InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Corp_Buyer]

Loop- IDCC is now in the awkward position of arguing that the Ericy settlement "triggers" the Nok and Samsung royalty payments while also arguing that the Nok and Samsung payments are separate from the Ericy settlement for insurance legal fee purposes. I tend to think IDCC can and will thread this needle since IDCC's position makes logical sense to me i.e. the Ericy settlement was a stand-alone matter. The Nok rate was triggered by the Ericy settlement as one of many optional ways to set the Nok rate, not the only way to set the rate, and Nok is a different customer linked only by a typical MFL and this optional rate triggering mechanism.

The facts that the trigger is optional and one of many alternatives, that Nok was not in litigation or arbitration specifically pending the Ericy settlement, seem like significant points to me in favor of the Nok deal being disconnected enough from the Ericy settlement to not be tied at the hip for insurance fee purposes.

Please keep posting your thoughts. Your expertise is extremely helpful to many trying to understand our investment in IDCC and the resulting discussions are welcome and informative.

I do share your concerns about all the loose ends at IDCC when it comes to revenue contract matters, especially for a company run by attorneys. The issues you have focused on (Ericy effective date, litigation costs, Siemens rates, etc.) are indeed concerning and do seem to suggest a pattern of amateurish lawyering at IDCC when it comes to revenue contract matters. However, IDCC does seem to have all the loose ends tied down when it comes to Officer indemnifications, incorporation in PA, expanding the ISO pools without shareholder approval, and similar matters. We can only hope that management pays as much attention to the revenue contracts as they do to their personal self interests.

Best regards,
Corp_Buyer