No reference to specific dollars amounts related to Nokia or Samsung in the 10K.
Nokia
In July 2003 Nokia requested binding arbitration regarding Nokia’s royalty payment obligations for its worldwide sales of 2G GSM/TDMA and 2.5G GSM/GPRS/EDGE/TDMA products under the existing patent license agreement with ITC. Pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the patent license agreement, the arbitration has been filed in the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
The binding arbitration relates to ITC’s claim that the patent license agreements ITC signed with Ericsson and Sony Ericsson in March 2003 defined the financial terms under which Nokia would be required to pay royalties on its worldwide sales of 2G GSM/TDMA and 2.5G GSM/GPRS/EDGE/TDMA products commencing January 1, 2002. Nokia is seeking a determination that their obligation under our existing patent license agreement is not defined by our license agreements with Ericsson and Sony Ericsson or has been discharged. Alternatively, Nokia is seeking access to various documents related to previous litigations, negotiations, and arbitrations with other parties. Nokia also is seeking a ruling that no royalty rate for its sales after January 1, 2002 can be determined by the panel until certain contractual conditions precedent have been satisfied. Nokia has additionally claimed that, in any event, the panel cannot award money damages.
ITC filed an Answer to Nokia’s Request for Arbitration arguing that the patent license agreements signed with Ericsson and Sony Ericsson in March 2003 defined the financial terms under which Nokia would be required to pay royalties on its worldwide sales of 2G GSM/TDMA and 2.5G GSM/GPRS/EDGE/TDMA products commencing January 1, 2002, that Nokia’s duty to pay these royalties has not been discharged, and that the documents sought by Nokia are not relevant to the royalty determination. ITC also counterclaimed for an arbitration decision requiring that Nokia pay us royalties on equivalent terms and conditions as those set forth in the Ericsson and Sony Ericsson patent license agreements for the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006, and determining the amount of the royalty and payment terms. During fourth quarter 2003, Nokia filed a Reply contesting our claims and including additional claims and defenses relating to the enforceability, validity, and infringement of certain of ITC’s patents. Subsequently Nokia withdrew from the arbitration its claims pertaining to invalidity and non-infringement of those same ITC patents but maintains that the validity and infringement of those patents is a factor the arbitration panel should consider in the arbitration. We do not believe that the issues of patent validity or infringement are relevant to the arbitrable royalty dispute and intend to vigorously contest Nokia’s position. The arbitration panel has informed the parties that January 2005 is the month during which the panel will conduct the arbitration evidentiary hearing, and absent a resolution of this matter or unexpected changes in the arbitration schedule approved by the arbitration panel, we expect a decision to be rendered thereafter.
Separately, Nokia has filed a motion to intervene in the now-settled Ericsson litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and to gain access to documents previously sealed by the Court in the settled litigation. We filed a response opposing the request to intervene and opposing the request for access to the documents. While the Court granted Nokia’s motion to intervene in the Ericsson litigation, the Court has deferred a ruling on Nokia’s request to gain access to sealed documents pending a determination by the arbitration panel in the Nokia arbitration proceeding as to whether any sealed document is relevant to such arbitration proceeding. Nokia subsequently filed a motion to reinstate certain decisions that were vacated in the now-settled Ericsson litigation. We have opposed Nokia’s motion to reinstate the decisions and a court decision is pending.
Table of Contents
Samsung
In 2002, during an arbitration proceeding, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung) elected under its 1996 patent license agreement with ITC (1996 Samsung License Agreement) to have Samsung’s royalty obligations commencing January 1, 2002 for 2G GSM/TDMA and 2.5G GSM/GPRS/EDGE/TDMA wireless communications products to be determined in accordance with the terms of the Nokia patent license agreement, including its MFL provision. By notice in March 2003, ITC notified Samsung that such Samsung obligations had been defined by the relevant licensing terms of ITC’s license agreements with Ericsson and Sony Ericsson as a result of the MFL provision in the Nokia license agreement. In November 2003 Samsung initiated a binding arbitration against InterDigital Communications Corporation (InterDigital) and ITC (collectively with InterDigital, the Company). The arbitration has been filed with the ICC. Samsung is seeking to have an ICC arbitration panel determine that Samsung’s obligations under the 1996 Samsung License Agreement are not defined by our license agreements with Ericsson and Sony Ericsson or, in the alternative, to determine the amount of the appropriate royalty due. Samsung also has requested a consolidation of its arbitration matter with the pending ICC arbitration involving Nokia Corporation and the Company and for the arbitration panel to make a determination that Samsung is entitled to seek access to documents previously sealed by the Federal Court related to the now-settled Ericsson litigation. The Company has responded to and contested Samsung’s claims and any request for access to the sealed documents. The Company believes that consolidation of the arbitration proceedings is not permitted without the consent of the parties. ITC also has counterclaimed for an arbitration decision requiring that Samsung pay us royalties on equivalent terms and conditions as those set forth in the Ericsson and Sony Ericsson patent license agreements for the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006, and determining the amount of the royalty and payment terms. We also seek a declaration that the parties’ rights and obligations are governed by the 1996 Samsung License Agreement, and that the Nokia patent license agreement dictates only Samsung’s royalty obligations and most favored rights for those products licensed under the 1996 Samsung License Agreement. Samsung has replied to ITC’s answer and counterclaim, maintaining Samsung’s position (as set forth in its arbitration demand) and arguing that it has succeeded to all of Nokia’s license rights. In the alternative, Samsung asserts that its royalty obligations should be governed by the MFL clause in the 1996 Samsung License Agreement. We expect an arbitration panel will be selected in the near future.
AI
