v2.4.1.9

Litigation and Legal Proceedings (Notes) | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2014
4. LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [Abstract] |
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block] |
8. | LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Nokia and ZTE 2013 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-868) and Related Delaware District Court Proceedings USITC Proceeding (337-TA-868) On January 2, 2013, the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc. and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC” or “Commission”) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, the “337-TA-868 Respondents”), alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in that they engaged in unfair trade practices by selling for importation into the United States, importing into the United States and/or selling after importation into the United States certain 3G and 4G wireless devices (including WCDMA-, cdma2000- and LTE-capable mobile phones, USB sticks, mobile hotspots, laptop computers and tablets and components of such devices) that infringe one or more of up to seven of InterDigital's U.S. patents. The complaint also extends to certain WCDMA and cdma2000 devices incorporating Wi-Fi functionality. InterDigital's complaint with the USITC seeks an exclusion order that would bar from entry into the United States infringing 3G or 4G wireless devices (and components), including LTE devices, that are imported by or on behalf of the 337-TA-868 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. Certain of the asserted patents have been asserted against Nokia, Huawei and ZTE in earlier pending USITC proceedings (including the Nokia, Huawei and ZTE 2011 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800) and the Nokia 2007 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613), as set forth below) and therefore are not being asserted against those 337-TA-868 Respondents in this investigation. On February 21, 2013, each 337-TA-868 Respondent filed their respective responses to the complaint. On February 6, 2013, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) overseeing the proceeding issued an order setting a target date of June 4, 2014 for the Commission's final determination in the investigation, with the ALJ's Initial Determination on alleged violation due on February 4, 2014. On September 26, 2013, the ALJ issued an order modifying the procedural schedule and extending the target date for completion of the investigation. The ALJ set new dates for the evidentiary hearing of February 10 to February 21, 2014, moved the due date for the ALJ’s Final Initial Determination (“ID”) to April 25, 2014 and extended the target date for the Commission’s completion of the investigation to August 25, 2014. On October 18, 2013, the ALJ issued an order, in light of the 16-day federal government shutdown, modifying the date for the ALJ’s Final ID and extending the target date for completion of the investigation. The date for the ALJ's Final ID and the target date for the Commission’s final determination were set for May 12, 2014 and September 10, 2014, respectively. The trial dates were unchanged, and the trial commenced on February 10, 2014 and ended on February 20, 2014. On April 18, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial determination extending the target date for completion of the investigation by approximately one month to October 14, 2014, thereby moving the due date for the ALJ's final initial determination to June 13, 2014. On May 16, 2014, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ’s initial determination extending the target date. On February 21, 2013, Samsung moved for partial termination of the investigation as to six of the seven patents asserted against Samsung, alleging that Samsung was authorized to import the specific 3G or 4G devices that InterDigital relied on to form the basis of its complaint. InterDigital opposed this motion on March 4, 2013. On May 10, 2013, the ALJ denied Samsung’s motion for partial termination. On February 22, 2013, Huawei and ZTE moved to stay the investigation pending their respective requests to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (described below) to set a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) royalty rate for a license that covers the asserted patents, or in the alternative, until a Final Determination issues in the 337-TA-800 investigation. Nokia joined this motion on February 28, 2013, and InterDigital opposed it on March 6, 2013. Also, on March 6, 2013, Samsung responded to Huawei’s and ZTE’s motion, noting that it does not join their motion, but does not oppose the requested stay. On March 12, 2013, the ALJ denied Huawei’s and ZTE’s motion to stay the investigation. On March 13, 2013, InterDigital moved to amend the USITC complaint and notice of investigation to assert allegations of infringement of recently-issued U.S. Patent No. 8,380,244 (the “’244 patent”) by all 337-TA-868 Respondents. On March 25, 2013, the 337-TA-868 Respondents opposed InterDigital’s motion. On May 10, 2013, the ALJ denied InterDigital’s motion to amend the complaint. On July 18, 2013, Samsung moved to stay the 337-TA-868 investigation pending disposition by the Commission of the 337-TA-800 investigation, which was scheduled to be completed by December 19, 2013. InterDigital opposed that motion on July 29, 2013. On August 8, 2013, the ALJ denied the motion. On June 19, 2013, in an effort to streamline the evidentiary hearing and narrow the remaining issues, InterDigital filed an unopposed motion to partially terminate the investigation due to InterDigital’s withdrawal of over 30 collective claims from five of the seven asserted patents. The ALJ granted the motion on June 24, 2013. On August 22, 2013, InterDigital also filed an unopposed motion to partially terminate the investigation due to InterDigital’s withdrawal of eight collective claims from the other two asserted patents. The ALJ granted the motion on August 26, 2013. On December 6, 2013, Samsung moved for partial summary determination that Samsung does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,502,406 (the “’406 patent”). On January 15, 2014, InterDigital and Samsung submitted a joint stipulation in which the parties agreed to the termination of the ’406 patent from the Investigation in view of the USITC’s claim construction and determination in the 337-TA-800 investigation that the asserted claims of the ’406 patent were not infringed. On January 24, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial determination granting Samsung’s motion. On January 31, 2014, InterDigital petitioned the USITC for review of the initial determination terminating the 337-TA-868 investigation as to the ‘406 patent. On February 24, 2014, the Commission determined not to review the initial determination, making it a determination of the Commission. On April 14, 2014, InterDigital filed a petition for review of the Commission’s determination with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). On December 6, 2013, Samsung moved for partial summary determination that certain of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 (“the ’966 patent”), 7,286,847 (“the ’847 patent”), and 7,706, 830 (“the ’830 patent”) are invalid for lack of sufficient written description. ZTE and Huawei joined Samsung’s motion on December 12, 2013. InterDigital opposed Samsung’s motion on December 18, 2013. On January 30, 2014, the ALJ denied the motion. On December 12, 2013, Samsung moved for partial summary determination that, in view of the Commission’s claim construction and determination in the 337-TA-800 investigation, it does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,009,636 (the “’636 patent”), and the ’830, ’966, and ’847 patents. Huawei and ZTE joined Samsung’s motion on December 12, 2013 and December 13, 2013, respectively. InterDigital opposed Samsung’s motion on January 2, 2014. On February 5, 2014, the ALJ granted in part and denied in part the motion. Specifically, the ALJ granted the motion with respect to the ’830 and ’636 patents, and denied the motion with respect to the ’966 and ’847 patents. On February 14, 2014, InterDigital petitioned the USITC for review of the initial determination terminating the 337-TA-868 investigation as to the ’830 and ’636 Patents. On March 5, 2014, the Commission denied this petition. On April 14, 2014, InterDigital filed a petition for review of the Commission’s determination with the Federal Circuit. On December 12, 2013, Respondents moved for summary determination that InterDigital has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151 (“the ’151 patent”). InterDigital opposed the motion on January 2, 2014. On January 30, 2014, the ALJ denied the motion. On December 12, 2013, InterDigital moved for summary determination that Respondents infringe limitations of the asserted claims of the ’966 and ’847 patents. Respondents opposed the motion on January 2, 2014. InterDigital moved for leave to file a reply on January 16, 2014, and Respondents opposed InterDigital’s motion for leave on January 23, 2014. On January 30, 2014, the ALJ denied the motion. On December 12, 2013, InterDigital moved for summary determination that the ’151 patent is not unenforceable for inequitable conduct. Respondents opposed InterDigital’s motion on January 2, 2014. InterDigital moved for leave to file a reply on January 13, 2014, and Respondents opposed InterDigital’s motion for leave on January 16, 2014. On February 4, 2014, the ALJ denied the motion. On December 12, 2013, Samsung moved to terminate the investigation as to U.S. Patent No. 7,616,970 (the “’970 patent”) in view of the USITC’s determination in the 337-TA-800 investigation that the asserted claims of the ’970 patent are not valid. On January 6, 2014, InterDigital responded to this motion and stated that, subject to its objection to the Commission’s final determination in the 337-TA-800 investigation and reserving its right to appeal that determination, InterDigital acquiesced to the termination of the 337-TA-868 investigation as to the ’970 patent. On January 6, 2014, the Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations responded in support of the underlying legal analysis but stated that it would not support the motion in the form of a motion to terminate. Samsung withdrew the motion to terminate and, on January 9, 2014, Samsung moved for partial summary determination of no violation of Section 337 as to the ‘970 patent in view of the USITC’s determination in the 337-TA-800 investigation that the asserted claims of the ’970 patent are not valid. On