approximately $109.43 per share, subject to
adjustment, remain outstanding. The 2024 Warrants settle during the period September 3, 2024 through December 17, 2024.
Monterey2000 - Thank you very much for posting the earnings transcript. Have a great weekend!
IDCC Earnings Call Transcript - second quarter 2024 - If anyone has access, please post. TIA
Second Quarter 2024 Results
August 1, 2024 Presentation
https://s25.q4cdn.com/626766191/files/doc_earnings/2024/q2/presentation/Supplemental-Materials-Q2-24-Final.pdf
Oreeno $135 EOM!
Oreeno update:
$125
$126
$127
$128
$129
$130
$131
$132
$133
Plus all time high@ $133.69
INterDigital Non-GAAP EPS of $4.57 beats by $3.83, revenue of $223.5M beats by $123.83M
Aug. 01, 2024 8:34 AM ETInterDigital, Inc. (IDCC) StockBy: Mary Christine Joy, SA News Editor
InterDigital press release (NASDAQ:IDCC): Q2 Non-GAAP EPS of $4.57 beats by $3.83.
Revenue of $223.5M (+120.0% Y/Y) beats by $123.83M.
Shares +1.09% PM.
The Company raised its full year 2024 outlook and provided an initial outlook for third quarter 2024 in the table below. The outlook for third quarter 2024 is based on existing licenses only, and any new agreements that might be reached over the balance of the third quarter would be additive. The outlook for full year 2024 includes both existing licenses and the potential for new agreements over the balance of the year.
InterDigital Announces 2024 Investor Day
Company Release - 8/1/2024
WILMINGTON, Del., Aug. 01, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, today announced that the company will host an Investor Day on Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. ET at the Jay Conference Center Bryant Park in New York City.
The event will feature presentations by members of the senior management team, including President and Chief Executive Officer Liren Chen, Chief Technology Officer Rajesh Pankaj, Chief Licensing Officer Eeva Hakoranta, and Chief Financial Officer Rich Brezski. Topics will include company vision and growth strategy, innovation, licensing, and a financial overview. A question and answer session will follow the presentations.
In-person attendance for this event requires pre-registration. Investors and analysts should register via InterDigital’s Investor Relations website at https://ir.interdigital.com.
Investors and analysts can also attend the event virtually at https://ir.interdigital.com. A replay of the event, as well as a copy of the presentation, will be available following its conclusion.
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
InterDigital Reports Q2 Adj EPS Of $4.57 Higher Than $1.30 YoY, Sales $223.49M Compared With $101.6M
InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC) reported quarterly earnings of $4.57 per share. This is a 251.54 percent increase over earnings of $1.30 per share from the same period last year. The company reported quarterly sales of $223.49 million which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $99.68 million by 124.21 percent. This is a 119.99 percent increase over sales of $101.59 million the same period last year.
INTERDIGITAL Q2 NET INCOME USD 109.7 MILLION VS. IBES ESTIMATE USD 9.87 MILLION
InterDigital Q2 2024 Earnings Preview
Jul. 31, 2024 12:24 PM ETInterDigital, Inc. (IDCC) StockBy: Pranav Ghumatkar, SA News Editor
InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC) is scheduled to announce Q2 earnings results on Thursday, August 1st, before market open.
The consensus EPS Estimate is $0.74 (-43.1% Y/Y) and the consensus Revenue Estimate is $99.67M (-1.9% Y/Y).
Over the last 2 years, IDCC has beaten EPS estimates 75% of the time and has beaten revenue estimates 100% of the time.
Over the last 3 months, EPS estimates have seen 0 upward revisions and 3 downward. Revenue estimates have seen 0 upward revisions and 4 downward.
Ten key takeaways from the UK’s landmark InterDigital/Lenovo appeal decision
Adam Houldsworth
29 July 2024
The Court of Appeal for England and Wales recently handed down its ?rst global FRAND rate decision since the UK Supreme
Court’s Unwired Planet ruling. The appellate decision relates to the High Court of Justice’s much-discussed 2023 SEP licensing
decision in IInntteerrDDiiggiittaall vv LLeennoovvoo – the court’s second ever global FRAND rate-setting decision, which was widely perceived
to be favourable to the implementer.
This month’s ruling not only has signi?cant rami?cations for the two parties, awarding InterDigital tens of millions of additional
licensing dollars – but also has legal and strategic implications for current and future global SEP disputes, several of which are
presently being fought in London.
IAM provided an initial report of the decision here. But now, having had chance to digest the complex 90-page ruling more
thoroughly, we can point out several key highlights and lessons from the ruling.
1. InterDigital gets signi?cant boost, but licensing award remains closer to Lenovo’s position
The Court of Appeal decision overturned the lower court’s ruling on how much Lenovo owes InterDigital for use of its 5G-era
cellular patent portfolio until the end of 2023.
