Litigation and Legal Proceedings (Notes)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Huawei China Proceedings On February 21, 2012, InterDigital was served with two complaints filed by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei Technologies”) in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in China on December 5, 2011. The first complaint names as defendants InterDigital, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation and InterDigital Communications, LLC (collectively, “InterDigital” for purposes of the discussion of this matter). This first complaint alleges that InterDigital had dominant market position in China and the United States in the market for the licensing of essential patents owned by InterDigital, and abused its market power by engaging in allegedly unlawful practices, including differentiated pricing, tying, and refusal to deal. Huawei Technologies seeks relief in the amount of 20.0 million RMB (approximately $3.2 million based on the current exchange rate), an order requiring InterDigital to cease the allegedly unlawful conduct, and compensation for its costs associated with this matter. The second complaint names as defendants InterDigital's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital” for purposes of the discussion of this matter). This second complaint alleges that InterDigital is a member of certain standards-setting organization(s); that it is the practice of certain standards-setting organization(s) that owners of essential patents included in relevant standards license those patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms; and that InterDigital has failed to negotiate on FRAND terms with Huawei Technologies. Huawei Technologies is asking the court to determine the FRAND rate for licensing essential Chinese patents to Huawei Technologies and also seeks compensation for its costs associated with this matter. Huawei Delaware State Court Proceeding On October 25, 2011, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively, “Huawei”) filed a complaint (“Complaint”) with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Court of Chancery”) against InterDigital's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Communications, LLC (collectively, “InterDigital”). The Complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, equitable estoppel, waiver, and declaratory judgment. The Complaint seeks to enforce alleged contractual commitments made by InterDigital to license on FRAND terms patents Huawei claims InterDigital has declared essential to various 3G wireless standards. The Complaint further requests a declaratory judgment that InterDigital has not offered licenses on FRAND terms to such patents, a declaratory judgment that InterDigital is equitably estopped and has waived its right to seek injunctive or exclusionary relief for Huawei’s alleged infringement of such patents, including but not limited to such relief as sought in InterDigital’s U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or the “Commission”) proceeding against Huawei, and a declaratory judgment determining an appropriate FRAND royalty for InterDigital’s United States patents that Huawei claims have been declared essential to a standard used by Huawei’s accused products. On the same date that the Complaint was filed, Huawei filed a motion seeking expedited proceedings. On November 14, 2011, InterDigital filed an opposition to Huawei’s motion to expedite proceedings and filed a motion to stay or dismiss the proceedings. On November 16, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied Huawei’s motion to expedite and requested a status update within 30 days. On December 16, 2011, InterDigital and Huawei submitted separate status reports to the Court of Chancery on the parallel proceedings in the USITC and the District of Delaware (discussed below). Nokia, Huawei, ZTE and LG USITC Proceeding and Related Delaware District Court Proceeding On July 26, 2011, InterDigital’s wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, the “Company,” “InterDigital,” “we,” or “our” for the purposes of the discussion of this matter) filed a complaint with the USITC against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively, “Huawei”) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, “ZTE” and together with Nokia and Huawei, “Respondents”), alleging that they engaged in unfair trade practices by making for importation into the United States, importing into the United States, and selling after importation into the United States, certain 3G wireless devices (including WCDMA and cdma2000® capable mobile phones, USB sticks, mobile hotspots, and tablets, and components of such devices) that infringe seven of InterDigital’s U.S. patents (the “Asserted Patents”). The action also extends to certain WCDMA and cdma2000® devices incorporating WiFi functionality. InterDigital's complaint with the USITC seeks an exclusion order that would bar from entry into the U.S. any infringing 3G wireless devices (and components) that are imported by or on behalf of Respondents, and also seeks a cease and desist order to bar further sales of infringing products that have already been imported into the United States. On August 31, 2011, the USITC formally instituted an investigation against Respondents. On October 5, 2011, InterDigital filed a motion requesting that the USITC add LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) as respondents to the Company’s USITC complaint, and that the USITC add an additional patent to the USITC complaint as well. On December 5, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") granted this motion, and on December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s determination, thus adding the LG entities as respondents and including allegations of infringement of the additional patent. On September 29, 2011, Nokia filed a motion to terminate the USITC investigation, arguing that InterDigital’s alleged commitment to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) regarding the licensing of essential patents on FRAND terms allegedly resulted in InterDigital’s waiver of the right to seek exclusionary relief at the USITC. On October 19, 2011, InterDigital filed its opposition to the motion to terminate. On October 6, 2011, Nokia filed a motion to stay the USITC investigation based on its allegations that InterDigital had violated the protective order in the prior USITC investigation between InterDigital and Nokia (described below). On October 21, 2011, InterDigital filed its opposition to Nokia’s motion to stay. On December 22, 2011, the ALJ denied Nokia's motion to stay. On December 5, 2011, the ALJ modified the procedural schedule for the USITC investigation, and set a trial date of October 22 to November 2, 2012. The target date for completion of the USITC investigation has been extended from February 28, 2013 to June 28, 2013. The parties have submitted a draft procedural schedule consistent with the ALJ’s trial date. On January 20, 2012, LG filed a motion to terminate the USITC investigation alleging there is an arbitrable dispute. InterDigital filed its response opposing LG’s motion on February 6, 2012. On the same date that InterDigital filed the present USITC action (referenced above), we filed a parallel action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) against the Respondents alleging infringement of the same Asserted Patents identified in the USITC complaint. The Delaware District Court complaint seeks a permanent injunction and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined, as well as enhanced damages based on willful infringement, and recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 23, 2011, the defendants in the Delaware District Court complaint filed a motion to stay the Delaware District Court action pending the parallel proceedings in the USITC. Because the USITC has instituted the investigation referenced above, the defendants have a statutory right to a mandatory stay of the Delaware District Court proceeding pending a final determination in the USITC. On