January 10, 2014, InterDigital responded to this motion and stated that, subject to its objection to the Commission’s final determination in the 337-TA-800 investigation and reserving its right to appeal that determination, InterDigital acquiesced to the termination of the 337-TA-868 investigation as to the ’970 patent. On January 15, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that the ALJ is bound by the Commission’s determination in the 337-TA-800 investigation and granting Samsung’s motion. On January 27, 2014, InterDigital petitioned the USITC for review of the initial determination terminating the 337-TA-868 investigation as to the ’970 patent, and on February 11, 2014, the USITC denied this petition. On April 14, 2014, InterDigital filed a petition for review of the Commission’s determination with the Federal Circuit. On April 24, 2014, the Samsung Respondents filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the appeal filed with the Federal Circuit by InterDigital on April 14, 2014. The Federal Circuit granted Samsung’s unopposed motion on May 1, 2014. On May 13, 2014, InterDigital, the USITC and Samsung filed a joint motion to stay the appeal filed by InterDigital on April 14, 2014, pending resolution of the appeal of the 337-TA- 800 investigation, discussed below. The court granted the parties’ joint motion on May 30, 2014. On December 23, 2013, InterDigital and Huawei reached a settlement agreement to enter into binding arbitration to resolve their global patent licensing disputes (see "Huawei Arbitration" below). Pursuant to the settlement agreement, InterDigital and Huawei moved to dismiss all litigation matters pending between the parties except the action filed by Huawei in China to set a FRAND rate for the licensing of InterDigital’s Chinese standards-essential patents (discussed below under “Huawei China Proceedings”), the decision in which InterDigital is permitted to further appeal. On January 2, 2014, InterDigital and Huawei filed a joint motion to terminate the 337-TA-868 investigation as to the Huawei Respondents on the basis of this confidential settlement agreement between the parties. On the same day, InterDigital and Huawei also moved to stay the procedural schedule with respect to the Huawei Respondents pending the parties’ motion to terminate. On January 6, 2014, the ALJ granted the motion to stay, and on January 16, 2014, the ALJ granted the joint motion to terminate the 337-TA-868 investigation as to the Huawei Respondents. On February 12, 2014, the USITC determined not to review the initial determination terminating the Huawei Respondents from the 337-TA-868 investigation. From February 10 to February 20, 2014, ALJ Essex presided over the evidentiary hearing in this investigation. The patents in issue in this investigation as of the hearing were the '966 and '847 patents asserted against ZTE and Samsung, and the '151 patent asserted against ZTE, Samsung and Nokia. On March 7, 2014, InterDigital and Respondents filed opening post-hearing briefs. On March 21, 2014, InterDigital and Respondents filed reply post-hearing briefs. On June 3, 2014, InterDigital and Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Samsung on the basis of settlement. The ALJ granted the joint motion by initial determination issued on June 9, 2014, and the USITC determined not to review the initial determination on June 30, 2014. On July 9, 2014, in view of the USITC’s termination of the 337-TA-868 investigation as to Samsung on the basis of settlement, InterDigital and Samsung jointly moved to dismiss the appeal of the 337-TA-868 investigation filed by InterDigital on April 14, 2014. The Federal Circuit granted the motion to dismiss the appeal on July 11, 2014. On June 13, 2014, the ALJ issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) in the 337-TA-868 investigation. In the ID, the ALJ found that no violation of Section 337 has occurred in connection with the importation of 3G/4G devices by ZTE or Nokia, on the basis that the accused devices do not infringe asserted claims 1-6, 8-9, 16-21 or 23-24 of the ’151 patent, claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, or 11 of the ’966 patent, or claims 3 or 5 of the ’847 patent. The ALJ also found that claim 16 of the ’151 patent was invalid as indefinite. In concluding that the accused devices do not infringe the asserted claims in the ’966 and ’847 “power ramp-up” patents, the ALJ’s decision hinged on the construction of one patent claim term (“successively transmits/transmitted signals”) related to a claim term that InterDigital believes the Commission misconstrued in its decision in the previous 337-TA-800 investigation regarding the same family of patents. As discussed below, InterDigital has appealed that claim construction from the 337-TA-800 investigation to the Federal Circuit. InterDigital believes it has a strong appeal based on a favorable prior ruling from the Federal Circuit related to this claim term on both the ’966 and ’847 patents, a favorable decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware involving this claim term in these same patents, and the Commission’s own decision in connection with the remand proceeding in the 337-TA-613 investigation, discussed below, dealing with these patents. The ALJ also determined that, except for claim 16 of the ’151 patent, none of the asserted patents were invalid. The ALJ further determined that InterDigital did not violate any FRAND obligations, a conclusion also reached by the ALJ in the 337-TA-800 investigation, and that Respondents have engaged in patent “hold out.” Additionally, the ID recognized that both InterDigital’s licensing and research and development programs satisfy the “economic prong” of the Section 337 domestic industry requirement, confirming numerous prior rulings by the Commission in InterDigital USITC investigations as well as by the Federal Circuit in affirming the Commission’s domestic industry conclusions in the 337-TA-613 investigation. The ALJ found, however, that InterDigital did not establish the “technical prong” of the domestic industry requirement for the same reasons he concluded there was no infringement by the accused products. Finally, the ALJ recommended that, should the Commission find a violation of section 337, it should issue a cease and desist order against Nokia and an exclusion order directed to infringing products. The ALJ recommended, however, that the effective date of any exclusion order should be delayed by six months. On June 30, 2014, InterDigital filed a Petition for Review with the USITC seeking review and reversal of the ALJ’s conclusion that claim 16 of the ‘151 patent is invalid; that none of the asserted patents are infringed; that InterDigital did not establish the “technical prong” of the domestic industry requirement; and that the effective date of any exclusion order should be delayed by six months. On the same day, Respondents filed a Conditional Petition for Review urging alternative grounds for affirmance of the ID’s finding that Section 337 was not violated and a Conditional Petition for Review with respect to FRAND issues. On July 8, 2014, oppositions to the petitions were filed. On May 20, 2014, Nokia Corp. and Microsoft Mobile Oy (“MMO”) moved to substitute MMO for Nokia Corp. as a respondent in the investigation. On May 30, 2014, InterDigital responded in support of the motion as to the addition of MMO to the investigation but opposed the motion to the extent it sought termination of the investigation as to Nokia Corp. Nokia Corp. and MMO sought leave to reply in further support of their motion on June 3, 2014, which InterDigital opposed on June 5, 2014. By initial determination dated June 13, 2014, the ALJ granted the motion as to the addition of MMO as a respondent in the investigation but denied the motion as it related to termination of the investigation as to Nokia Corp. On June 23, 2014, Nokia Corp. and MMO petitioned the Commission for review of the initial determination to the extent it added MMO to the investigation but did not substitute MMO for Nokia Corp., which InterDigital opposed on June 30, 2014. On July 14, 2014, the Commission determined not to review this initial determination. On August 8, 2014, the Commission determined to review in part the June 13, 2014 ID and terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation. With respect to the ’966 and ’847 patents, the Commission determined not to review the ID’s construction of “successively transmitted signals”/”successively transmits signals,” and determined not to review the ID’s conclusion that, based on that construction, the accused products do not infringe and the domestic industry products do not practice the asserted claims of the ’966 and ’847 patents. The Commission also determined not to review the ID’s conclusion that claim 3 of the ’847 patent is not invalid for lack of written description. With respect to the ’151 patent, the Commission determined not to review the ID’s conclusion that the accused products do not infringe and the domestic industry products do not practice the “same physical downlink control channel” limitation of independent claims 1 and 16. The Commission also determined not to review the ID’s conclusion that claim 16 is invalid for indefiniteness. The Commission further determined to review the ID’s construction of “and to” in claim 16 of the ’151 patent, affording that term its plain and ordinary meaning. In view of that that construction, the Commission reversed the ID’s conclusion, which was based on the reversed claim construction, that claims 16-21 and 23-24 are not infringed. The Commission also determined to review the ID’s infringement analysis of the term “and if so” in claim 1 and, on review, took no position concerning whether the accused products practice the determining steps in sequence as required in claims 1-6 and 8-9. Except as noted above concerning whether the domestic industry products practice the asserted patents, the Commission took no position on the remaining domestic industry-related issues raised in the petitions for review. In addition, the Commission took no position on the FRAND issues raised by Respondents. On October 10, 2014, InterDigital filed a petition for review with the Federal Circuit, appealing the adverse determinations in the Commission’s August 8, 2014 final determination. On November 5, 2014, MMO and Nokia filed a motion for leave to intervene in the appeal. On November 6, 2014, ZTE also filed a motion for leave to intervene. The Federal Circuit granted both of these motions on November 7, 2014. On December 29, 2014, InterDigital and the USITC filed a joint unopposed motion to stay the appeal