XML 27 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

Litigation and Legal Proceedings | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
Gain (Loss) from Litigation Settlement [Abstract] |
LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ARBITRATIONS AND COURT PROCEEDINGS Lenovo In fourth quarter 2024, the Company reached an agreement with Lenovo Group Limited and certain of its subsidiaries (“Lenovo”) to enter into binding arbitration to determine the final terms of a new patent license agreement, which will be effective from January 1, 2024. In November 2024, the Company filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce. In March 2025, the International Chamber of Commerce confirmed the full tribunal for the arbitration. Samsung The Company reached an agreement with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Samsung”) to enter into binding arbitration to determine the final terms of a renewed patent license agreement to certain of the Company’s patents, to be effective from January 1, 2023. The Company and Samsung also agreed not to initiate certain claims against the other during the arbitration. In March 2023, the Company filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitration hearing was held in July 2024, and closing arguments were held in October 2024. On July 28, 2025, a panel of International Chamber of Commerce arbitrators determined the royalties of the patent license between the Company and Samsung covering Samsung’s products other than digital televisions and computer display monitors, which have been licensed under a separate agreement. The panel set the total royalties at $1.05 billion for the eight-year patent license. Tesla In December 2023, Tesla and certain of its subsidiaries filed a claim in the UK High Court against the Company and Avanci. The claim alleges invalidity of three of the Company’s patents relating to 5G standards: European Patent (UK) Nos. 3,718,369, 3,566,413, and 3,455,985. Tesla sought, among other relief, a declaration that the patents at issue are invalid, not essential, and not infringed, revocation of the patents at issue, a declaration that the terms of the Avanci 5G Connected Vehicle platform license are not FRAND, and a determination of FRAND terms for a license between Tesla and Avanci covering its Avanci’s 5G Connected Vehicle platform. In March 2024, the Company filed a jurisdiction challenge; the jurisdiction challenge was heard during May and June 2024, and in July 2024 the UK High Court issued a judgment dismissing Tesla’s FRAND claims against the Company and Avanci, and maintaining Tesla’s patent claims against the Company. The patent claims against the Company were further stayed by the UK High Court. Tesla sought permission to appeal the decision; the Company also sought permission to appeal on two limited grounds conditionally, should Tesla’s request for an appeal be granted. The appeal hearing was held in December 2024, and the UK Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision and refused Tesla’s request for permission to appeal. Tesla filed an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. In July 2025, the Supreme Court granted Tesla’s request for permission to appeal the issues of whether pool licenses are arguably required to be FRAND, whether all members of the Avanci 5G Platform must be joined to the case, and whether Tesla’s claim advances the possibility of a bilateral license from the Company. Disney US Central District of California Proceedings In February 2025, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed a claim in the Federal District Court of the Central District of California against The Walt Disney Co. and certain of its subsidiaries (“Disney”). The claim alleges infringement of certain of the Company’s patents relating to video coding and video streaming technologies. The Company is seeking, among other relief, damages to prevent further infringement of the asserted patents. In March 2025, Disney filed an answer and asserted multiple counterclaims against the Company. In April 2025 Disney filed a motion for an anti-suit injunction to prevent enforcement of any potential injunctive relief in Brazil, which the court denied. A trial is scheduled for September 2026. Brazil Proceedings In February 2025, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed a claim in the Regional Business Court of Rio de Janeiro against The Walt Disney Co. and certain of its subsidiaries. The claim alleges infringement of certain of the Company’s patents relating to video coding technologies. The Company is seeking, among other relief, damages and injunctive relief to prevent further infringement of the asserted patents. In March 2025, Disney filed an answer and asserted a rate-setting counterclaim. In May 2025 the Company requested an anti-interference injunction to prevent Disney from continuing with its anti-suit injunction in California. Germany Proceedings In February and April of 2025, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed patent infringement claims in four separate proceedings in the Munich Regional Court against The Walt Disney Co. and certain of its subsidiaries. The claims allege infringement of certain of the Company’s patents relating to video coding and video streaming technologies. The Company is seeking, among other relief, injunctive relief to prevent further infringement of the asserted patents. In May 2025, the Company filed a request for an anti-interference injunction to prevent interference with the proceedings in Munich by an anti-suit injunction. The court issued the anti-interference injunction against Disney. UPC Proceedings In February and April of 2025, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed patent infringement claims in four separate proceedings in the Mannheim Local Divisional Court and Dusseldorf Local Divisional Court of the Unified Patent Court (“the UPC”) against The Walt Disney Co. and certain of its subsidiaries. The claims allege infringement of certain of the Company’s patents relating to video coding and video streaming technologies. The Company is seeking, among other relief, injunctive relief to prevent further infringement of the asserted patents. In May 2025, the Company filed a request for an anti-interference injunction to prevent interference with the proceedings at the UPC by an anti-suit injunction. The Mannheim Local Division granted the anti-interference injunction against Disney. OTHER We are party to certain other disputes and legal actions in the ordinary course of business, including arbitrations and legal proceedings with licensees regarding the terms of their agreements and the negotiation thereof. We do not currently 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. None of the preceding matters have met the requirements for accrual or disclosure of a potential range as of June 30, 2025, except as noted above.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_GainLossRelatedToLitigationSettlementAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
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 Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration