10-Q

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 10-Q

þ	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012

OR

o	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	For the transition period fromto

Commission File Number 1-33579

INTERDIGITAL, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

PENNSYLVANIA (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization) 23-1882087 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

781 Third Avenue, King of Prussia, PA 19406-1409

(Address of Principal Executive Offices and Zip Code)

(610) 878-7800

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer R	Accelerated filer o	Non-accelerated filer o	Smaller reporting company o
		(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No þ

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share	44,352,434
Title of Class	Outstanding at April 24, 2012

INDEX

	PAGES
Part I — Financial Information:
Item 1 Financial Statements (unaudited):	3
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets — March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011	3
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income — Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011	4
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income — Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011	5
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows — Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 and 2011	6
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements	7
Item 2 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	19
Item 3 Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	24
Item 4 Controls and Procedures	24
Part II — Other Information:
Item 1 Legal Proceedings	25
Item 1A Risk Factors	25
Item 2 Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	25
Item 6 Exhibits	26
SIGNATURES	28
EXHIBIT INDEX	29
EX-31.1
EX-31.2
EX-32.1
EX-32.2
EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT
EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT
EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT

InterDigital^® is a registered trademark and SlimChip^™ is a trademark of InterDigital, Inc. All other trademarks, service marks and/or trade names appearing in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are the property of their respective holders.

PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

INTERDIGITAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except per share data)

(unaudited)

	MARCH 31, 2012		DECEMBER 31, 2011
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	268,628	$	342,211
Short-term investments	347,374		335,783
Accounts receivable, less allowances of $1,750	31,029		28,079
Deferred tax assets	52,573		53,990
Prepaid and other current assets	6,239		8,824
Total current assets	705,843		768,887
PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, NET	7,229		7,997
PATENTS, NET	140,245		137,963
DEFERRED TAX ASSETS	51,550		54,110
OTHER NON-CURRENT ASSETS	27,550		28,011
	226,574		228,081
TOTAL ASSETS	$	932,417	$	996,968
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Current portion of long-term debt	$	104	$	180
Accounts payable	4,274		7,110
Accrued compensation and related expenses	11,229		14,129
Deferred revenue	108,212		134,087
Taxes payable	4,432		3,265
Dividends payable	4,469		4,570
Other accrued expenses	8,838		9,812
Total current liabilities	141,558		173,153
LONG-TERM DEBT	194,427		192,529
LONG-TERM DEFERRED REVENUE	140,681		153,953
OTHER LONG-TERM LIABILITIES	2,479		5,651
TOTAL LIABILITIES	479,145		525,286
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY:
Preferred Stock, $0.10 par value, 14,399 shares authorized, 0 shares issued and outstanding	—		—
Common Stock, $0.01 par value, 100,000 shares authorized, 69,293 and 69,118 shares issued and 45,062 and 45,548 shares outstanding	693		691
Additional paid-in capital	573,708		573,950
Retained earnings	473,145		466,727
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)	298		(439		)
	1,047,844		1,040,929
Treasury stock, 24,231 and 23,570 shares of common held at cost	594,572		569,247
Total shareholders’ equity	453,272		471,682
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY	$	932,417	$	996,968

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

3

INTERDIGITAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(in thousands, except per share data)

(unaudited)

	FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
	2012			2011
REVENUES	$	69,305		$	78,458
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Patent administration and licensing	23,228			15,948
Development	17,489			17,424
Selling, general and administrative	9,183			7,780
	49,900			41,152
Income from operations	19,405			37,306
OTHER EXPENSE	(2,734		)	(942		)
Income before income taxes	16,671			36,364
INCOME TAX PROVISION	(5,741		)	(13,025		)
NET INCOME	$	10,930		$	23,339
NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE — BASIC	$	0.24		$	0.52
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING — BASIC	45,401			45,306
NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE — DILUTED	$	0.24		$	0.51
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING — DILUTED	45,946			45,872
CASH DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER COMMON SHARE	$	0.10		$	0.10

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

4

INTERDIGITAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

	FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
	2012		2011
Net income	$	10,930	$	23,339
Unrealized gain on investments, net of tax	737		12
Total comprehensive income	$	11,667	$	23,351