pending the Federal Circuit’s final disposition in the appeal of the 337-TA- 800 investigation (described below). InterDigital also notified the court that it would not pursue its appeal of the Commission's determination as it relates to the '151 patent. The appeal is thus directed only to the '966 and '847 patents. The court granted the motion to stay on January 9, 2015. Related Delaware District Court Proceedings On January 2, 2013, the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc. and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. filed four related district court actions in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) against the 337-TA-868 Respondents. These complaints allege that each of the defendants infringes the same patents with respect to the same products alleged in the complaint filed by InterDigital in USITC Proceeding (337-TA-868). The complaints seek permanent injunctions 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 January 24, 2013, Huawei filed its answer and counterclaims to InterDigital's Delaware District Court complaint. Huawei asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, equitable estoppel, waiver of right to enjoin and declarations that InterDigital has not offered or granted Huawei licenses on FRAND terms, declarations seeking the determination of FRAND terms and declarations of noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the asserted patents. In addition to the declaratory relief specified in its counterclaims, Huawei seeks specific performance of InterDigital's purported contracts with Huawei and standards-setting organizations, appropriate damages in an amount to be determined at trial, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On January 31, 2013, ZTE filed its answer and counterclaims to InterDigital's Delaware District Court complaint; ZTE asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, equitable estoppel, waiver of right to enjoin and declarations that InterDigital has not offered ZTE licenses on FRAND terms, declarations seeking the determination of FRAND terms and declarations of noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability. In addition to the declaratory relief specified in its counterclaims, ZTE seeks specific performance of InterDigital's purported contracts with ZTE and standards-setting organizations, appropriate damages in an amount to be determined at trial, reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On February 11, 2013, Huawei and ZTE filed motions to expedite discovery and trial on their FRAND-related counterclaims. Huawei sought a schedule for discovery and trial on its FRAND-related counterclaims that would afford Huawei the opportunity to accept a FRAND license rate at the earliest opportunity, and in any case before December 28, 2013. ZTE sought a trial on its FRAND-related counterclaims no later than November 2013. On March 14, 2013, those motions were denied. On February 28, 2013, Nokia filed its answer and counterclaims to InterDigital's Delaware District Court complaint, and then amended its answer and counterclaims on March 5, 2013. Nokia asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, equitable estoppel, a declaration setting FRAND terms and conditions, a declaration that InterDigital is estopped from seeking an exclusion order based on its U.S. declared-essential patents, a declaration of patent misuse, a declaration that InterDigital has failed to offer FRAND terms, a declaration that Nokia has an implied license to the asserted patents, and declarations of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability. In addition to the declaratory relief specified in its counterclaims, Nokia seeks an order that InterDigital specifically perform its purported contracts by not seeking a USITC exclusion order for its essential patents and by granting Nokia a license on FRAND terms and conditions, an injunction preventing InterDigital from participating in a USITC investigation based on essential patents, appropriate damages in an amount to be determined, including all attorney’s fees and costs spent in participating in all three USITC Investigations (337-TA-868, 337-TA-800 and 337-TA-613), and any other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On March 13, 2013, InterDigital filed an amended Delaware District Court complaint against Nokia and Samsung, respectively, to assert allegations of infringement of the recently issued '244 patent. On April 1, 2013, Nokia filed its answer and counterclaims to InterDigital’s amended Delaware District Court complaint. On April 24, 2013, Samsung filed its answer and a counterclaim to InterDigital's amended Delaware District Court complaint. Samsung asserted a counterclaim for breach of contract. Samsung seeks a judgment that InterDigital has breached its purported contractual commitments, a judgment that the asserted patents are not infringed, are invalid, and unenforceable, an order that InterDigital specifically perform its purported contractual commitments, damages in an amount to be determined, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and any other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On March 21, 2013, pursuant to stipulation, the Delaware District Court granted InterDigital leave to file an amended complaint against Huawei and ZTE, respectively, to assert allegations of infringement of the '244 patent. On March 22, 2013, Huawei and ZTE filed their respective answers and counterclaims to InterDigital’s amended Delaware District Court complaint. On April 9, 2013, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss Huawei’s and ZTE’s counterclaims relating to their FRAND allegations. On April 22, 2013, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss Nokia’s counterclaims relating to its FRAND allegations. On July 12, 2013, the Delaware District Court held a hearing on InterDigital’s motions to dismiss. By order issued the same day, the Delaware District Court granted InterDigital’s motions, dismissing counterclaims for equitable estoppel, implied license, waiver of the right to injunction or exclusionary relief, and violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 with prejudice. It further dismissed the counterclaims for breach of contract and declaratory relief related to InterDigital’s FRAND commitments with leave to amend. In June 2013, the Delaware District Court set separate schedules for InterDigital’s cases against Nokia, Huawei and ZTE, on the one hand, and Samsung, on the other. On June 10, 2013, the court set a schedule in InterDigital’s case against Samsung that includes a trial beginning on June 15, 2015. On June 26, 2013, the court set a common pretrial schedule in InterDigital’s cases against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE, along with separate trials beginning on the following days: September 8, 2014 for Nokia, October 6, 2014 for Huawei, and October 20, 2014 for ZTE. On August 6, 2013, Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE filed answers and amended counterclaims for breach of contract and for declaratory judgments seeking determination of FRAND terms. The counterclaims also continue to seek declarations of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. Nokia also continued to assert a counterclaim for a declaration of patent misuse. On August 30, 2013, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment counterclaims relating to the request for determination of FRAND terms. On September 30, 2013, Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE filed their oppositions to this motion to dismiss. On October 17, 2013, InterDigital filed its reply. The motion was heard on November 26, 2013. On May 28, 2014, the court granted InterDigital’s motion and dismissed defendants’ FRAND-related declaratory judgment counterclaims, ruling that such declaratory judgments would serve no useful purpose. On December 30, 2013, InterDigital and Huawei filed a stipulation of dismissal on account of the confidential settlement agreement and agreement to arbitrate their disputes in this action. On the same day, the Delaware District Court granted the stipulation of dismissal. On February 11, 2014, the Delaware District Court judge granted an InterDigital, Nokia, and ZTE stipulated Amended Scheduling Order that bifurcated issues relating to damages, FRAND-related affirmative defenses, and any FRAND-related counterclaims. On January 5, 2015, the Delaware District Court entered a scheduling order that contained a schedule related to damages and FRAND-related issues. Accordingly, trials related to damages and FRAND-related issues are tentatively scheduled for March 21, 2016 with ZTE and April 11, 2016 with MMO. On March 12, 2014, the Delaware District Court judge held a claim construction hearing in the Nokia and ZTE cases. The court issued a claim construction opinion on April 22, 2014. As to the ’966 and ’847 patents asserted in the ZTE case (which patents are also in issue in the 337-TA-868 investigation and the related Samsung Delaware action, as well as in the 337-TA-613 investigation and the related stayed Delaware action, and are also related to the ’830 and ’636 patents in issue in the 337-TA-800 investigation and in the appeal of that investigation before the Federal Circuit as well as the related stayed Delaware action), the court adopted InterDigital’s proposed constructions for the three claim terms construed by the court. As to the ’151 patent asserted in both the Nokia and ZTE cases (which patent is also in issue in the 337-TA-868 investigation and the Samsung Delaware action) and the ’244 patent asserted in both the Nokia and ZTE cases (which patent is also in issue in the related Samsung Delaware action, and which is related to the ’970 patent asserted in each of the 337-TA-800 and 337-TA-868 investigations and in appeals of those investigations before the Federal Circuit), the court adopted certain constructions proposed by InterDigital, certain constructions proposed by Nokia and/or ZTE, and arrived at certain other constructions based on its own analysis. The court also ordered the parties to confer regarding which terms remain in dispute in light of the court’s opinion. The court’s claim constructions, which are not final and may be altered prior to the trials against ZTE and Nokia, may be considered and given weight by the USITC and its ALJs, as well as other courts, at their discretion. The court also found claim 16 of the asserted ’151 patent to be invalid as indefinite. InterDigital can appeal the court’s indefiniteness ruling as to claim 16 upon issuance of judgment by the court. On May 29, 2014, the court issued an order construing the