October 3, 2011, InterDigital amended the Delaware District Court complaint, adding LG as a defendant and adding the same additional patent that InterDigital requested be added to the USITC complaint referenced above. On October 10, 2011, the Company filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to stay. On October 11, 2011, the Delaware District Court granted defendants’ motion to stay. On November 30, 2011, Huawei filed a motion to partially lift the stay to adjudicate certain proposed counterclaims premised on InterDigital’s purported breach of certain FRAND obligations, while the rest of the case remains stayed. On December 16, 2011, ZTE (USA) Inc. ("ZTE USA") filed a pleading joining in Huawei’s motion, and seeking to partially lift the stay so that ZTE USA’s similar FRAND-based counterclaims can be adjudicated. On December 19, 2011, InterDigital filed a brief responding to Huawei’s motion and seeking a discretionary stay with respect to Huawei’s and ZTE USA's proposed counterclaims. On December 30, 2011, Huawei filed its reply brief in support of its motion to partially lift the stay. On January 9, 2012, InterDigital filed its reply brief in support of its request for a discretionary stay of Huawei’s and ZTE USA’s proposed counterclaims. Prior Nokia USITC Proceeding, Related Delaware District Court and Southern District of New York Proceedings and Federal Circuit Appeal In August 2007, InterDigital filed a USITC complaint against Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging that Nokia engaged in an unfair trade practice by selling for importation into the United States, importing into the United States, and selling after importation into the United States, certain 3G mobile handsets and components that infringe two of InterDigital’s patents. In November and December 2007, a third patent and fourth patent, respectively, were added to our complaint against Nokia. The complaint seeks an exclusion order barring from entry into the United States infringing 3G mobile handsets and components that are imported by or on behalf of Nokia. Our complaint also seeks a cease-and-desist order to bar further sales of infringing Nokia products that have already been imported into the United States. In addition, on the same date as our filing of the USITC action referenced above, we also filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court alleging that Nokia’s 3G mobile handsets and components infringe the same two InterDigital patents identified in the original USITC complaint. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction and damages in an amount to be determined. This Delaware action was stayed on January 10, 2008, pursuant to the mandatory, statutory stay of parallel district court proceedings at the request of a respondent in a USITC investigation. Thus, this Delaware action is stayed with respect to the patents in this case until the USITC’s determination on these patents becomes final, including any appeals. The Delaware District Court permitted InterDigital to add to the stayed Delaware action the third and fourth patents InterDigital asserted against Nokia in the USITC action. Nokia, joined by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), moved to consolidate the Nokia USITC proceeding with an investigation we had earlier initiated against Samsung in the USITC. On October 24, 2007, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, the Administrative Law Judge overseeing the two USITC proceedings against Samsung and Nokia, respectively, issued an order to consolidate the two pending investigations. Pursuant to the order, the schedules for both investigations were revised to consolidate proceedings and set a unified evidentiary hearing on April 21-28, 2008, the filing of a single initial determination by Judge Luckern by July 11, 2008, and a target date for the consolidated investigations of November 12, 2008, by which date the USITC would issue its final determination (the “Target Date”). On December 4, 2007, Nokia moved for an order terminating or, alternatively, staying the USITC investigation as to Nokia, on the ground that Nokia and InterDigital must first arbitrate a dispute as to whether Nokia is licensed under the patents asserted by InterDigital against Nokia in the USITC investigation. On January 8, 2008, Judge Luckern issued an order denying Nokia's motion and holding that Nokia has waived its arbitration defense by instituting and participating in the investigation and other legal proceedings. On February 13, 2008, Nokia filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Southern District Action”), seeking to preliminarily enjoin InterDigital from proceeding with the USITC investigation with respect to Nokia, in spite of Judge Luckern’s ruling denying Nokia’s motion to terminate the USITC investigation. Nokia raised in this preliminary injunction action the same arguments it raised in its motion to terminate the USITC investigation, namely that InterDigital allegedly must first arbitrate its alleged license dispute with Nokia and that Nokia has not waived arbitration of this defense. In the Southern District Action, Nokia also sought to compel InterDigital to arbitrate its alleged license dispute with Nokia and, in the alternative, sought a determination by the District Court that Nokia is licensed under the patents asserted by InterDigital against Nokia in the USITC investigation. On March 7, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss Nokia’s claim in the alternative that Nokia is licensed under the patents asserted by InterDigital against Nokia in the USITC investigation. On February 8, 2008, Nokia filed a motion for summary determination in the USITC that InterDigital cannot show that a domestic industry exists in the United States as required to obtain relief. Samsung joined this motion. InterDigital opposed this motion. On February 14, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion for summary determination that InterDigital satisfies the domestic industry requirement based on its licensing activities. On February 26, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion for summary determination that it has separately satisfied the so-called “economic prong” for establishing that a domestic industry exists based on InterDigital’s chipset product that practices the asserted patents. Samsung and Nokia opposed these motions. On March 17, 2008, Samsung and Nokia filed a motion to strike any evidence concerning InterDigital’s product and to preclude InterDigital from introducing any such evidence in relation to domestic industry at the evidentiary hearing. On March 26, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge granted InterDigital’s motion for summary determination that it has satisfied the so-called “economic prong” for establishing that a domestic industry exists based on InterDigital’s chipset product that practices the asserted patents and denied Samsung’s motion to strike and preclude introduction of evidence concerning InterDigital’s domestic industry product. On March 17, 2008, Nokia and Samsung jointly moved for summary determination that U.S. Patent No. 6,693,579, which was asserted against both Samsung and Nokia, is invalid. InterDigital opposed this motion. On April 14, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge denied Nokia’s and Samsung’s joint motion for summary determination that the ’579 patent is invalid. On March 20, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that Nokia is likely to prevail on the issue of whether Nokia’s alleged entitlement to a license is arbitrable. The Court did not consider or rule on whether Nokia is entitled to such a license. As a result, the Court entered a preliminary injunction requiring InterDigital to participate in arbitration of the license issue and requiring InterDigital to cease participation in the USITC proceeding by April 11, 2008, but only with respect to Nokia. The Court ordered Nokia to post a $500,000 bond by March 28, 2008, which Nokia did. InterDigital promptly filed a request for a stay of the preliminary