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

5

INTERDIGITAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

	FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
	2012			2011
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
Net income	$	10,930		$	23,339
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization	6,287			5,842
Accretion of debt discount	1,899			—
Amortization of financing costs	326			—
Deferred revenue recognized	(56,865		)	(61,610		)
Increase in deferred revenue	17,718			17,338
Deferred income taxes	3,977			10,775
Share-based compensation	1,572			1,676
Impairment of long-term investment	—			1,301
Other	15			61
(Increase) decrease in assets:
Receivables	(2,950		)	11,056
Deferred charges	125			42
Other current assets	2,181			(1,340		)
(Decrease) increase in liabilities:
Accounts payable	(1,479		)	(950		)
Accrued compensation	(9,634		)	(14,537		)
Accrued taxes payable and other tax contingencies	1,167			(858		)
Other accrued expenses	(974		)	2,658
Net cash used in operating activities	(25,705		)	(5,207		)
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Purchases of short-term investments	(131,792		)	(185,714		)
Sales of short-term investments	121,336			184,585
Purchases of property and equipment	(531		)	(931		)
Capitalized patent costs	(8,627		)	(6,671		)
Net cash used in investing activities	(19,614		)	(8,731		)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Net proceeds from exercise of stock options	240			2,612
Payments on long-term debt, including capital lease obligations	(77		)	(46		)
Dividends paid	(4,570		)	(4,526		)
Tax benefit from share-based compensation	1,468			564
Repurchase of common stock	(25,325		)	—
Net cash used in financing activities	(28,264		)	(1,396		)
NET DECREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS	(73,583		)	(15,334		)
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF PERIOD	342,211			215,451
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF PERIOD	$	268,628		$	200,117

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.

6

INTERDIGITAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

March 31, 2012

(unaudited)

1.BASIS OF PRESENTATION:

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited, condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair statement of the financial position of InterDigital, Inc. (individually and/or collectively with its subsidiaries referred to as “InterDigital,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our,” unless otherwise indicated) as of March 31, 2012, and the results of our operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 and our cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. The accompanying unaudited, condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the instructions for Form 10-Q and, accordingly, do not include all of the detailed schedules, information and notes necessary to state fairly the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by GAAP for year-end financial statements. Therefore, these financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (our “2011 Form 10-K”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on February 27, 2012. The results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the entire year. We have one reportable segment.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

Change in Accounting Policies

There have been no material changes in our existing accounting policies from the disclosures included in our 2011 Form 10-K.

New Accounting Guidance

Accounting Standards Updates: Fair Value Measurements: Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS

In May 2011, the FASB issued authoritative guidance that is more closely aligned with the fair value measurement and disclosure guidance issued by the International Accounting Standards Board ("IASB"). The issuance of this standard results in global fair value measurement and disclosure guidance that minimizes the differences between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. Many of the changes in the final standard represent clarifications to existing guidance, while some changes related to the valuation premise and the application of premiums and discounts and new required disclosures are more significant. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. We adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2012; however, the adoption of this guidance does not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements or related disclosures.

Accounting Standards Updates: Presentation of Comprehensive Income

In June 2011, the FASB issued authoritative guidance requiring most entities to present items of net income and other comprehensive income either in one continuous statement, referred to as the statement of comprehensive income, or in two separate, but consecutive, statements of net income and other comprehensive income. The option to present items of other comprehensive income in the statement of changes in equity was eliminated. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. We adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2012. We have chosen to present items of net income and other comprehensive income in two separate but consecutive statements.

2.INCOME TAXES:

In firstquarter2012, our effective tax rate was approximately 34.4% based on the statutory federal tax rate net of discrete federal and foreign taxes. During first quarter2011, our effective tax rate was approximately 35.8% based on the statutory federal tax rate net of discrete foreign taxes.

During firstquarter2012 and 2011, we paid approximately $0.9 million and $3.0 million, respectively, of foreign source

7

withholding tax. We previously accrued approximately $0.8 million of the firstquarter2012 foreign source withholding payments and established a corresponding deferred tax asset representing the associated foreign tax credit that we expect to utilize to offset future U.S. federal income taxes.