claim term “circuit,” which appears in the ’847 patent, adopting a construction that InterDigital agreed would be acceptable to it and rejecting narrowing limitations proposed by ZTE. On June 23, 2014, the court held a supplemental claim construction hearing on the term “synchronized to [a/the] pilot signal,” which appears in the ’847 patent. The parties submitted supplemental letter briefs concerning construction of “synchronized to [a/the] pilot signal” on June 27 and 30, 2014. On August 8, 2014, the court issued a further claim construction ruling construing the term “synchronized to [a/the] pilot signal” to mean “establish a timing reference with a pilot signal.” On September 2, 2014, Nokia and MMO moved the court for further construction of the term “logical connection” in the ’244 patent. InterDigital opposed that request. On September 22, 2014, the court denied the request of Nokia and MMO, declining to construe the term further. On June 10, 2014, InterDigital filed a motion seeking summary judgment (1) that the asserted ’151 patent is not unenforceable by reason of inequitable conduct; (2) that the asserted claims of the ’244 patent are not anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art; and (3) that the asserted claims of the ’966 and ’847 patents are not invalid for lack of enablement or written description. Also on June 10, 2014, Nokia and ZTE filed motions seeking summary judgment (1) that the asserted claims of the ’151 patent are not infringed; (2) that the asserted claims of the ’966 and ’847 patents are not infringed; and (3) that the asserted claims of the ’244 patent are not infringed and are invalid for lack of written description. On June 27, 2014, the parties filed oppositions to the pending motions for summary judgment. On July 10 and 11, 2014, the parties filed replies in further support of their respective motions for summary judgment. On August 28, 2014, the court (1) granted in part InterDigital’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted ’151 patent is not unenforceable by reason of inequitable conduct, holding that only one of the references forming the basis of defendants’ allegations would remain in issue, (2) denied InterDigital’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’244 patent are not anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, (3) granted InterDigital’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’966 and ’847 patents are not invalid for lack of enablement, but denied the motion as to written description, and (4) denied each of defendants’ motions for summary judgment. On June 3, 2014, InterDigital and Samsung jointly moved to stay the case against Samsung until August 18, 2014, to allow the parties time to fulfill certain contractual obligations under their settlement agreement before they jointly stipulate to dismissal with prejudice of the action. On June 9, 2014, the court granted the parties’ joint motion. On August 5, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal in light of the parties’ settlement agreement. On the same day, the court granted the stipulation of dismissal and dismissed the action with prejudice. On July 1, 2014, InterDigital moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) to join MMO into the case. On July 22, 2014 defendants Nokia Corp. and MMO filed a cross-motion seeking to substitute MMO for Nokia Corp. in this case. On August 28, 2014, the court granted InterDigital’s motion to join MMO into the case, and granted in part and denied in part the cross-motion of Nokia Corp. and MMO to substitute, permitting MMO to enter the case as a defendant but declining to dismiss Nokia Corp. from the action. On July 3, 2014, Nokia filed a motion to stay this Delaware action in view of the pending appeal of the 337-TA-800 investigation and the ID issued in the 337-TA-868 investigation. On July 8, 2014, InterDigital opposed Nokia’s motion, and on July 9, 2014, Nokia filed a reply in further support of its motion. Following a hearing held on July 10, 2014, the Delaware District Court denied Nokia’s motion to stay the case. On August 29, 2014, a final pre-trial conference was held for the Nokia and MMO trial. On that same day the Delaware District Court continued the trial as to Nokia and MMO to a date to be determined. On September 4, 2014, the defendants requested that the court permit the Nokia and MMO trial to proceed in place of the ZTE trial, scheduled to commence on October 20, 2014. InterDigital opposed that request. On September 16, 2014, the court denied defendants’ request. On September 26, 2014, the Delaware District Court re-scheduled the Nokia and MMO trial to commence on March 9, 2015. The ZTE trial addressing infringement and validity of the ‘966, ‘847, ‘244 and ‘151 patents was held from October 20 to October 27, 2014. During the trial, the judge determined that further construction of certain claim language of the ‘151 patent is required, and the judge decided to hold another trial as to ZTE's infringement of the '151 patent at a later date. On October 28, 2014, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of InterDigital, finding that the ‘966, ‘847 and ‘244 patents are all valid and infringed by ZTE 3G and 4G cellular devices. The court issued formal judgment to this effect on October 29, 2014. As noted above, the Delaware District Court judge previously bifurcated issues relating to damages, FRAND-related affirmative defenses, and FRAND-related counterclaims, and trials related to damages and FRAND-related issues are tentatively scheduled for March 21, 2016 with ZTE and April 11, 2016 with MMO. On November 26, 2014, ZTE filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of the '966, '847 and ’244 patents are not infringed and, in the alternative, for a new trial. InterDigital filed an opposition on December 15, 2014, and ZTE filed a reply on January 7, 2015. The motion is fully briefed and remains pending. On December 12, 2014, MMO, Nokia Corp., and Nokia Inc. filed a motion for leave to file additional claim construction briefs relating to three claim terms of the ’244 patent. On January 5, 2015, InterDigital opposed defendants’ motion, and on January 15, 2015, defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion. On January 21, 2015, the court granted defendants’ motion as to two of the claim terms, permitting additional briefing in connection with those terms, and denied the motion as to the third. On January 5, 2015, the court issued an order scheduling a claim construction hearing on February 27, 2015 to address the further construction of certain claim terms of the ’151 patent. On January 21, 2015 the court ordered that the scope of the two claim terms of the ’244 patent will also be addressed at the hearing on February 27, 2015. In its January 5, 2015 order, the court also scheduled the infringement trials against ZTE as to the '151 patent for April 20, 2015, and against Nokia and MMO as to the ’151 and ’244 patents for April 27, 2015. In addition, the order scheduled trial involving Nokia, MMO and InterDigital on the issue of inequitable conduct on May 6, 2015. Huawei Arbitration On December 23, 2013, InterDigital and Huawei agreed to engage in an expedited binding arbitration to resolve their licensing disputes. Pursuant to their agreement, on April 9, 2014, InterDigital and Huawei initiated an arbitration with the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) jointly seeking a determination by an arbitral tribunal of FRAND royalty terms and conditions to be included in a binding worldwide patent license agreement to take effect upon issuance of the arbitration award. An arbitration hearing was held on January 12-16, 2015. This arbitration is expected to be completed in 2015. Huawei China Proceedings On February 21, 2012, InterDigital was served with two complaints filed by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 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 (now InterDigital Communications, Inc.). This first complaint alleges that InterDigital had a 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 sought relief in the amount of 20.0 million RMB (approximately $3.2 million based on the exchange rate as of September 30, 2013), 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 the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital Communications, LLC (now InterDigital Communications, Inc.), InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. and IPR Licensing, Inc. 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 FRAND terms; and that InterDigital has failed to negotiate on FRAND terms with Huawei. Huawei is asking the court to determine the FRAND rate for licensing essential Chinese patents to Huawei and also seeks compensation for its costs associated with this matter. On February 4, 2013, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court issued rulings in the two proceedings. With respect to the first complaint, the court decided that InterDigital had violated the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law by (i) making proposals for royalties from Huawei that the court believed were excessive, (ii) tying the licensing of essential patents to the licensing of non-essential patents, (iii) requesting as part of its licensing proposals that Huawei provide a grant-back of certain patent rights to InterDigital and (iv) commencing a USITC action against Huawei while still in discussions with Huawei for a license. Based on these findings, the court ordered InterDigital to cease the alleged excessive pricing and alleged improper bundling of InterDigital's Chinese essential and non-essential patents, and to pay Huawei 20.0 million RMB (approximately $3.2 million) in damages related to attorneys’ fees and other charges, without disclosing a factual basis for its determination of damages. The court dismissed Huawei's remaining allegations, including Huawei's claim that InterDigital improperly sought a worldwide license and improperly sought to bundle the licensing of essential patents on multiple generations of technologies. With respect to the second complaint, the court determined that, despite the fact that the FRAND requirement originates from ETSI's Intellectual Property Rights policy, which refers to French law, InterDigital's license offers to Huawei should be evaluated under Chinese law. Under Chinese law, the court concluded that the offers did not comply with FRAND. The court further ruled that the royalties to be paid by Huawei for InterDigital's 2G, 3G and 4G essential Chinese patents under Chinese law should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sales price of each Huawei product, without explanation as to