injunction and for an expedited appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which transferred the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The preliminary injunction became effective on April 11, 2008, and, in accordance with the Court's order, InterDigital filed a motion with the Administrative Law Judge to stay the USITC proceeding against Nokia pending InterDigital’s appeal of the District Court's decision or, if that appeal were unsuccessful, pending the Nokia TDD Arbitration (described below). On April 14, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the date for the commencement of the evidentiary hearing, originally scheduled for April 21, 2008, be suspended until further notice from the Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge did not at that point change the scheduled date of July 11, 2008 for his initial determination in the investigation or the scheduled Target Date of November 12, 2008 for a decision by the USITC. InterDigital’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction and for an expedited appeal was considered by a panel of the Second Circuit on April 15, 2008. On April 16, 2008, the Second Circuit denied the motion for stay but set an expedited briefing schedule for resolving InterDigital’s appeal on the merits of whether the District Court's order granting the preliminary injunction should be reversed. On April 17, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion with the USITC to separate the consolidated investigations against Nokia and Samsung in order for the investigation to continue against Samsung pending the expedited appeal or, if the appeal is unsuccessful, pending the Nokia TDD Arbitration. Samsung and Nokia opposed InterDigital’s motion. On May 16, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge deconsolidated the investigations against Samsung and Nokia and set an evidentiary hearing date in the investigation against Samsung (337-TA-601) to begin on July 8, 2008. On May 20, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge denied without prejudice all pending motions in the consolidated investigation (337-TA-613). On June 17, 2008, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard argument on InterDigital’s appeal from the order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily enjoining InterDigital from proceeding against Nokia in the consolidated investigation. On July 31, 2008, the Second Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction, finding that Nokia’s litigation conduct resulted in a waiver of any right to arbitrate its license dispute. InterDigital promptly notified the Administrative Law Judge in the Nokia investigation (337-TA-613) of the Second Circuit's decision. On August 14, 2008, Nokia filed a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc of the Second Circuit's decision, and on September 15, 2008, the Second Circuit denied Nokia’s petitions. The mandate from the Second Circuit issued to the Southern District of New York on September 22, 2008. Notwithstanding the Second Circuit's decision, on October 17, 2008 Nokia filed a request for a status conference with the District Court to establish a procedural schedule for Nokia to pursue a permanent injunction requiring InterDigital to arbitrate Nokia’s alleged license defense, and arguing that the Second Circuit's decision does not bar such an action. On October 23, 2008, InterDigital filed a response with the District Court asserting that the Second Circuit's waiver finding was dispositive, and seeking the dismissal of Nokia’s complaint in its entirety. On March 5, 2009, the Court in the Southern District Action granted InterDigital's request and dismissed all of Nokia’s claims in the Southern District Action, but delayed issuing a final judgment pending a request by InterDigital seeking to collect against the $500,000 preliminary injunction bond posted by Nokia. On April 3, 2009, InterDigital filed a motion to collect against the preliminary injunction bond, contending that InterDigital was damaged by at least $500,000 as a result of the wrongfully obtained preliminary injunction. On March 10, 2010, the District Court denied InterDigital’s motion to collect against the preliminary injunction bond. On April 9, 2010, InterDigital filed a notice of appeal with the District Court, indicating that InterDigital is appealing the denial of its motion to collect against the preliminary injunction bond to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Following briefing, the Second Circuit heard oral argument on March 7, 2011. On May 23, 2011, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's order of March 10, 2010 and remanded for the District Court to reconsider its denial of InterDigital’s motion to recover against the preliminary injunction bond. On July 14, 2011, the District Court granted InterDigital’s motion in part and denied the motion in part as moot, finding that InterDigital established damages in excess of $500,000 and therefore is entitled to recover the full amount of the $500,000 preliminary injunction bond, and requiring Nokia to direct its surety promptly to make payment to InterDigital. On July 26, 2011, Nokia filed a notice of appeal with the District Court indicating that it is appealing the District Court's July 14, 2011 order to the Second Circuit; Nokia filed its opening brief in the Second Circuit on October 18, 2011. On August 17, 2011, InterDigital moved in the District Court for an order requiring Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), Nokia’s surety on the preliminary injunction bond, to pay InterDigital the full amount of the bond. Both Nokia and Hartford opposed this motion, and Nokia cross-moved for an order staying enforcement of the District Court's July 14, 2011 order until Nokia’s appeal has been decided by the Second Circuit. InterDigital opposed Nokia’s cross-motion. On December 22, 2011, the District Court granted InterDigital’s motion to enforce liability against Nokia’s surety, and denied Nokia’s cross-motion. On December 30, 2011, Nokia filed with the Second Circuit a "motion to confirm automatic stay or, in the alternative, to stay payment of bond pending appeal," in which Nokia sought to stay payment on its preliminary injunction bond pending appeal. On January 9, 2012, InterDigital filed its opposition with the Second Circuit, and on January 17, 2012, Nokia filed its reply. No amounts were recorded in our 2011 financial statements related to the aforementioned preliminary injunction bond. If any amount is ultimately received, such amount will be recorded as a reduction of patent administration and licensing expense at the time of receipt. On September 24, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion to lift the stay of the Nokia investigation (337-TA-613) based on the issuance of the Second Circuit's mandate reversing the preliminary injunction granted to Nokia. The Administrative Law Judge granted InterDigital’s motion on September 25, 2008 and lifted the stay. On October 7, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order in the Nokia investigation setting the evidentiary hearing for May 26-29, 2009. On October 10, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order resetting the Target Date for the USITC’s Final Determination in the Nokia investigation to December 14, 2009, and requiring a final Initial Determination by the Administrative Law Judge to be entered no later than August 14, 2009. On January 21, 2009, Nokia filed a motion to schedule a claim construction hearing in the USITC proceeding in early February 2009, and on January 29, 2009, InterDigital filed an opposition to the motion for a claim construction hearing. On February 9, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge denied Nokia's motion for a claim construction hearing. On February 13, 2009, InterDigital filed a renewed motion for summary determination that InterDigital has satisfied the domestic industry requirement based on its licensing activities, and on February 27, 2009, Nokia filed an opposition to the motion. On March 10, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge granted InterDigital's motion, finding that InterDigital has established, through its licensing activities that a domestic industry exists in the United States as required to obtain relief before the USITC. On April 9, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it would not review the Administrative Law Judge's Order granting summary determination of a licensing-based domestic industry, thereby adopting the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The evidentiary hearing for the USITC investigation with respect to Nokia was held from May 26, 2009 through June 2, 2009. On August 14, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Initial Determination found that InterDigital's patents were valid and enforceable, but that Nokia did not infringe these patents. In the event that a Section 337 violation were to be found by the Commission, the Administrative Law Judge recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of infringing Nokia 3G WCDMA handsets and components as well as the issuance of appropriate cease and desist orders. On August 31, 2009, InterDigital filed a petition for review of certain issues raised in the August 14, 2009 Initial Determination. On that same date, Nokia also filed a contingent petition for review of certain issues in the Initial Determination. Responses to both petitions were filed on September 8, 2009. On October 16, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it had determined to review in part the Initial Determination, and that it affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's determination of no violation and terminated the investigation. The Commission determined to review the claim construction of the patent claim terms “synchronize” and “access signal” and also determined to review the Administrative Law Judge's validity determinations. On review, the Commission modified the Administrative Law Judge's claim construction of “access signal” and took no position with regard to the claim term “synchronize” or the validity determinations. The Commission determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the Initial Determination. On November 30, 2009, InterDigital filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a petition for review of certain rulings by the Commission. In the appeal, neither the construction of the term “synchronize” nor the issue of validity can be raised because the Commission took no position on these issues in its determination. On December 17, 2009, Nokia filed a motion to intervene in the appeal, which was granted by the Court on January 4, 2010. InterDigital's opening brief was filed on April 12, 2010. In its appeal, InterDigital seeks reversal of the Commission's claim constructions and non-infringement findings with respect to certain claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 and 7,286,847, vacatur of the Commission's determination of no Section 337 violation, and a remand for further proceedings before the Commission. InterDigital is not appealing the Commission's determination of non-infringement with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,973,579 and 7,117,004. Nokia and the Commission filed their briefs on July 13, 2010. In their briefs, Nokia and the Commission argue that the Commission correctly construed the claim terms asserted by InterDigital in its appeal and that the Commission properly determined that Nokia did not infringe the patents on appeal. Nokia also argues that the Commission's finding of noninfringement should be affirmed based on an additional claim term. Nokia further argues that the Commission erred in finding that InterDigital could satisfy the domestic industry requirement based solely on its patent licensing activities and without proving that an article in the United States practices the claimed inventions, and that the Commission's finding of no Section 337 violation should be affirmed on that additional basis. InterDigital filed its reply brief on August 30, 2010. The Court heard oral argument in the appeal on January 13, 2011. The Court has not yet issued a decision in this appeal. InterDigital has no obligation as a result of the above matter and we have not recorded a related liability in our financial statements. Nokia Delaware Proceeding In January 2005, Nokia filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court against InterDigital Communications Corporation (now IDC) and ITC (for purposes of the Nokia Delaware Proceeding described herein, IDC and ITC are collectively referred to as “InterDigital,” “we,” or “our”), alleging that we have used false or misleading descriptions or representations regarding our patents' scope, validity, and applicability to products built to comply with 3G wireless phone Standards (“Nokia Delaware Proceeding”). Nokia's amended complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages, including punitive damages, in an amount to be determined. We subsequently filed counterclaims based on Nokia's licensing activities as well as Nokia's false or misleading descriptions or representations regarding Nokia's 3G patents and Nokia's undisclosed funding and direction of an allegedly independent study of the essentiality of 3G patents. Our counterclaims seek injunctive relief as well as damages, including punitive damages, in an amount to be determined. On December 10, 2007, pursuant to a joint request by the parties, the Delaware District Court entered an order staying the proceedings pending the full and final resolution of InterDigital's USITC investigation against Nokia. Specifically, the full and final resolution of the USITC investigation includes any initial or final determinations of the Administrative Law Judge overseeing the proceeding, the USITC, and any appeals therefrom. Pursuant to the order, the parties and their affiliates are generally prohibited from initiating against the other parties, in any forum, any claims or counterclaims that are the same as the claims and counterclaims pending in the Nokia Delaware Proceeding, and should any of the same or similar claims or counterclaims be initiated by a party, the other parties may seek dissolution of the stay. Except for the Nokia Delaware Proceeding and the Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations (described below), the order does not affect any of the other legal proceedings between the parties, including the Nokia USITC Proceeding and Related Delaware District Court and Southern District of New York Proceedings (described above). Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations In November 2006, InterDigital Communications Corporation (now IDC) and ITC filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce against Nokia (“Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations”), claiming that certain presentations Nokia has attempted to use in support of its claims in the Nokia Delaware Proceeding are confidential and, as a result, may not be used in the Nokia Delaware Proceeding pursuant to the parties' agreement. The December 10, 2007 order entered by the Delaware District Court to stay the Nokia Delaware Proceeding (described above) also stayed the Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations pending the full and final resolution of the USITC investigation against Nokia as described above. Other We are party to certain other disputes and legal actions in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that these matters, even if adversely adjudicated or settled, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Contingency related to Technology Solutions Agreement Arbitration Our wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications LLC and InterDigital Technology Corporation are engaged in an arbitration relating to a contractual dispute concerning the scope of royalty obligations and the scope of the licenses granted under one of its technology solutions agreements. As of December 31, 2011, InterDigital has deferred related revenue of $29.7 million pending the resolution of this arbitration.

LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Huawei China Proceedings

On February 21, 2012, InterDigital was served with two complaints filed by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei Technologies”) in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in China on December 5, 2011. The first complaint names as defendants InterDigital, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation and InterDigital Communications, LLC (collectively, “InterDigital” for purposes of the discussion of this matter). This first complaint alleges that InterDigital had dominant market position in China and the United States in the market for the licensing of essential patents owned by InterDigital, and abused its market power by engaging in allegedly unlawful practices, including differentiated pricing, tying, and refusal to deal. Huawei Technologies seeks relief in the amount of 20.0 million RMB (approximately $3.2 million based on the current exchange rate), an order requiring InterDigital to cease the allegedly unlawful conduct, and compensation for its costs associated with this matter. The second complaint names as defendants InterDigital's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital” for purposes of the discussion of this matter). This second complaint alleges that InterDigital is a member of certain standards-setting organization(s); that it is the practice of certain standards-setting organization(s) that owners of essential patents included in relevant standards license those patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms; and that InterDigital has failed to negotiate on FRAND terms with Huawei Technologies. Huawei Technologies is asking the court to determine the FRAND rate for licensing essential Chinese patents to Huawei Technologies and also seeks compensation for its costs associated with this matter.

Huawei Delaware State Court Proceeding

On October 25, 2011, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively, “Huawei”) filed a complaint (“Complaint”) with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Court of Chancery”) against InterDigital's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Communications, LLC (collectively, “InterDigital”). The Complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, equitable estoppel, waiver, and declaratory judgment. The Complaint seeks to enforce alleged contractual commitments made by InterDigital to license on FRAND terms patents Huawei claims InterDigital has declared essential to various 3G wireless standards. The Complaint further requests a declaratory judgment that InterDigital has not offered licenses on FRAND terms to such patents, a declaratory judgment that InterDigital is equitably estopped and has waived its right to seek injunctive or exclusionary relief for Huawei’s alleged infringement of such patents, including but not limited to such relief as sought in InterDigital’s U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or the “Commission”) proceeding against Huawei, and a declaratory judgment determining an appropriate FRAND royalty for InterDigital’s United States patents that Huawei claims have been declared essential to a standard used by Huawei’s accused products. On the same date that the Complaint was filed, Huawei filed a motion seeking expedited proceedings.

On November 14, 2011, InterDigital filed an opposition to Huawei’s motion to expedite proceedings and filed a motion to stay or dismiss the proceedings. On November 16, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied Huawei’s motion to expedite and requested a status update within 30 days. On December 16, 2011, InterDigital and Huawei submitted separate status reports to the Court of Chancery on the parallel proceedings in the USITC and the District of Delaware (discussed below).

Nokia, Huawei, ZTE and LG USITC Proceeding and Related Delaware District Court Proceeding

On July 26, 2011, InterDigital’s wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, the “Company,” “InterDigital,” “we,” or “our” for the purposes of the discussion of this matter) filed a complaint with the USITC against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively, “Huawei”) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, “ZTE” and together with Nokia and Huawei, “Respondents”), alleging that they engaged in unfair trade practices by making for importation into the United States, importing into the United States, and selling after importation into the United States, certain 3G wireless devices (including WCDMA and cdma2000® capable mobile phones, USB sticks, mobile hotspots, and tablets, and components of such devices) that infringe seven of InterDigital’s U.S. patents (the “Asserted Patents”). The action also extends to certain WCDMA and cdma2000® devices incorporating WiFi functionality. InterDigital's complaint with the USITC seeks an exclusion order that would bar from entry into the U.S. any infringing 3G wireless devices (and components) that are imported by or on behalf of Respondents, and also seeks a cease and desist order to bar further sales of infringing products that have already been imported into the United States. On August 31, 2011, the USITC formally instituted an investigation against Respondents. On October 5, 2011, InterDigital filed a motion requesting that the USITC add LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) as respondents to the Company’s USITC complaint, and that the USITC add an additional patent to the USITC complaint as well. On December 5, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") granted this motion, and on December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s determination, thus adding the LG entities as respondents and including allegations of infringement of the additional patent.

On September 29, 2011, Nokia filed a motion to terminate the USITC investigation, arguing that InterDigital’s alleged commitment to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) regarding the licensing of essential patents on FRAND terms allegedly resulted in InterDigital’s waiver of the right to seek exclusionary relief at the USITC. On October 19, 2011, InterDigital filed its opposition to the motion to terminate.

On October 6, 2011, Nokia filed a motion to stay the USITC investigation based on its allegations that InterDigital had violated the protective order in the prior USITC investigation between InterDigital and Nokia (described below). On October 21, 2011, InterDigital filed its opposition to Nokia’s motion to stay. On December 22, 2011, the ALJ denied Nokia's motion to stay.

On December 5, 2011, the ALJ modified the procedural schedule for the USITC investigation, and set a trial date of October 22 to November 2, 2012. The target date for completion of the USITC investigation has been extended from February 28, 2013 to June 28, 2013. The parties have submitted a draft procedural schedule consistent with the ALJ’s trial date.

On January 20, 2012, LG filed a motion to terminate the USITC investigation alleging there is an arbitrable dispute. InterDigital filed its response opposing LG’s motion on February 6, 2012.

On the same date that InterDigital filed the present USITC action (referenced above), we filed a parallel action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) against the Respondents alleging infringement of the same Asserted Patents identified in the USITC complaint. The Delaware District Court complaint seeks a permanent injunction and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined, as well as enhanced damages based on willful infringement, and recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 23, 2011, the defendants in the Delaware District Court complaint filed a motion to stay the Delaware District Court action pending the parallel proceedings in the USITC. Because the USITC has instituted the investigation referenced above, the defendants have a statutory right to a mandatory stay of the Delaware District Court proceeding pending a final determination in the USITC. On October 3, 2011, InterDigital amended the Delaware District Court complaint, adding LG as a defendant and adding the same additional patent that InterDigital requested be added to the USITC complaint referenced above. On October 10, 2011, the Company filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to stay. On October 11, 2011, the Delaware District Court granted defendants’ motion to stay.

On November 30, 2011, Huawei filed a motion to partially lift the stay to adjudicate certain proposed counterclaims premised on InterDigital’s purported breach of certain FRAND obligations, while the rest of the case remains stayed. On December 16, 2011, ZTE (USA) Inc. ("ZTE USA") filed a pleading joining in Huawei’s motion, and seeking to partially lift the stay so that ZTE USA’s similar FRAND-based counterclaims can be adjudicated. On December 19, 2011, InterDigital filed a brief responding to Huawei’s motion and seeking a discretionary stay with respect to Huawei’s and ZTE USA's proposed counterclaims. On December 30, 2011, Huawei filed its reply brief in support of its motion to partially lift the stay. On January 9, 2012, InterDigital filed its reply brief in support of its request for a discretionary stay of Huawei’s and ZTE USA’s proposed counterclaims.

Prior Nokia USITC Proceeding, Related Delaware District Court and Southern District of New York Proceedings and Federal Circuit Appeal

In August 2007, InterDigital filed a USITC complaint against Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) alleging that Nokia engaged in an unfair trade practice by selling for importation into the United States, importing into the United States, and selling after importation into the United States, certain 3G mobile handsets and components that infringe two of InterDigital’s patents. In November and December 2007, a third patent and fourth patent, respectively, were added to our complaint against Nokia. The complaint seeks an exclusion order barring from entry into the United States infringing 3G mobile handsets and components that are imported by or on behalf of Nokia. Our complaint also seeks a cease-and-desist order to bar further sales of infringing Nokia products that have already been imported into the United States.

In addition, on the same date as our filing of the USITC action referenced above, we also filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court alleging that Nokia’s 3G mobile handsets and components infringe the same two InterDigital patents identified in the original USITC complaint. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction and damages in an amount to be determined. This Delaware action was stayed on January 10, 2008, pursuant to the mandatory, statutory stay of parallel district court proceedings at the request of a respondent in a USITC investigation. Thus, this Delaware action is stayed with respect to the patents in this case until the USITC’s determination on these patents becomes final, including any appeals. The Delaware District Court permitted InterDigital to add to the stayed Delaware action the third and fourth patents InterDigital asserted against Nokia in the USITC action. Nokia, joined by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), moved to consolidate the Nokia USITC proceeding with an investigation we had earlier initiated against Samsung in the USITC. On October 24, 2007, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, the Administrative Law Judge overseeing the two USITC proceedings against Samsung and Nokia, respectively, issued an order to consolidate the two pending investigations. Pursuant to the order, the schedules for both investigations were revised to consolidate proceedings and set a unified evidentiary hearing on April 21-28, 2008, the filing of a single initial determination by Judge Luckern by July 11, 2008, and a target date for the consolidated investigations of November 12, 2008, by which date the USITC would issue its final determination (the “Target Date”).

On December 4, 2007, Nokia moved for an order terminating or, alternatively, staying the USITC investigation as to Nokia, on the ground that Nokia and InterDigital must first arbitrate a dispute as to whether Nokia is licensed under the patents asserted by InterDigital against Nokia in the USITC investigation. On January 8, 2008, Judge Luckern issued an order denying Nokia's motion and holding that Nokia has waived its arbitration defense by instituting and participating in the investigation and other legal proceedings. On February 13, 2008, Nokia filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Southern District Action”), seeking to preliminarily enjoin InterDigital from proceeding with the USITC investigation with respect to Nokia, in spite of Judge Luckern’s ruling denying Nokia’s motion to terminate the USITC investigation. Nokia raised in this preliminary injunction action the same arguments it raised in its motion to terminate the USITC investigation, namely that InterDigital allegedly must first arbitrate its alleged license dispute with Nokia and that Nokia has not waived arbitration of this defense. In the Southern District Action, Nokia also sought to compel InterDigital to arbitrate its alleged license dispute with Nokia and, in the alternative, sought a determination by the District Court that Nokia is licensed under the patents asserted by InterDigital against Nokia in the USITC investigation. On March 7, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss Nokia’s claim in the alternative that Nokia is licensed under the patents asserted by InterDigital against Nokia in the USITC investigation.

On February 8, 2008, Nokia filed a motion for summary determination in the USITC that InterDigital cannot show that a domestic industry exists in the United States as required to obtain relief. Samsung joined this motion. InterDigital opposed this motion. On February 14, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion for summary determination that InterDigital satisfies the domestic industry requirement based on its licensing activities. On February 26, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion for summary determination that it has separately satisfied the so-called “economic prong” for establishing that a domestic industry exists based on InterDigital’s chipset product that practices the asserted patents. Samsung and Nokia opposed these motions. On March 17, 2008, Samsung and Nokia filed a motion to strike any evidence concerning InterDigital’s product and to preclude InterDigital from introducing any such evidence in relation to domestic industry at the evidentiary hearing. On March 26, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge granted InterDigital’s motion for summary determination that it has satisfied the so-called “economic prong” for establishing that a domestic industry exists based on InterDigital’s chipset product that practices the asserted patents and denied Samsung’s motion to strike and preclude introduction of evidence concerning InterDigital’s domestic industry product.

On March 17, 2008, Nokia and Samsung jointly moved for summary determination that U.S. Patent No. 6,693,579, which was asserted against both Samsung and Nokia, is invalid. InterDigital opposed this motion. On April 14, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge denied Nokia’s and Samsung’s joint motion for summary determination that the ’579 patent is invalid.

On March 20, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that Nokia is likely to prevail on the issue of whether Nokia’s alleged entitlement to a license is arbitrable. The Court did not consider or rule on whether Nokia is entitled to such a license. As a result, the Court entered a preliminary injunction requiring InterDigital to participate in arbitration of the license issue and requiring InterDigital to cease participation in the USITC proceeding by April 11, 2008, but only with respect to Nokia. The Court ordered Nokia to post a $500,000 bond by March 28, 2008, which Nokia did. InterDigital promptly filed a request for a stay of the preliminary injunction and for an expedited appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which transferred the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The preliminary injunction became effective on April 11, 2008, and, in accordance with the Court's order, InterDigital filed a motion with the Administrative Law Judge to stay the USITC proceeding against Nokia pending InterDigital’s appeal of the District Court's decision or, if that appeal were unsuccessful, pending the Nokia TDD Arbitration (described below). On April 14, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge ordered that the date for the commencement of the evidentiary hearing, originally scheduled for April 21, 2008, be suspended until further notice from the Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge did not at that point change the scheduled date of July 11, 2008 for his initial determination in the investigation or the scheduled Target Date of November 12, 2008 for a decision by the USITC. InterDigital’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction and for an expedited appeal was considered by a panel of the Second Circuit on April 15, 2008. On April 16, 2008, the Second Circuit denied the motion for stay but set an expedited briefing schedule for resolving InterDigital’s appeal on the merits of whether the District Court's order granting the preliminary injunction should be reversed.

On April 17, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion with the USITC to separate the consolidated investigations against Nokia and Samsung in order for the investigation to continue against Samsung pending the expedited appeal or, if the appeal is unsuccessful, pending the Nokia TDD Arbitration. Samsung and Nokia opposed InterDigital’s motion. On May 16, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge deconsolidated the investigations against Samsung and Nokia and set an evidentiary hearing date in the investigation against Samsung (337-TA-601) to begin on July 8, 2008.

On May 20, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge denied without prejudice all pending motions in the consolidated investigation (337-TA-613).

On June 17, 2008, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard argument on InterDigital’s appeal from the order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily enjoining InterDigital from proceeding against Nokia in the consolidated investigation. On July 31, 2008, the Second Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction, finding that Nokia’s litigation conduct resulted in a waiver of any right to arbitrate its license dispute. InterDigital promptly notified the Administrative Law Judge in the Nokia investigation (337-TA-613) of the Second Circuit's decision. On August 14, 2008, Nokia filed a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc of the Second Circuit's decision, and on September 15, 2008, the Second Circuit denied Nokia’s petitions. The mandate from the Second Circuit issued to the Southern District of New York on September 22, 2008. Notwithstanding the Second Circuit's decision, on October 17, 2008 Nokia filed a request for a status conference with the District Court to establish a procedural schedule for Nokia to pursue a permanent injunction requiring InterDigital to arbitrate Nokia’s alleged license defense, and arguing that the Second Circuit's decision does not bar such an action. On October 23, 2008, InterDigital filed a response with the District Court asserting that the Second Circuit's waiver finding was dispositive, and seeking the dismissal of Nokia’s complaint in its entirety. On March 5, 2009, the Court in the Southern District Action granted InterDigital's request and dismissed all of Nokia’s claims in the Southern District Action, but delayed issuing a final judgment pending a request by InterDigital seeking to collect against the $500,000 preliminary injunction bond posted by Nokia. On April 3, 2009, InterDigital filed a motion to collect against the preliminary injunction bond, contending that InterDigital was damaged by at least $500,000 as a result of the wrongfully obtained preliminary injunction. On March 10, 2010, the District Court denied InterDigital’s motion to collect against the preliminary injunction bond. On April 9, 2010, InterDigital filed a notice of appeal with the District Court, indicating that InterDigital is appealing the denial of its motion to collect against the preliminary injunction bond to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Following briefing, the Second Circuit heard oral argument on March 7, 2011. On May 23, 2011, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's order of March 10, 2010 and remanded for the District Court to reconsider its denial of InterDigital’s motion to recover against the preliminary injunction bond. On July 14, 2011, the District Court granted InterDigital’s motion in part and denied the motion in part as moot, finding that InterDigital established damages in excess of $500,000 and therefore is entitled to recover the full amount of the $500,000 preliminary injunction bond, and requiring Nokia to direct its surety promptly to make payment to InterDigital. On July 26, 2011, Nokia filed a notice of appeal with the District Court indicating that it is appealing the District Court's July 14, 2011 order to the Second Circuit; Nokia filed its opening brief in the Second Circuit on October 18, 2011. On August 17, 2011, InterDigital moved in the District Court for an order requiring Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”), Nokia’s surety on the preliminary injunction bond, to pay InterDigital the full amount of the bond. Both Nokia and Hartford opposed this motion, and Nokia cross-moved for an order staying enforcement of the District Court's July 14, 2011 order until Nokia’s appeal has been decided by the Second Circuit. InterDigital opposed Nokia’s cross-motion. On December 22, 2011, the District Court granted InterDigital’s motion to enforce liability against Nokia’s surety, and denied Nokia’s cross-motion. On December 30, 2011, Nokia filed with the Second Circuit a "motion to confirm automatic stay or, in the alternative, to stay payment of bond pending appeal," in which Nokia sought to stay payment on its preliminary injunction bond pending appeal. On January 9, 2012, InterDigital filed its opposition with the Second Circuit, and on January 17, 2012, Nokia filed its reply. No amounts were recorded in our 2011 financial statements related to the aforementioned preliminary injunction bond. If any amount is ultimately received, such amount will be recorded as a reduction of patent administration and licensing expense at the time of receipt.

On September 24, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion to lift the stay of the Nokia investigation (337-TA-613) based on the issuance of the Second Circuit's mandate reversing the preliminary injunction granted to Nokia. The Administrative Law Judge granted InterDigital’s motion on September 25, 2008 and lifted the stay. On October 7, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order in the Nokia investigation setting the evidentiary hearing for May 26-29, 2009. On October 10, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge issued an order resetting the Target Date for the USITC’s Final Determination in the Nokia investigation to December 14, 2009, and requiring a final Initial Determination by the Administrative Law Judge to be entered no later than August 14, 2009.

On January 21, 2009, Nokia filed a motion to schedule a claim construction hearing in the USITC proceeding in early February 2009, and on January 29, 2009, InterDigital filed an opposition to the motion for a claim construction hearing. On February 9, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge denied Nokia's motion for a claim construction hearing.

On February 13, 2009, InterDigital filed a renewed motion for summary determination that InterDigital has satisfied the domestic industry requirement based on its licensing activities, and on February 27, 2009, Nokia filed an opposition to the motion. On March 10, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge granted InterDigital's motion, finding that InterDigital has established, through its licensing activities that a domestic industry exists in the United States as required to obtain relief before the USITC. On April 9, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it would not review the Administrative Law Judge's Order granting summary determination of a licensing-based domestic industry, thereby adopting the Administrative Law Judge's decision.

The evidentiary hearing for the USITC investigation with respect to Nokia was held from May 26, 2009 through June 2, 2009.

On August 14, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Initial Determination found that InterDigital's patents were valid and enforceable, but that Nokia did not infringe these patents. In the event that a Section 337 violation were to be found by the Commission, the Administrative Law Judge recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of infringing Nokia 3G WCDMA handsets and components as well as the issuance of appropriate cease and desist orders.

On August 31, 2009, InterDigital filed a petition for review of certain issues raised in the August 14, 2009 Initial Determination. On that same date, Nokia also filed a contingent petition for review of certain issues in the Initial Determination. Responses to both petitions were filed on September 8, 2009.

On October 16, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it had determined to review in part the Initial Determination, and that it affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's determination of no violation and terminated the investigation. The Commission determined to review the claim construction of the patent claim terms “synchronize” and “access signal” and also determined to review the Administrative Law Judge's validity determinations. On review, the Commission modified the Administrative Law Judge's claim construction of “access signal” and took no position with regard to the claim term “synchronize” or the validity determinations. The Commission determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the Initial Determination.

On November 30, 2009, InterDigital filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit a petition for review of certain rulings by the Commission. In the appeal, neither the construction of the term “synchronize” nor the issue of validity can be raised because the Commission took no position on these issues in its determination. On December 17, 2009, Nokia filed a motion to intervene in the appeal, which was granted by the Court on January 4, 2010. InterDigital's opening brief was filed on April 12, 2010. In its appeal, InterDigital seeks reversal of the Commission's claim constructions and non-infringement findings with respect to certain claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 and 7,286,847, vacatur of the Commission's determination of no Section 337 violation, and a remand for further proceedings before the Commission. InterDigital is not appealing the Commission's determination of non-infringement with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,973,579 and 7,117,004. Nokia and the Commission filed their briefs on July 13, 2010. In their briefs, Nokia and the Commission argue that the Commission correctly construed the claim terms asserted by InterDigital in its appeal and that the Commission properly determined that Nokia did not infringe the patents on appeal. Nokia also argues that the Commission's finding of noninfringement should be affirmed based on an additional claim term. Nokia further argues that the Commission erred in finding that InterDigital could satisfy the domestic industry requirement based solely on its patent licensing activities and without proving that an article in the United States practices the claimed inventions, and that the Commission's finding of no Section 337 violation should be affirmed on that additional basis. InterDigital filed its reply brief on August 30, 2010. The Court heard oral argument in the appeal on January 13, 2011. The Court has not yet issued a decision in this appeal.

InterDigital has no obligation as a result of the above matter and we have not recorded a related liability in our financial statements.

Nokia Delaware Proceeding

In January 2005, Nokia filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court against InterDigital Communications Corporation (now IDC) and ITC (for purposes of the Nokia Delaware Proceeding described herein, IDC and ITC are collectively referred to as “InterDigital,” “we,” or “our”), alleging that we have used false or misleading descriptions or representations regarding our patents' scope, validity, and applicability to products built to comply with 3G wireless phone Standards (“Nokia Delaware Proceeding”). Nokia's amended complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages, including punitive damages, in an amount to be determined. We subsequently filed counterclaims based on Nokia's licensing activities as well as Nokia's false or misleading descriptions or representations regarding Nokia's 3G patents and Nokia's undisclosed funding and direction of an allegedly independent study of the essentiality of 3G patents. Our counterclaims seek injunctive relief as well as damages, including punitive damages, in an amount to be determined.

On December 10, 2007, pursuant to a joint request by the parties, the Delaware District Court entered an order staying the proceedings pending the full and final resolution of InterDigital's USITC investigation against Nokia. Specifically, the full and final resolution of the USITC investigation includes any initial or final determinations of the Administrative Law Judge overseeing the proceeding, the USITC, and any appeals therefrom. Pursuant to the order, the parties and their affiliates are generally prohibited from initiating against the other parties, in any forum, any claims or counterclaims that are the same as the claims and counterclaims pending in the Nokia Delaware Proceeding, and should any of the same or similar claims or counterclaims be initiated by a party, the other parties may seek dissolution of the stay.

Except for the Nokia Delaware Proceeding and the Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations (described below), the order does not affect any of the other legal proceedings between the parties, including the Nokia USITC Proceeding and Related Delaware District Court and Southern District of New York Proceedings (described above).

Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations

In November 2006, InterDigital Communications Corporation (now IDC) and ITC filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce against Nokia (“Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations”), claiming that certain presentations Nokia has attempted to use in support of its claims in the Nokia Delaware Proceeding are confidential and, as a result, may not be used in the Nokia Delaware Proceeding pursuant to the parties' agreement.

The December 10, 2007 order entered by the Delaware District Court to stay the Nokia Delaware Proceeding (described above) also stayed the Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations pending the full and final resolution of the USITC investigation against Nokia as described above.

Other

We are party to certain other disputes and legal actions in the ordinary course of business. We do not believe that these matters, even if adversely adjudicated or settled, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Contingency related to Technology Solutions Agreement Arbitration

Our wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications LLC and InterDigital Technology Corporation are engaged in an arbitration relating to a contractual dispute concerning the scope of royalty obligations and the scope of the licenses granted under one of its technology solutions agreements. As of December 31, 2011, InterDigital has deferred related revenue of $29.7 million pending the resolution of this arbitration.