3.NET INCOME PER SHARE:

Basic Earnings Per Share ("EPS") is calculated by dividing net income available to common shareholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if options or other securities with features that could result in the issuance of common stock were exercised or converted to common stock. The following tables reconcile the numerator and the denominator of the basic and diluted net income per share computation (in thousands, except for per share data):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012				2011
	Basic		Diluted		Basic		Diluted
Numerator:
Net income applicable to common shareholders	$	10,930	$	10,930	$	23,339	$	23,339
Denominator:
Weighted-average shares outstanding: Basic	45,401		45,401		45,306		45,306
Dilutive effect of stock options, RSUs, convertible securities, and warrants			545				566
Weighted-average shares outstanding: Diluted			45,946				45,872
Earnings Per Share:
Net income: Basic	$	0.24	$	0.24	$	0.52	$	0.52
Dilutive effect of stock options, RSUs, convertible securities, and warrants			—				(0.01		)
Net income: Diluted			$	0.24			$	0.51

For both three months ended March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011, zero options to purchase shares of common stock were excluded from the computation of diluted earnings per share because their effect would have been anti-dilutive.

For three months ended March 31, 2012, 4.0 million shares of common stock issuable under convertible securities were excluded from the computation of diluted EPS because their effect would have been anti-dilutive. For three months ended March 31, 2012, 4.0 million shares of common stock issuable under warrants were excluded from the computation of diluted EPS because their effect would have been anti-dilutive.  There were no warrants or convertible securities outstanding for three months ended March 31, 2011.

4. LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Huawei China Proceedings

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

8

Huawei Delaware State Court Proceeding

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

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

On March 22, 2012, following the March 2, 2012 denial of Huawei's motion to partially lift the stay in the Delaware District Court proceeding (discussed below), Huawei filed a renewed motion for expedited proceedings. On April 5, 2012, InterDigital filed its opposition to Huawei's renewed motion for expedited proceedings and filed a renewed motion to stay or dismiss. On April 12, 2012, Huawei filed a reply in support of its renewed motion for expedited proceedings.

Nokia, Huawei, ZTE and LG USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800) and Related Delaware District Court Proceeding

On July 26, 2011, InterDigital's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, the “Company,” “InterDigital,” “we,” or “our” for the purposes of the discussion of this matter) filed a complaint with the USITC against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively, “Huawei”) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, “ZTE” and together with Nokia and Huawei, “Respondents”), alleging that they engaged in unfair trade practices by 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 “Asserted Patents”). The action also extends to certain WCDMA and cdma2000® devices incorporating WiFi functionality. InterDigital's complaint with the USITC seeks an exclusion order that would bar from entry into the U.S. any infringing 3G wireless devices (and components) that are imported by or on behalf of Respondents, and also seeks a cease and desist order to bar further sales of infringing products that have already been imported into the United States. On August 31, 2011, the USITC formally instituted an investigation against Respondents (337-TA-800). On October 5, 2011, InterDigital filed a motion requesting that the USITC add LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) as respondents to the Company's USITC complaint, and that the USITC add an additional patent to the USITC complaint as well. On December 5, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") granted this motion, and on December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's determination, thus adding the LG entities as respondents and including allegations of infringement of the additional patent.

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

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

On January 6, 2012, the ALJ granted the parties' motion to extend the target date for completion of the investigation by four months from February 28, 2013 to June 28, 2013. On March 23, 2012, the ALJ issued a new procedural schedule for the USITC investigation, setting a trial date of October 22 to November 2, 2012. On January 20, 2012, LG filed a motion to

9

terminate the USITC investigation as it relates to the LG entities alleging there is an arbitrable dispute. InterDigital filed its response opposing LG's motion on February 6, 2012.

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

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

On March 2, 2012, the Court denied Huawei's and ZTE USA's request to partially lift the stay and granted InterDigital's request for a discretionary stay with respect to Huawei's proposed FRAND-based counterclaims.

Prior Nokia USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613), Related Delaware District Court and Southern District of New York Proceedings and Federal Circuit Appeal

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

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

On December 4, 2007, Nokia moved for an order terminating or, alternatively, staying the USITC investigation as to Nokia, on the ground that Nokia and InterDigital must first arbitrate a dispute as to whether Nokia is licensed under the patents asserted by InterDigital against Nokia in the USITC investigation. On January 8, 2008, Judge Luckern issued an order denying Nokia's motion and holding that Nokia has waived its arbitration defense by instituting and participating in the investigation and other legal proceedings. On February 13, 2008, Nokia filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of

10

New York (the “Southern District Action”), seeking to preliminarily enjoin InterDigital from proceeding with the USITC investigation with respect to Nokia, in spite of Judge Luckern's ruling denying Nokia's motion to terminate the USITC investigation. Nokia raised in this preliminary injunction action the same arguments it raised in its motion to terminate the USITC investigation, namely that InterDigital allegedly must first arbitrate its alleged license dispute with Nokia and that Nokia has not waived arbitration of this defense. In the Southern District Action, Nokia also sought to compel InterDigital to arbitrate its alleged license dispute with Nokia and, in the alternative, sought a determination by the District Court that Nokia is licensed under the patents asserted by InterDigital against Nokia in the USITC investigation. On March 7, 2008, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss Nokia's claim in the alternative that Nokia is licensed under the patents asserted by InterDigital against Nokia in the USITC investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

On June 17, 2008, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard argument on InterDigital's appeal from the order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily enjoining InterDigital from proceeding against Nokia in the consolidated investigation. On July 31, 2008, the Second Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction, finding that Nokia's litigation conduct resulted in a waiver of any right to arbitrate its license dispute. InterDigital promptly notified the Administrative Law Judge in the Nokia investigation (337-TA-613) of the Second Circuit's decision. On

11

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

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

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

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

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

On August 14, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337

12

of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Initial Determination found that InterDigital's patents were valid and enforceable, but that Nokia did not infringe these patents. In the event that a Section 337 violation were to be found by the Commission, the Administrative Law Judge recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of infringing Nokia 3G WCDMA handsets and components as well as the issuance of appropriate cease and desist orders.

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

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

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

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

Nokia Delaware Proceeding

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

On December 10, 2007, pursuant to a joint request by the parties, the Delaware District Court entered an order staying the proceedings pending the full and final resolution of InterDigital's USITC investigation against Nokia (337-TA-613). Specifically, the full and final resolution of the USITC investigation includes any initial or final determinations of the Administrative Law Judge overseeing the proceeding, the USITC, and any appeals therefrom. Pursuant to the order, the parties and their affiliates are generally prohibited from initiating against the other parties, in any forum, any claims or counterclaims that are the same as the claims and counterclaims pending in the Nokia Delaware Proceeding, and should any of the same or similar claims or counterclaims be initiated by a party, the other parties may seek dissolution of the stay.

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

13

Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations

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

The December 10, 2007 order entered by the Delaware District Court to stay the Nokia Delaware Proceeding (described above) also stayed the Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations pending the full and final resolution of the USITC investigation against Nokia (337-TA-613) as described above.

Other

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

Contingency related to Technology Solutions Agreement Arbitration

Our wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications LLC and InterDigital Technology Corporation are engaged in an arbitration relating to a contractual dispute concerning the scope of royalty obligations and the scope of the licenses granted under one of our technology solutions agreements.  The arbitration hearing is currently scheduled for late June 2012. As of March 31, 2012, we have deferred related revenue of $33.1 million pending the resolution of this arbitration and recorded such amount within long term deferred revenue since the timing of the final outcome is not known.

5.EQUITY TRANSACTIONS:

Changes in shareholders’ equity for the three months ended March 31, 2012 were as follows (in thousands):

	Total Shareholders' Equity
Balance as of December 31, 2011	$	471,682
Net income	10,930
Unrealized gain on investments, net	737
Cash dividends declared	(4,469		)
Repurchase of Common Stock	(25,325		)
Net proceeds for exercise of stock options	240
Taxes withheld upon restricted stock unit vestings	(3,563		)
Tax benefit from share-based compensation	1,468
Share-based compensation	1,572
Balance as of March 31, 2012	$	453,272

Repurchase of Common Stock

In March 2009, our Board of Directors authorized a $100.0 million share repurchase program (the “2009 Repurchase Program”). The Company may repurchase shares under the 2009 Repurchase Program through open market purchases, pre-arranged trading plans, or privately negotiated purchases. We made no share repurchases during first quarter 2011. During first quarter 2012 we repurchased 0.7 million shares for $25.3 million. We repurchased 0.7 million shares at a cost of $24.7 million from April 1, 2012 through April 25, 2012, bringing the cumulative repurchase total under the 2009 Repurchase Program to 2.4 million shares at a cost of $75.0 million.

Dividends

Prior to 2011, we had not paid any cash dividends on our shares of common stock. In fourth quarter 2010, our Board of Directors approved the Company’s initial dividend policy and declared the first quarterly cash dividend of $0.10 per share. Cash dividends on outstanding common stock declared in firstquarter2012 and 2011 were as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

14

2012	Per Share		Total		Cumulative by Fiscal Year
First quarter	$	0.10	$	4,469	$	4,469
2011
First quarter	$	0.10	$	4,535	$	4,535
Second quarter	0.10		4,540		9,075
Third quarter	0.10		4,549		13,624
Fourth quarter	0.10		4,570		18,194
	$	0.40	$	18,194

Common Stock Warrants

On March 29, 2011 and March 30, 2011, we entered into privately negotiated warrant transactions with Barclays Bank PLC, through its agent, Barclays Capital Inc., whereby we sold to Barclays Bank PLC warrants to acquire, subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately 3.5 million and approximately 0.5 million shares of our common stock, respectively, at a strike price of $66.3528 per share, also subject to adjustment. The warrants become exercisable in tranches starting in June 2016. In consideration for the warrants issued on March 29, 2011 and March 30, 2011, the Company received $27.6 million and $4.1 million, respectively, on April 4, 2011.

6.CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK AND FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND FINANCIAL LIABILITIES:

Concentration of Credit Risk and Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Financial instruments that potentially subject us to concentration of credit risk consist primarily of cash equivalents, short-term investments, and accounts receivable. We place our cash equivalents and short-term investments only in highly rated financial instruments and in United States government instruments.

Our accounts receivable are derived principally from patent license and technology solutions agreements. At March 31, 2012, three licensees comprised 99% of our net accounts receivable balance. At December 31, 2011, three licensees represented 97% of our net accounts receivable balance. We perform ongoing credit evaluations of our licensees, who generally include large, multinational, wireless telecommunications equipment manufacturers. We believe that the book values of our financial instruments approximate their fair values.

Fair Value Measurements

Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted the provisions of the FASB fair value measurement guidance that relate to our financial assets and financial liabilities. We adopted the guidance related to non-financial assets and liabilities as of January 1, 2009. We use various valuation techniques and assumptions when measuring fair value of our assets and liabilities. We utilize market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. This guidance established a hierarchy that prioritizes fair value measurements based on the types of input used for the various valuation techniques (market approach, income approach and cost approach). The levels of the hierarchy are described below:

Level 1 Inputs — Level 1 includes financial instruments for which quoted market prices for identical instruments are available in active markets.

Level 2 Inputs — Level 2 includes financial instruments for which there are inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the instrument such as quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets with insufficient volume or infrequent transactions (less active markets) or model-driven valuations in which significant inputs are observable or can be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data, including market interest rate curves, referenced credit spreads and pre-payment rates.

Level 3 Inputs — Level 3 includes financial instruments for which fair value is derived from valuation techniques including pricing models and discounted cash flow models in which one or more significant inputs are unobservable, including the Company’s own assumptions. The pricing models incorporate transaction details such as contractual terms, maturity and, in certain instances, timing and amount of future cash flows, as well as

15

assumptions related to liquidity and credit valuation adjustments of marketplace participants.