how it arrived at this calculation. On February 17, 2013, Huawei filed a notice of appeal with respect to the first proceeding, seeking a finding that InterDigital’s conduct constitutes refusal to deal and an order that InterDigital cease purportedly tying 3G and 4G essential patents. On March 11, 2013, InterDigital filed notices of appeal with respect to the judgments in both proceedings, seeking reversal of the court’s February 4, 2013 rulings. On July 2, 2013, the Guangdong Province High Court heard argument on InterDigital’s appeal with respect to the second proceeding. On July 9, 2013, the Guangdong Province High Court heard argument on InterDigital’s and Huawei’s appeal with respect to the first proceeding. On October 16, 2013, the Guangdong Province High Court issued a ruling affirming the ruling of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in the second proceeding, and on October 21, 2013, the Guangdong Province High Court issued a ruling affirming the ruling of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in the first proceeding. InterDigital believes that the decisions in the first and second proceedings are seriously flawed both legally and factually. For instance, in determining a purported FRAND rate, the Chinese courts applied an incorrect economic analysis by evaluating InterDigital’s lump-sum patent license agreement with Apple in hindsight to posit a running royalty rate. Indeed, the ALJ in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-800 rejected that type of improper analysis. Moreover, the Chinese courts had an incomplete record and applied incorrect facts, particularly in view of the arbitration decision, discussed below, which found that InterDigital’s license agreement with Apple is limited in scope. InterDigital learned that Huawei filed in 2013 a new Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law complaint against InterDigital in the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. At Huawei’s request, in connection with InterDigital and Huawei’s confidential settlement agreement, this complaint was dismissed on January 9, 2014. On April 14, 2014, InterDigital filed a petition for retrial of the second proceeding with the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”), seeking dismissal of the judgment or at least a higher, market-based royalty rate for a license to InterDigital’s Chinese standards-essential patents (“SEPs”). The petition for retrial argues, for example, that (1) the lower court improperly determined a Chinese FRAND running royalty rate by using as a benchmark the Apple lump sum fixed payment license agreement, and looking in hindsight at the unexpectedly successful sales of Apple iPhones to construct an artificial running royalty rate that neither InterDigital nor Apple could have intended and that would have varied significantly depending on the relative success or failure in hindsight of Apple iPhone sales; (2) the Apple license agreement was also an inappropriate benchmark because its scope of product coverage was significantly limited as compared to the license that the court was considering for Huawei, particularly when there are other more comparable license agreements; and (3) if the appropriate benchmarks had been used, and the court had considered the range of royalties offered by other similarly situated SEP holders in the wireless telecommunications industry, the court would have determined a FRAND royalty that was substantially higher than 0.019%, and would have found, consistent with findings of the ALJ’s initial determination in the USITC 337-TA-800 proceeding, that there was no proof that InterDigital’s offers to Huawei violated its FRAND commitments. The SPC held a hearing on October 31, 2014, regarding whether to grant a retrial and requested that both parties provide additional information regarding the facts and legal theories underlying the case. The SPC may convene a further hearing before deciding whether to grant a retrial. If the retrial is granted, the SPC will likely schedule one or more additional hearings before it issues a decision on the merits of the case. Investigation by National Development and Reform Commission of China On September 23, 2013, counsel for InterDigital was informed by China’s National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) that NDRC had initiated a formal investigation into whether InterDigital has violated China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”) with respect to practices related to the licensing of InterDigital’s standards-essential patents to Chinese companies. Companies found to violate the AML may be subject to a cease and desist order, fines and disgorgement of any illegal gains. On March 3, 2014, the Company submitted to NDRC, pursuant to a procedure set out in the AML, a formal application for suspension of the investigation that included proposed commitments by the Company. On May 22, 2014, NDRC formally suspended its investigation of the Company based on the commitments proposed by the Company. The Company’s commitments with respect to the licensing of its patent portfolio for wireless mobile standards to Chinese manufacturers of cellular terminal units ("Chinese Manufacturers") are as follows:
1. | Whenever InterDigital engages with a Chinese Manufacturer to license InterDigital's patent portfolio for 2G, 3G and 4G wireless mobile standards, InterDigital will offer such Chinese Manufacturer the option of taking a worldwide portfolio license of only its standards-essential wireless patents, and comply with F/RAND principles when negotiating and entering into such licensing agreements with Chinese Manufacturers.
2. | As part of its licensing offer, InterDigital will not require that a Chinese Manufacturer agree to a royalty-free, reciprocal cross-license of such Chinese Manufacturer's similarly categorized standards-essential wireless patents.
3. | Prior to commencing any action against a Chinese Manufacturer in which InterDigital may seek exclusionary or injunctive relief for the infringement of any of its wireless standards-essential patents, InterDigital will offer such Chinese Manufacturer the option to enter into expedited binding arbitration under fair and reasonable procedures to resolve the royalty rate and other terms of a worldwide license under InterDigital's wireless standards-essential patents. If the Chinese Manufacturer accepts InterDigital's binding arbitration offer or otherwise enters into an agreement with InterDigital on a binding arbitration mechanism, InterDigital will, in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement and patent license agreement, refrain from seeking exclusionary or injunctive relief against such company.
The commitments contained in item 3 above will expire five years from the effective date of the suspension of the investigation, or May 22, 2019. Nokia and ZTE 2011 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800) and Related Delaware District Court Proceeding USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800) On July 26, 2011, InterDigital's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, LLC (now InterDigital Communications, Inc.), InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. filed a complaint with the USITC against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, the “337-TA-800 Respondents”), alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in that they engaged in unfair trade practices by selling for importation into the United States, importing into the United States and/or 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 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 United States any infringing 3G wireless devices (and components) that are imported by or on behalf of the 337-TA-800 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 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. as 337-TA-800 Respondents to the complaint and investigation, and that the Commission add an additional patent to the complaint and investigation as well. On December 5, 2011, the ALJ overseeing the proceeding granted this motion and, on December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's determination, thus adding the LG entities as 337-TA-800 Respondents and including allegations of infringement of the additional patent. On January 6, 2012, the ALJ granted the parties' motion to extend the target date for completion of the investigation from February 28, 2013 to June 28, 2013. On March 23, 2012, the ALJ issued a new procedural schedule for the investigation, setting a trial date of October 22, 2012 to November 2, 2012. On January 20, 2012, LG filed a motion to terminate the investigation as it relates to the LG entities, alleging that there is an arbitrable dispute. The ALJ granted LG's motion on June 4, 2012. On July 6, 2012, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's order, and the investigation was terminated as to LG. On August 27, 2012, InterDigital filed a petition for review of the ALJ's order in the Federal Circuit. On September 14, 2012, the Federal Circuit granted LG's motion to intervene. On October 23, 2012, InterDigital filed its opening brief. Responsive briefs were filed on January 22, 2013, and InterDigital's reply brief was filed on February 8, 2013. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on April 4, 2013. On June 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit reversed the termination of the investigation as to LG, finding that LG’s request for termination and arbitration was wholly groundless, and remanded to the Commission for further proceedings. On July 19, 2013, LG filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On October 3, 2013, the Federal Circuit denied LG’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc and issued its mandate on October 10, 2013. LG filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Federal Circuit’s judgment on December 31, 2013. On January 13, 2014, InterDigital filed a motion to terminate the 337-TA-800 investigation as to the LG Respondents. No opposition to InterDigital’s motion was filed. On February 12, 2014, the Commission granted InterDigital’s motion to terminate the investigation as to LG. In terminating the 337-TA-800 investigation, the Commission adopted the ALJ’s determination that the ‘830, ‘636 and ‘406 patents and U.S. Patent No. 7,706,332 (the "‘332 patent") are not invalid. The Commission declined to take a position regarding InterDigital’s domestic industry or FRAND issues. On April 21, 2014, the Supreme Court granted LG’s petition for certiorari, vacating the underlying Federal Circuit decision and remanding the case to the Federal Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot (in light of InterDigital’s decision to terminate the 337-TA-800 investigation as to LG). On March 21, 2012, InterDigital filed an unopposed motion requesting that the Commission add newly formed entity Huawei Device USA, Inc. as a 337-TA-800 Respondent. On April 11, 2012, the ALJ granted this motion and, on May 1, 2012, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's determination, thus adding Huawei Device USA, Inc. as a 337-TA-800 Respondent. On July 20, 2012, in an effort to streamline the evidentiary hearing and narrow the remaining issues, InterDigital voluntarily moved to withdraw certain claims from the investigation, including all of the asserted claims from U.S. Patent No. 7,349,540 (the "‘540 patent"). By doing so, InterDigital expressly reserved all arguments regarding the infringement, validity and enforceability of those claims. On July 24, 2012, the ALJ granted the motion. On August 8, 2012, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's Initial Determination granting the motion to terminate the investigation as to the asserted claims of the '540 patent. On August 23, 2012, the parties jointly moved to extend the target date in view of certain outstanding discovery to be provided by the 337-TA-800 Respondents and third parties. On September 10, 2012, the ALJ granted the motion and issued an Initial Determination setting the evidentiary hearing for February 12, 2013 to February 22, 2013. The ALJ also set June 28, 2013 as the deadline for his Initial Determination as to violation and October 28, 2013 as the target date for the Commission's Final Determination in the investigation. On October 1, 2012, the Commission determined not to review the Initial Determination setting those deadlines, thereby adopting them. On January 2, 2013, in an effort to streamline the evidentiary hearing and narrow the remaining issues, InterDigital voluntarily moved to withdraw certain additional patent claims from the investigation. By doing so, InterDigital expressly reserved all arguments regarding the infringement, validity and enforceability of those claims. On January 3, 2013, the ALJ granted the motion. On January 23, 2013, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's Initial Determination granting the motion to terminate the investigation as to those withdrawn patent claims. InterDigital continues to assert seven U.S. patents in this investigation. The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from February 12-21, 2013. The patents in issue in this investigation as of the hearing were the '830, '636, '406, '332 and '970 patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,536,013 (the "‘013 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 7,970,127 (the "‘127 patent") asserted against all of the Respondents. The parties submitted initial post-hearing briefs on March 8, 2013 and reply post-hearing briefs on March 22, 2013. The ALJ’s Initial Determination (“ID”) issued on June 28, 2013, finding no violation because the asserted patents were not infringed and/or invalid. Specifically, the ALJ found infringement with respect to claims 1-9 of the ‘970 patent, but not as to the other asserted claims of the ‘970 patent, or any of the other asserted patents. In addition, the ALJ found that the asserted claims of the ‘970, ‘013 and ‘127 patents were invalid in light of the prior art. The ALJ further found that InterDigital had established a licensing-based domestic industry. With respect to the 337-TA-800 Respondents’ FRAND and other equitable defenses, the ALJ found that Respondents had failed to prove either that InterDigital violated any FRAND obligations, that InterDigital failed to negotiate in good faith, or that InterDigital’s licensing offers were discriminatory. The ALJ also found that InterDigital is not precluded from seeking injunctive relief based on any alleged FRAND commitments. Further, the ALJ found that the 337-TA-800 Respondents had not shown that they are licensed under the asserted patents. On July 10, 2013, the ALJ issued a Recommended Determination on Remedy, concluding that if a violation is found by the Commission, the ALJ recommends the issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order as to all 337-TA-800 Respondents, and cease and desist orders as to 337-TA-800 Respondents Nokia and Huawei. Petitions for review of the ID to the Commission were filed by InterDigital and the 337-TA-800 Respondents on July 15, 2013. InterDigital requested review of certain limited erroneous claim constructions and the ALJ’s resulting erroneous determinations that the ‘830, ‘636, ‘406 and ‘332 patents were not infringed and that the claims of the ’970 patent are invalid. The 337-TA-800 Respondents requested review of the ALJ’s determination that a domestic industry exists as to each of the asserted patents. In addition, the 337-TA-800 Respondents requested review of a number of alleged claims construction errors and the impact of such alleged errors on the infringement and validity of the patents listed above, as well as review of the ALJ’s determination that Respondents are not licensed under certain of the asserted patents through a third party. Responses to the various petitions were filed on July 23, 2013. On September 4, 2013, the Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety and requested limited briefing on the issue of whether licensing-based domestic industry requires proof of “Articles protected by the patent.” Opening briefs were submitted on September 27, 2013 and replies were submitted on October 21, 2013 after the end of the government shutdown. The target date for the Commission to issue its Final Determination, which was October 28, 2013 prior to the federal government shutdown, was extended to November 13, 2013 by operation of the notice issued by the Commission on September 30, 2013 tolling all schedules and deadlines during the pendency of the federal government shutdown. On October 23, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice further extending the target date for the Commission to issue its Final Determination, in view of the federal government shutdown, from November 13, 2013 to December 19, 2013. On December 19, 2013, the Commission issued its final determination. The Commission adopted, with some modification, the ALJ’s finding of no violation of section 337 as to Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE. The Commission did not rule on any other issue, including FRAND and domestic industry, and stated that all other issues remain under review. On December 20, 2013, InterDigital filed in the Federal Circuit a petition for review seeking reversal of the Commission’s final determination. On January 17, 2014, the Nokia and ZTE Respondents moved for leave to intervene in the appeal. On January 30, 2014, the court granted these motions. On July 2, 2014, Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc., and MMO filed an unopposed motion to substitute MMO for Nokia Corporation as intervenor. The court granted this motion on July 11, 2014. On April 7, 2014, InterDigital filed its opening appellate brief. The USITC and intervenors Nokia and ZTE filed responsive briefs on July 1, 2014. InterDigital filed its reply brief on August 8, 2014. Oral argument occurred on November 7, 2014. On February 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the USITC’s determinations that the claims of the ’830, ’636, ’406 and ’332 patents were not infringed, that the claims of the ’970 patent are invalid, and that the Respondents did not violate Section 337. Related Delaware District Court Proceeding On July 26, 2011, the same date that InterDigital filed USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800), it filed a parallel action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the 337-TA-800 Respondents alleging infringement of the same asserted patents identified in USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800). 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 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800), 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 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800). On October 11, 2011, the Delaware District Court granted the defendants' motion to stay. On January 14, 2014, InterDigital and Huawei filed a stipulation of dismissal of their disputes in this action on account of the confidential settlement agreement mentioned above. On the same day, the Delaware District Court granted the stipulation of dismissal. ZTE China Proceedings On July 10 and 11, 2014, InterDigital was served with two complaints filed by ZTE Corporation in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in China on April 3, 2014. The first complaint names as defendants the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. and IPR Licensing, Inc. This complaint alleges that InterDigital has failed to comply with its FRAND obligations for the licensing of its Chinese standards-essential patents. ZTE is asking the court to determine the FRAND rate for licensing InterDigital’s standards-essential Chinese patents to ZTE and also seeks compensation for its litigation costs associated with this matter. The second complaint names as defendants InterDigital, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation and InterDigital Communications, Inc. This complaint alleges that InterDigital has a dominant market position in China and the United States in the market for the licensing of essential patents owned by InterDigital, and abused its dominant market position in violation of the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law by engaging in allegedly unlawful practices, including excessively high pricing, tying, discriminatory treatment, and imposing unreasonable trading conditions. ZTE seeks relief in the amount of 20.0 million RMB (approximately $3.3 million based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2014), an order requiring InterDigital to cease the allegedly unlawful conduct and compensation for its litigation costs associated with this matter. On August 7, 2014, InterDigital filed petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court to hear the actions. On August 28, 2014, the court denied InterDigital’s jurisdictional challenge with respect to the anti-monopoly law case. InterDigital filed an appeal of this decision on September 26, 2014. On September 28, 2014, the court denied InterDigital’s jurisdictional challenge with respect to the FRAND case, and InterDigital filed an appeal of that decision on October 27, 2014. On December 18, 2014, the Guangdong High Court issued decisions on both appeals upholding the Shenzhen Intermediate Court’s decisions that it had jurisdiction to hear these cases. The Shenzhen Court has not yet set trial dates for the anti-monopoly law or FRAND cases. InterDigital filed a petition for retrial with the Supreme People’s Court regarding its jurisdictional challenges to both cases on February 10, 2015. The Company has not recorded any accrual at December 31, 2014 for contingent losses associated with this matter, as the matter is still in a preliminary stage. LG Arbitration and Related Delaware Chancery Court Proceeding On March 19, 2012, LG Electronics, Inc. filed a demand for arbitration against the Company’s wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc. and InterDigital Communications, LLC (now InterDigital Communications, Inc.) with the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”), initiating an arbitration in Washington, D.C. LG seeks a declaration that it is licensed to certain patents owned by InterDigital, including the patents asserted against LG in USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800). On April 18, 2012, InterDigital filed an Answering Statement objecting to the jurisdiction of the ICDR on the ground that LG’s claims are not arbitrable, and denying all claims made by LG in its demand for arbitration. The issue of whether LG’s claim to arbitrability is wholly groundless was appealed to the Federal Circuit. On June 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion holding that the USITC erred in terminating USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800) as to LG because “there is no plausible argument that the parties’ dispute in this case arose under their patent license agreement” and finding that “LG’s assertion of arbitrability was ‘wholly groundless.’” The Federal Circuit reversed the USITC’s order terminating the USITC proceeding as to LG and remanded to the USITC for further proceedings. On June 25, 2013, the arbitration tribunal granted the parties’ joint request to stay the arbitration pending the exhaustion of all appellate rights from the Federal Circuit’s decision. As noted above, LG filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Federal Circuit’s ruling on December 31, 2013, and on April 21, 2014, the Supreme Court granted LG’s petition, vacating the underlying Federal Circuit decision and remanding the case to the Federal Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot (in light of InterDigital’s decision to terminate the 337-TA-800 investigation as to LG). On June 9, 2014, the arbitration tribunal lifted the temporary stay at the request of the parties. The final evidentiary hearing is scheduled to take place July 20-23, 2015. Also on June 9, 2014, LG filed an action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking a declaration that InterDigital breached a non-disclosure agreement between the parties by submitting certain evidence regarding the parties’ licensing communications to the arbitration tribunal; LG also seeks related injunctive relief. On June 23, 2014, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss LG’s complaint. The court held a hearing on InterDigital’s motion on July 16, 2014, and on August 20, 2014 the court dismissed the action without prejudice. On August 28, 2014, LG filed a notice of appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. On October 13, 2014, LG filed its opening appeal brief, on November 12, 2014, InterDigital filed its answering brief and on December 1, 2014, LG filed its reply brief. The Delaware Supreme Court will hear oral argument on LG’s appeal on March 11, 2015. Nokia 2007 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613), Related Delaware District Court Proceeding and Federal Circuit Appeal In August 2007, InterDigital filed a USITC complaint against Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc., alleging a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in that Nokia engaged in an unfair trade practice by selling for importation into the United States, importing into the United States and/or 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 a fourth patent were added to the Company’s 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. InterDigital’s 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 the filing of USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613), InterDigital 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. On August 14, 2009, the ALJ overseeing USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613) 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 ALJ 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 October 16, 2009, the Commission issued a notice that it had determined to review in part the Initial Determination, and that it affirmed the ALJ'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 ALJ's validity determinations. On review, the Commission modified the ALJ'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 Federal Circuit a petition for review of certain rulings by the USITC. 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 Final Determination. On December 17, 2009, Nokia filed a motion to intervene in the appeal, which was granted by the Federal Circuit on January 4, 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. On August 1, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the appeal, holding that the Commission had erred in interpreting the claim terms at issue and reversing the Commission's finding of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit adopted InterDigital's interpretation of such claim terms and remanded the case back to the Commission for further proceedings. In addition, the Federal Circuit rejected Nokia's argument that InterDigital did not satisfy the domestic industry requirement. On September 17, 2012, Nokia filed a combined petition for rehearing by the panel or en banc with the Federal Circuit. On January 10, 2013, the Federal Circuit denied Nokia's petition. On January 17, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate remanding USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613) to the Commission for further proceedings. On February 4, 2013, on remand from the Federal Circuit, the Commission issued an order requiring the parties to submit comments regarding what further proceedings must be conducted to comply with the Federal Circuit's August 1, 2012 judgment, including whether any issues should be remanded to an ALJ to be assigned to this investigation. All parties filed initial responses to the Commission’s order by February 14, 2013 and reply responses by February 22, 2013. On March 27, 2013, Nokia filed a motion asking the Federal Circuit to recall its mandate, which the Federal Circuit denied on March 28, 2013. On May 10, 2013, Nokia filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court (No. 12 -1352). Briefs in opposition to Nokia’s petition were filed on September 9, 2013, and Nokia filed its reply brief on September 23, 2013. On October 15, 2013, the Supreme Court denied Nokia’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On February 12, 2014, the Commission issued a notice, order and opinion remanding the investigation to an ALJ. In doing so, the Commission determined certain issues and identified others that would be subject to further proceedings by the ALJ. For example, with respect to domestic industry, the Commission acknowledged the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of InterDigital’s domestic industry and declined Nokia’s invitation to revisit the issue on remand. With respect to validity, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the Lucas reference does not anticipate or render obvious the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents. The Commission further affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ’847 patents are not rendered obvious by the IS-95 references combined with the CODIT reference. The Commission construed the claim limitation “synchronize” in the asserted claims of the ‘847 patent to mean “establishing a timing reference with the pilot signal transmitted by a base station,” as InterDigital had originally proposed to the ALJ. With respect to infringement, the Commission determined that the PRACH preamble used in the accused Nokia handsets satisfies the “code”/“signal” limitation of the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents under the Federal Circuit’s revised claim construction. The Commission also determined that the transmission of the PRACH preambles meet the claim limitation “increased power level” in the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents based on the Federal Circuit’s revised claim construction. The Commission further determined that Nokia waived any argument that the PRACH preamble and message signals in the accused Nokia handsets are never transmitted. The Commission separately found that the accused handsets do not satisfy the “synchronized to a pilot signal” limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. The Commission assigned the investigation to an ALJ for limited remand proceedings consistent with its February 12, 2014 opinion. The Commission defined the scope of the remand proceedings by enumerating the particular issues before the ALJ. Specifically, the Commission ordered the ALJ to:
• | take additional briefing and make findings on whether the accused Nokia handsets meet the “generated using a same code” limitation or “the message being transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit receiving the indication” limitation in the asserted claims of the ‘966 patent, and whether the accused Nokia handsets meet the “generated using a same code” limitation or the “function of a same code” limitation in the asserted claims of the ‘847 patent;
• | take additional briefing and make findings on whether the 3GPP standard supports a finding that the pilot signal (P-CPICH) satisfies the claim limitation “synchronized to a pilot signal” as recited in the asserted claims of the ‘847 patent by synchronizing to either the P-SCH or S-SCH signals under the Commission's construction of that claim limitation, as well as, regarding the asserted claims of the ‘847 patent, whether the PRACH Message is transmitted during the power ramp up process; and
• | take evidence and/or briefing and make findings regarding (i) whether Nokia’s currently imported products infringe the asserted patents; (ii) whether the chips in the currently imported products are licensed; (iii) whether the issue of the standard-essential nature of the ‘847 and ‘966 patents is contested; (iv) whether there is “patent hold-up” or “reverse patent hold-up”; and (v) the statutory public interest factors.
The ALJ requested the parties submit by February 24, 2014 briefing regarding their respective positions, including proposed procedural schedules, for the limited proceedings they respectively contend are necessary in view of the Commission’s order regarding the scope of the remand. The Commission did not authorize the taking of discovery, the taking of evidence, or the briefing of issues relating to validity of the asserted claims. The Commission’s action is important for several reasons. Foremost, it confirms the validity of the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents in light of the evidence and arguments presented by Nokia in the 337-TA-613 investigation. Additionally, the Commission’s determination that 3GPP WCDMA PRACH preambles satisfy the “code”/“signal” limitation of the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents, and that the transmission of the PRACH preambles meet the claim limitation “increased power level” in the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents, both based on the Federal Circuit’s revised claim constructions, demonstrates the scope and vitality of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents, particularly as these patents apply to 3G WCDMA capable devices. On February 24, 2014, Nokia filed a motion for reconsideration of portions of the Commission’s February 12 order, arguing that the Commission’s remand of claims 6, 9, and 11 of the ‘847 patent was in error and seeking reconsideration of the Commission’s determination that Nokia waived certain non-infringement arguments. On March 4, 2014, InterDigital opposed Nokia’s motion as it related to the Commission’s determination of waiver of certain non-infringement arguments, but did not oppose the motion as it related to claims 6, 9, and 11 of the ‘847 patent. On March 24, 2014, the Commission issued a revised order and opinion dropping claims 6, 9, and 11 of the ‘847 patent from the remanded investigation and noting that Nokia’s petition for reconsideration was otherwise denied. On April 22, 2014, Nokia filed in the Federal Circuit a petition for a writ of mandamus to the USITC, requesting the court to order the Commission to address in the remand investigation the non-infringement arguments that the Commission determined Nokia has waived. On July 24, 2014, the Federal Circuit denied Nokia’s petition. On March 5, 2014, the ALJ issued an order establishing August 28, 2015 as the target date for completion of the investigation (which order the Commission determined not to review on April 1, 2014), and a separate order setting the hearing in the matter for January 26-30, 2015. On May 21, 2014, Nokia Corp. and MMO moved to substitute MMO for Nokia Corp. as a respondent in the investigation. On June 2, 2014, InterDigital responded in support of the motion as to the addition of MMO to the investigation but opposed the motion to the extent it sought termination of the investigation as to Nokia Corp. Nokia Corp. and MMO sought leave to reply in further support of their motion on June 13, 2014. By initial determination dated June 18, 2014, the ALJ granted the motion as to the addition of MMO as a respondent in the investigation but denied the motion as it related to termination of the investigation as to Nokia Corp. On June 26, 2014, Nokia Corp. and MMO petitioned the Commission for review of the initial determination to the extent it added MMO to the investigation but did not substitute MMO for Nokia Corp., which InterDigital opposed on July 3, 2014. The Commission determined not to review the initial determination on July 18, 2014. On October 6, 2014, respondents filed a motion for summary determination that the accused products do not infringe the claims of the ’966 and ’847 patents, and for termination of the investigation. InterDigital opposed respondents’ motion on October 16, 2014, and on November 20, 2014, the ALJ denied respondents’ motion. On November 17, 2014, InterDigital filed a motion for summary determination that the accused products meet certain claim elements of the ’966 and ’847 patents. On December 1, 2014, respondents filed an opposition to this motion, and on December 22, 2014, the ALJ denied InterDigital’s motion. On December 1, 2014, InterDigital moved for an order substituting InterDigital Communications Corporation with InterDigital Communications, Inc. Respondents opposed the motion on December 11, 2014. The ALJ granted the motion on January 14, 2015. On January 22, 2015, respondents filed a petition for review of the ALJ’s order. InterDigital opposed the petition for review on January 29, 2015. The Commission has not yet ruled on respondents’ petition. The evidentiary hearing in the remand proceeding was held January 26 - 28, 2015. Pursuant to the procedural schedule in issue, the ALJ’s initial determination is due no later than April 27, 2015, and the Commission must determine whether to review the ALJ’s initial determination no later than June 26, 2015. If the Commission determines to review the initial determination, its final determination will be due no later than August 28, 2015. Nokia Delaware Proceeding In January 2005, Nokia filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court against InterDigital Communications Corporation (now InterDigital, Inc.) and its wholly owned subsidiary InterDigital Technology Corporation, alleging that InterDigital has used false or misleading descriptions or representations regarding the Company’s patents' scope, validity and applicability to products built to comply with 3G standards (the “Nokia Delaware Proceeding”). Nokia's amended complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages, including punitive damages, in an amount to be determined. InterDigital 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. InterDigital’s 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 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613). Specifically, the full and final resolution of USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613) includes any initial or final determinations of the ALJ overseeing the proceeding, the USITC and any appeals therefrom and any remand proceedings thereafter. 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. Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations In November 2006, InterDigital Communications Corporation (now InterDigital, Inc.) and its wholly owned subsidiary InterDigital Technology Corporation filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce against Nokia (the “Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations”), claiming that certain presentations Nokia has attempted to use in support of its claims in the Nokia Delaware Proceeding (described above) 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 also stayed the Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations pending the full and final resolution of USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613). Arbitration with Arima Communications Corporation On May 13, 2014, a panel convened by the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution issued a partial final award in a dispute between InterDigital and Arima Communications Corporation (“Arima”), headquartered in Taiwan, regarding the obligations of the parties relating to Arima’s patent license agreement with the company. The arbitration panel awarded InterDigital unpaid patent license fees of approximately $14.5 million plus interest and related fees and costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) in an amount to be determined. After InterDigital submitted an application for fees and costs, on July 1, 2014, the panel issued a final award, which was subsequently modified on July 14, 2014, resulting in an award of approximately $23.6 million. On July 2, 2014, InterDigital commenced an action in the Delaware District Court to confirm the arbitration award, and, on July 28, 2014, InterDigital filed an amended petition in the Delaware District Court to reflect the revised award of approximately $23.6 million (which will continue to accrue interest until payment by Arima). On August 21, 2014, Arima filed a cross-petition to vacate, or in the alternative to modify, the arbitration award. The parties have fully briefed their respective petitions, and on December 11, 2014, the parties submitted a joint status report to the court. The parties are awaiting a decision from the court. On September 10, 2014, InterDigital filed a petition for recognition of its arbitration award against Arima in the Shilin District Court in Taiwan. Arima filed an opposition to that petition for recognition on January 14, 2015, including a motion to stay the enforcement proceeding, and InterDigital filed its brief in opposition to the motion to stay the proceeding on February 2, 2015. The petition is under consideration by the Taiwan court. The Company will recognize any related revenue in the period in which collectability is reasonably assured. Investigation by Taiwan Fair Trade Commission On December 6, 2013, InterDigital received notice from the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (“TFTC”) that the TFTC had initiated an investigation to examine alleged anti-competitive behavior under Taiwan’s Fair Trade Act (FTA). Companies found to violate the FTA may be ordered to cease and rectify the unlawful conduct, take other necessary corrective action, and/or pay an administrative fine. InterDigital is fully cooperating with the TFTC’s investigation. Arima Taiwan Proceedings On December 18, 2014, InterDigital was served with a complaint filed by Arima in Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Court on July 25, 2014. The complaint names as defendants InterDigital’s wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. The complaint alleges that InterDigital abused its dominant position by forcing Arima to sign its patent license agreement with InterDigital in 2005, setting an unreasonably high and discriminatory royalty rate, and including other abusive and discriminatory provisions in the license agreement, in violation of the Fair Trade Act of Taiwan. The complaint seeks damages in the amount of NTD 100,000,000 (approximately $3.2 million based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2014), and that this amount be trebled as an intentional violation. On December 18, 2014, InterDigital was also served with a motion filed by Arima on July 25, 2014 to enjoin its wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. from enforcing the terms of their patent license agreement with Arima. On December 23, 2014, there was an initial hearing on these matters. InterDigital filed jurisdictional objections and an opposition to the injunction motion on January 23, 2015. On February 3, 2015, the Intellectual Property Court held a hearing on the jurisdictional issues and the injunction motion, during which Arima submitted a supplemental brief on jurisdiction. The court set of deadline of March 3, 2015 for Arima to submit its next brief, and March 19, 2015 for InterDigital to submit its response to Arima’s brief. Another hearing on those issues has been set for March 24, 2015. Arima China Proceeding On September 22, 2014, InterDigital was served with a complaint filed by Arima and Arima Communications (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. in the Jiangsu High People’s Court in China on July 9, 2014. The complaint names as defendants InterDigital, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. and IPR Licensing, Inc. The complaint alleges that InterDigital has abused its dominant market position and violated China’s anti-monopoly laws by licensing its patents at excessively high prices, engaging in discriminatory treatment, and imposing unreasonable trading conditions. Arima seeks relief in the amount of 120.0 million RMB (approximately $19.5 million based on the exchange rate as of December 31, 2014), and an order requiring InterDigital to license all of its patents to Arima on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. On October 22, 2014, InterDigital filed a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Jiangsu High People’s Court to hear the action. On December 11, 2014, Arima served an opposition to this jurisdictional challenge, and on January 9, 2015, InterDigital filed its reply to Arima’s opposition. On January 16, 2015, the court held a hearing on the jurisdictional petition. On February 2, 2015, InterDigital filed a post-hearing statement on the jurisdictional challenge, along with a rebuttal opinion regarding Arima’s evidence related to the jurisdictional challenge. The court’s decision on the jurisdictional issue is pending. The Company has not recorded any accrual at December 31, 2014 for contingent losses associated with this matter, as the matter is still in a preliminary stage. Pegatron Civil Suit We recently learned that on or about February 3, 2015, Pegatron Corporation, one of our licensees, filed a civil suit in Taiwan Intellectual Property Court against InterDigital, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries alleging breach of the Taiwan Fair Trade Act. We have not yet been served with or otherwise received a copy of the complaint. 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.

X
- Details
Name: | idcc_A4LitigationAndLegalProceedingsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | idcc_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration