FISH: The following may help you understand what has happened and is going on, or maybe further confuse you. A lot of specific information is still missing.
On Dec 23, 2013 agreed to a PLA. However, the PLA did not specify the royalty rates to be paid. Royalty terms and related conditions were to be set by an arbitration panel, under an arbitration agreement signed o/a the same date.
Although the agreements were signed on Dec 23, 2013, the effective date of the PLA has not been made public However in Huawei’s response to IDCC’s petition to SDNY to confirm the award the following statement could indicate that the effective date was Jan 1, 2014:
“Huawei also admits that the parties have not agreed on certain license terms including royalty terms for the period beginning January 1, 2014. “
The arbitration panel issued a Partial Award on May 22, 2015 setting out the terms for all disputed provisions, and also included an Initial Royalty Payment (IRP) amount to be paid. On Jul 14, 2015 the arbitration panel issued a final award incorporating the IRP. No details of what the IRP covers have been made public. but it apparently is a calculation of the amount due as of the initial award date, based on the rates set by the panel.
When Huawei stated that they would appeal to the French Supreme Court, the NYSD court Judge determined that Huawei should post a bond. Instead of a bond, it was agreed that Huawei would pay to IDCC the amount of the IRP and subsequent royalty payments that had and will become due. That is what Huawei recently paid to IDCC and will continue to pay until there is a settlement or final action on the SDNY confirmation case. If Huawei wins their appeal and there is no agreement, Huawei can request that the monies paid be refunded.
AS far as Huawei’s appeal to the French Supreme Court, there will be no change in the amount due if the appeal is rejected. The function of supreme court is see that the laws were correctly applied not to go over the facts of the case. We still don’t know the basis for Huawei’s original appeal of the arbitration award, nor why they consider the decision to be legally faulty.
The arbitration award and related court cases cover Huawei’s worldwide sales, excluding China. Since a little over half of Huawei's smartphone sales last year were in the Chinese market, IDCC naturally is anxious to have a license covering all of Huawei’s sales. Current negotiations that were mentioned during the ASM are probably going on to come up with an all encompassing license as opposed to the current license terms that are under appeal.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