Our assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the valuation of financial assets and financial liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy. We use quoted market prices for similar assets to estimate the fair value of our Level 2 investments. Our financial assets are included within short-term investments on our condensed consolidated balance sheets, unless otherwise indicated. Our financial assets that are accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis are presented in the tables below as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

	Fair Value as of March 31, 2012
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Money market and demand accounts (a)	$	224,655	$	—	$	—	$	224,655
Mutual and exchange traded funds	24,194		—		—		24,194
Commercial paper (b)	—		199,623		—		199,623
U.S. government securities	—		78,774		—		78,774
Corporate bonds and asset backed securities	—		88,756		—		88,756
	$	248,849	$	367,153	$	—	$	616,002

______________________________

(a) Included within cash and cash equivalents.

(b) Includes $44.0 million of commercial paper that is included within cash and cash equivalents.

	Fair Value as of December 31, 2011
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Money market and demand accounts (a)	$	338,211	$	—	$	—	$	338,211
Mutual and exchange traded funds	96,130		—		—		96,130
Commercial paper (b)	—		160,574		—		160,574
U.S. government securities	—		66,647		—		66,647
Corporate bonds and asset backed securities	—		16,432		—		16,432
	$	434,341	$	243,653	$	—	$	677,994

______________________________

(a) Included within cash and cash equivalents.

(b) Includes $4.0 million of commercial paper that is included within cash and cash equivalents.

The carrying amount of long-term debt reported in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was $194.4 million and $192.5 million, respectively. Using inputs such as actual trade data, benchmark yields, broker/dealer quotes and other similar data, which were obtained from independent pricing vendors, quoted market prices or other sources, we determined the fair value of these level 2 Notes (as defined in Note 7 "Long-Term Debt") to be $230.9 million as of March 31, 2012 and $240.9 million as of December 31, 2011.

7. LONG-TERM DEBT:

Senior Convertible Note, Note Hedge and Warrant Transactions

     On April 4, 2011, InterDigital issued $230.0 million in aggregate principal amount of its 2.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2016 (the “Notes”) pursuant to an indenture (the “Indenture”), dated as of April 4, 2011, by and between the Company and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the “Trustee”). The Notes bear interest at a rate of 2.50% per year, payable in cash on March 15 and September 15 of each year, commencing September 15, 2011. The Notes will mature on March 15, 2016, unless earlier converted or repurchased. The Notes are the Company's senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with any of the Company's future senior unsecured indebtedness, and the Notes are structurally subordinated to the Company's future secured indebtedness to the extent of the value of the related collateral and to the indebtedness and other liabilities, including trade payables, of the Company's subsidiaries, except with respect to any subsidiaries that become guarantors pursuant to the terms of the Indenture.

16

     The Notes will be convertible into cash and, if applicable, shares of the Company's common stock at an initial conversion rate of 17.3458 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of Notes (which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $57.65 per share). The conversion rate, and thus the conversion price, may be adjusted under certain circumstances, including in connection with conversions made following certain fundamental changes and under other circumstances as set forth in the Indenture.

     Prior to 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on the business day immediately preceding December 15, 2015, the Notes will be convertible only under certain circumstances as set forth in the Indenture. Commencing on December 15, 2015, the Notes will be convertible in multiples of $1,000 principal amount, at any time prior to 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on the business day immediately preceding the maturity date of the Notes. Upon any conversion, the conversion obligation will be settled in cash up to, and including, the principal amount and, to the extent of any excess over the principal amount, in shares of common stock.

     If a fundamental change (as defined in the Indenture) occurs, holders may require the Company to purchase all or a portion of their Notes for cash at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change repurchase date.

     The Company may not redeem the Notes prior to their maturity date.

     On March 29 and March 30, 2011, in connection with the offering of the Notes, InterDigital entered into convertible note hedge transactions with respect to its common stock with Barclays Bank PLC, through its agent, Barclays Capital Inc. The two convertible note hedge transactions cover, subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately 3.5 million and approximately 0.5 million shares of common stock, respectively, at a strike price that corresponds to the initial conversion price of the Notes, also subject to adjustment, and are exercisable upon conversion of the Notes.

     On April 4, 2011, the Company paid $37.1 million and $5.6 million for the convertible note hedge transactions entered into on March 29 and March 30, 2011, respectively. The aggregate cost of the convertible note hedge transactions was $42.7 million. As described in more detail below, this cost was partially offset by the proceeds from the sale of the warrants in separate transactions.