The High Court found that the appropriate lump sum to be paid by Lenovo was $138.7 million, which was to be supplemented
by 4% compounded quarterly interest, taking the implementer’s total payment to $184.9 million. The $138.7 million ?gure was
far closer to Lenovo’s suggested $80 million lump sum offer (the Chinese company denied that it owed any interest) than to
InterDigital’s pre-interest offer of $337 million. And even with the interest added on, the court’s ?gure was closer to Lenovo’s
position than to InterDigital’s pre-interest suggestion, let alone the patentee’s interest-adjusted offer.
Mellor J’s preferred rate of $0.175 per unit was even more skewed in favour of Lenovo’s position than his preferred lump sum.
Lenovo had offered the similar ?gure of $0.16 per unit, while InterDigital had argued for $0.498 per unit.
Going into the appeal, the parties’ positions had shifted slightly. Lenovo argued for a $108.9 million lump sum, whereas
InterDigital argued for a pre-interest total of $388.5 million (or $517.8 million adjusted for 4% compound quarterly interest).
The Court of Appeal adjusted the pre-interest lump sum ?gure from $138.7 million to $178.3 million, boosting the interest-
adjusted amount owed by Lenovo to $240 million – a more-than $55 million increase for InterDigital.
From one perspective, this is a major win for InterDigital, when compared to the outcome of the High Court case. However,
$178.3 million remains closer to Lenovo’s preferred amount than to InterDigital’s pre-interest ?gure – and is very signi?cantly less
than InterDigital’s interest-adjusted request.
Lenovo’s success becomes more obvious when the Court of Appeal’s preferred unit rate is considered. The appeal judges hiked
the per-unit rate from $0.175 to $0.225 – a ?gure that remains very much closer to Lenovo’s suggested rate than to
InterDigital’s.
The reason these ?gures remain closer to Lenovo’s preferences is that the Court of Appeal did not overturn the fundamental
aspects of Mellor J’s rate-setting methodology – his preference for Lenovo’s seven suggested comparable licences (in particular
his preferred LG 2017 comparable) and his rejection of InterDigital’s top-down cross-checks. “I agree with the judge that the
comparables analysis is a much more reliable basis for estimating FRAND than InterDigital’s top-down cross-check,” stated Lord
Justice Arnold, writing the Court of Appeal’s lead decision.
2. High Court failed to correct impact of non-FRAND factors
The Court of Appeal concluded that Mellor J had erred in failing to adjust the blended per-unit rate derived from the favoured LG
2017 licence in order to compensate for non-FRAND factors which the High Court judge found to have depressed the licensing
rate for previous sales.
Mellor J had found that dif?culties in persuading licensees to pay for past use had unfairly suppressed the rate for that usage. His
failure to adjust the rate accordingly made the decision “internally inconsistent”, Arnold LJ held.
“The judge did not ?nd that the depression in past rates suffered by InterDigital had been fully compensated by the increase in
future rates it obtained, and on the judge's ?ndings this is inherently improbable,” he added.
3. InterDigital should not have been punished for seeking “jackpot” ?gure
In good news for SEP owners, the Court of Appeal also took issue with the High Court’s refusal to calculate the degree of hold-
out that had affected the comparable licences because InterDigital had advanced a “jackpot” case and failed to advance a more
modest case which would have enabled the court to take a middle path.
The appeal judges found two problems with this approach. “The ?rst is that it fails to recognise that, just as InterDigital argued for
a high lump sum, so too Lenovo argued for a low one,” Arnold LJ wrote, pointing out that Lenovo also did not advance a middle
position.
The second and more important problem is that this approach assumes that the burden of proof rests on InterDigital to prove that
the comparable licences had been suppressed by non-FRAND factors, the judge stated. The parties have an equal burden of
proof to establish the facts on which they wish to rely, but it is the court’s job to assess the impact of the facts on what is FRAND,
Arnold LJ reasoned.
4. FRAND is imprecise – a range rather than a point
The Court of Appeal further criticised the High Court decision for seeking to be too precise in calculating the FRAND rate and,
relatedly, for neglecting to consider that FRAND is a range rather than a single point.
Mellor J “seems to have lost sight” that ?nding the FRAND rate for Lenovo “is not a task that admits of the kind of mathematical
precision which the judge applied”, the decision states. “A range of rates may be FRAND, and the SEP owner is only required to
offer the FRAND rate most favourable to itself.”
The High Court judge used a “surprisingly precise” blended rate of $0.24 per unit derived from LG 2017, stated Arnold LJ, and
multiplied it by the “astonishingly precise” adjustment ratio of 0.728 to arrive at $0.175.
Regarding the new FRAND ?gures arrived at by the appeal court, Arnold LJ stated: “I do not pretend this is a precise ?gure. It is
not: it is an estimate.”
5. Lengthy delay in High Court ruling may have caused problems
Lord Justice Birss – who along with Lord Justice Nugee agreed with Arnold LJ’s ?ndings – stated at the bottom of the decision
that the extremely lengthy period of time taken to deliver the lower court decision may have caused some of its problems.
Though the trial ?nished in February 2022, the ?rst instance ruling was not delivered until 1 March 2023. “This is a heavy case
but it is not that heavy,” Birss wrote. “One dif?culty with taking such a long period of time to write something is that it can be hard
not to skim read over parts of it which were written a while ago.”
The writer's thinking develops over time but after spending so long with a document, he continued, “when returning to it after an
absence it is very hard, and only human, to fully reabsorb material which has already been ?nished. A possible explanation for
the inconsistency here is that the different parts of this judgment were prepared at very different times.”
6. To prevent hold-out, all past SEP use must be paid for in full
In another aspect of the appeal decision that will please SEP licensors, the court upheld the High Court’s position that all past use
of SEPs must be paid for in full, that past use ought not to be discounted and that limitation periods (six years in the UK) have no
role to play in determining what is FRAND.
Ten key takeaways from the UK’s landmark InterDigital/Lenovo appe... https://www.iam-media.com/article/ten-key-takeaways-the-uks-landm...
2 of 4 7/29/2024, 3:40 PM
FRAND terms should not depend on the date on which a licence is entered into, Arnold LJ con?rmed; indeed, such an approach
would discriminate against licensees who are quick to take a licence. “If anything, it should be the other way around.”
“FRAND terms are the terms that would be agreed between a willing licensor not intent upon hold up and a willing licensee not
intent upon hold out,” Arnold LJ held. Moreover, “an implementer should not be rewarded for delay, whether the delay is the fault
of the implementer or not”, he found.
7. Interest necessary to deter hold-out
For similar reasons, the Court of Appeal upheld Mellor J’s decision to award 4% compound quarterly interest for all past use,
even though the usual bases for awarding interest do not apply to this case.
Awarding interest is appropriate because it is what a willing licensee and willing licensor would agree to, the ?rst instance court
had found – a decision which the Court of Appeal found to be correct. The appeal court rejected as irrelevant Lenovo’s argument
that the ETSI IPR Policy and ETSI Guide make no mention of interest.
The appeal court also rejected Lenovo’s fall-back argument that the interest paid should be based on the average Bank of
England base rate for the period 2007-2023 – 1.2% - and should be simple rather than compounded.
The base rate was 5% at the time Lenovo and InterDigital should have reached an agreement (2007), Arnold LJ pointed out.
Lenovo itself had proposed in a licence offer that late payments should bear annual interest of 4%, and simple interest does not
accurately re?ect the time-value of money, the judge found.
8. But interest can be reduced/denied to punish unwilling licensors
The Court of Appeal rejected Lenovo’s argument that InterDigital should be denied interest because it was found by the lower
court to be an unwilling licensor. However, it stated that: “In the event of truly egregious conduct by a SEP owner, the court has
[...] sanctions at its disposal such as denying or reducing interest and costs sanctions.” Precisely what would justify the
punishment of an SEP owner in this way, the court did not say.
Though InterDigital appealed the ?nding that it was an unwilling licensor, the Court of Appeal did not address this question,
because the patentee “has not identi?ed any purpose that would be served in this court making a declaration to that effect”.
“Since I have concluded that the FRAND rate is higher than the judge's rate, that inevitably places a question mark over the
judge's ?nding,” Arnold LJ commented. “It does not necessarily follow that InterDigital was a willing licensor, however.”
9. Implementers may seek global FRAND ruling pre-emptively
Signi?cantly, the Court of Appeal has con?rmed for the ?rst time that implementers may pre-emptively seek a global FRAND
determination from the London courts. This tactic, which has been endorsed by the High Court on several occasions (see here
and here) but never by the appeal court, is being/has been attempted by several technology users in recent months (see here
and here).
“If Lenovo had accepted the need for a licence and committed to take one on terms determined by the court to be FRAND, it
could have brought proceedings itself for a declaration as to what terms were FRAND. It did not have to wait to be sued by
InterDigital,” held Arnold LJ.
10. The UK has developed a cohesive approach to SEP disputes
Looking at the decision in a wider perspective, it develops and continues the UK’s distinctive approach to global FRAND disputes
that was initiated by Unwired Planet and elaborated in the Court of Appeal’s OOppttiiss decision, as well as the High
Court’s InterDigital/Lenovo and Optis/Apple rulings among others.
This approach allows SEP owners and implementers to seek a global FRAND-rate determination from the UK courts. And, once a
single patent has been found to be essential, valid and infringed, implementers are required to make an immediate and
unconditional undertaking to accept the worldwide rate set by the courts. Otherwise, the implementer will be injuncted in the UK
until it makes such a commitment.
The FRAND rate set by the UK courts, as the Court of Appeal has just con?rmed, will apply to all previous sales and will not
reward implementers for delays in reaching an agreement.
However, licensees who have previously acted unwillingly can redeem themselves by undertaking to accept the court’s ruling;
the courts will not – as InterDigital requested at ?rst instance – issue an unconditional injunction against unwilling licensees. And
likewise, unwilling licensors can redeem themselves by making the same commitment.
So, while InterDigital may be disappointed with the sum it has been awarded by the court, it appears that UK litigation offers a
simple, joined-up approach to worldwide SEP dispute resolution – and one that offers distinctive tools for use by both licensors
and licensees.
[Link not available]