Replies to post #32652 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mschere]

From a part of a RMARCHMA post..

5. Matsushita first paid $20m in 1994. That license gave Matsushita paid-up rights for PDC/PHS handsets sold in Japan. 2G TDMA-based products sold outside of Japan are royalty bearing. Matsushita updated to a 3G “infringement” license in 2001 with an upfront non-refundable advance of $19.5m. However, IDCC is required to get some key 3G CDMA patents actually issued by the JPO before IDCC can earn any of the 3G advance on Matsushita’s 3G infrastructure and handset sales in Japan. The 3G contract will apply to all worldwide sales including Japan, but Matsushita is still considered paid-up for sales of 2G PDC/PHS products within Japan. I think that if Matsushita sells a dual-mode PDC/3G product in Japan, then IDCC would earn royalty only on the 3G part of the product, but I don’t know how the price can be separated between the two modes?

[JimLur]

Mschere , Here's the only data I can afford on the JPO issue,

October 2001, the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) issued decisions to revoke ITC's Nos. JP 2,816,349 (`349) and JP 2,979,064 (`064) Japanese TDMA System Patents. ITC has filed a notice of appeal with the Tokyo High Court, and also intends to file for a Trial for Correction with the JPO. In the appeal, the Tokyo High Court will conduct a legal and technical de novo review to assess whether the JPO's decisions should be upheld or reversed. In the Trial for Correction, ITC will seek to restrict the patent claims in a manner that overcomes the invalidity decision. Based on advice of counsel, ITC understands that the `349 and `064 patents remain valid until all appeals are exhausted. ITC has a portfolio of 17 other issued TDMA patents in Japan, including patents that ITC believes are essential to the implementation of TDMA standards, and also has a number of TDMA patent applications pending in Japan, none of which are effected by the JPO decisions. ITC has also received notice that another of its essential Japanese system patents is the subject of an opposition. ITC has not received any indication from the JPO as to whether it intends to deny the opposition or permit the opposition to go forward.

This is from the 10-K for 2001.


Mickey Britts post afforded this.


From what I am told 3 of the IDCC patents have been released back to IDCC as the rightfull owners of the patents. Now I am trying to give you what I think is right but not absolutely sure.


What I have posted is a paragraph from an IDCC legal document and I'm sure the content was provided by IDCC.

I don't have a clue where Mickey got these patent numbers from but for sure they aren't the patents IDCC spoke about in their 10-K.


JPO 2002 330475
JPO 2002 305775
JPO 2002 204483