     The convertible note hedge transactions are intended generally to reduce the potential dilution to the common stock upon conversion of the Notes in the event that the market price per share of the common stock is greater than the strike price.

     The convertible note hedge transactions are separate transactions and are not part of the terms of the Notes. Holders of the Notes have no rights with respect to the convertible note hedge transactions.

     On March 29 and March 30, 2011, InterDigital also entered into privately-negotiated warrant transactions with Barclays Bank PLC, through its agent, Barclays Capital Inc., whereby InterDigital sold warrants to acquire, subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately 3.5 million shares and approximately 0.5 million shares, respectively, of common stock at a strike price of $66.3528 per share, also subject to adjustment. The warrants become exercisable in tranches starting in June 2016. As consideration for the warrants issued on March 29 and March 30, 2011, the Company received, on April 4, 2011, $27.6 million and $4.1 million, respectively.

     If the market value per share of the common stock, as measured under the warrants, exceeds the strike price of the warrants at the time the warrants are exercisable, the warrants will have a dilutive effect on the Company's earnings per share.

Accounting Treatment of the Senior Convertible Note, Convertible Note Hedge and Warrant Transactions

     The offering of the Notes on March 29, 2011 was for $200.0 million and included an overallotment option that allowed the initial purchaser to purchase up to an additional $30.0 million aggregate principal amount of Notes. The initial purchaser exercised its overallotment option on March 30, 2011, bringing the total amount of Notes issued on April 4, 2011 to $230.0 million.

     In connection with the offering of the Notes, as discussed above, InterDigital entered into convertible note hedge transactions with respect to its common stock. The $42.7 million cost of the convertible note hedge transactions was partially offset by the proceeds from the sale of the warrants described above, resulting in a net cost of $10.9 million.

     Existing accounting guidance provides that the March 29, 2011 convertible note hedge and warrant contracts be treated as derivative instruments for the period during which the initial purchaser's overallotment option was outstanding. Once the overallotment provision was exercised on March 30, 2011, the March 29 convertible note hedge and warrant contracts were reclassified to equity, as the settlement terms of the Company's note hedge and warrant contracts both provide for net share settlement. There was no material net change in the value of these convertible note hedges and warrants during the one day they were classified as derivatives and the equity components of these instruments will not be adjusted for subsequent changes in fair value.

17

     Under current accounting guidance, the Company bifurcated the proceeds from the offering of the Notes between the liability and equity components of the debt. On the date of issuance, the liability and equity components were calculated to be approximately $187.0 million and $43.0 million, respectively. The initial $187.0 million liability component was determined based on the fair value of similar debt instruments excluding the conversion feature. The initial $43.0 million ($28.0 million net of tax) equity component represents the difference between the fair value of the initial $187.0 million in debt and the $230.0 million of gross proceeds. The related initial debt discount of $43.0 million is being amortized using the effective interest method over the life of the Notes. An effective interest rate of 7% was used to calculate the debt discount on the Notes.

     In connection with the above-noted transactions, the Company incurred $8.0 million of directly related costs. The initial purchaser's transaction fees and related offering expenses were allocated to the liability and equity components of the debt in proportion to the allocation of proceeds and accounted for as debt issuance costs. We allocated $6.5 million of debt issuance costs to the liability component of the debt, which were capitalized as deferred financing costs. These costs are being amortized to interest expense over the term of the debt using the effective interest method. The remaining $1.5 million of costs allocated to the equity component of the debt were recorded as a reduction of the equity component of the debt.

The following table reflects the carrying value of the Company's convertible debt as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

	March 31, 2012			December 31, 2011
2.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2016	$	230,000		$	230,000
Less: Unamortized interest discount	(35,573		)	(37,471		)
Net carrying amount of 2.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2016	$	194,427		$	192,529

The following table presents the amount of interest cost recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011 relating to the contractual interest coupon, accretion of the debt discount, and the amortization of financing costs (in thousands):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012		2011
Contractual coupon interest	$	1,438	$	—
Accretion of debt discount	1,899		—
Amortization of financing costs	326		—
Total	$	3,663	$	—

18

Item 2.MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.

OVERVIEW

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the unaudited, condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto contained in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, in addition to our 2011 Form 10-K, other reports filed with the SEC and the Statement Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 — Forward-Looking Statements below. Please refer to the Glossary of Terms in our 2011 Form 10-K for a list and detailed descriptions of the various technical, industry and other defined terms that are used in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Patent Licensing

Patent licensing royalties of $68.6 million in first quarter 2012decreased $6.0 million or 8% over fourth quarter 2011. This sequential decrease was primarily driven by a $3.6 million decrease in royalties from our Japanese per-unit licensees resulting from lower shipments and a $2.6 milliondecrease in royalties from past sales due to the fourth quarter 2011 recognition of royalties related to prior periods.

Technology Solutions

We are engaged in arbitration to determine whether royalties are owed on specific product classes pursuant to one of our technology solutions agreements. The arbitration hearing is currently scheduled for late June 2012. As of March 31, 2012, we have deferred related revenue of $33.1 million pending the resolution of this arbitration and recorded such amount within long term deferred revenue since the timing of the final outcome is not known. These amounts have either been collected or recorded in accounts receivable on their respective balance sheet dates.

Intellectual Property Enforcement

Please see Note 4, “Litigation and Legal Proceedings,” in the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for a full discussion of the following and other matters:

Nokia, Huawei and ZTE U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” ) Proceeding and Related Delaware District Court Proceeding

On July 26, 2011, InterDigital's wholly-owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, the “Company,” “InterDigital,” “we,” or “our” for the purposes of the discussion of this matter) filed a complaint with the USITC against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively, “Huawei”) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, "ZTE" and together with Nokia and Huawei, “Respondents”), alleging that they engaged in unfair trade practices by 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 that infringe seven of InterDigital's U.S. patents (the “Asserted Patents”). The action also extends to certain WCDMA and cdma2000® devices incorporating WiFi functionality. On August 31, 2011, the USITC formally instituted an investigation against Respondents. On October 5, 2011, InterDigital filed a motion requesting that the USITC add LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) as respondents to the Company's USITC complaint, and that the USITC add an additional patent to the USITC complaint as well. On December 5, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) granted this motion, and on December 21, 2011 the USITC determined not to review the ALJ’s determination, thus adding the LG entities as respondents and including allegations of infringement of the additional patent. The ALJ has set a trial date of October 22 to November 2, 2012 and has set a target date of June 28, 2013 for completion of the USITC investigation.

On the same date that InterDigital filed the present USITC action (referenced above), we also filed a parallel action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) against the Respondents alleging infringement of the same Asserted Patents identified in the USITC complaint. On October 3, 2011, InterDigital amended the Delaware District Court complaint, adding LG as a defendant and adding the same additional patent that InterDigital requested be added to the USITC complaint referenced above. The Delaware District Court action has been stayed pending the parallel proceedings in the USITC.

Prior Nokia USITC Proceeding/Federal Circuit Appeal

19

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has not yet issued a decision in our appeal of certain rulings by the USITC in connection with the USITC investigation initiated by us against Nokia in 2007.

Comparability of Financial Results

When comparing firstquarter2012 financial results against other periods, the following items should be taken into consideration:

•Our firstquarter2012 revenue includes $0.5 million of past sales related to signing of new patent license agreement in firstquarter2012;

•Our firstquarter2012 operating expenses reflect lower accrual rates for all active cycles under our Long-Term Compensation Program ("LTCP").

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

Our significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our 2011 Form 10-K. A discussion of our critical accounting policies, and the estimates related to them, are included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in our 2011 Form 10-K. There have been no material changes in our existing critical accounting policies from the disclosures included in our 2011 Form 10-K. Refer to Note 1, “Basis of Presentation,” in the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for updates related to new accounting pronouncements.

FINANCIAL POSITION, LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS

Our primary sources of liquidity are cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, as well as cash generated from operations. We have the ability to obtain additional liquidity through debt and equity financings. Based on our past performance and current expectations, we believe our available sources of funds, including cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments and cash generated from our operations, will be sufficient to finance our operations, capital requirements, debt obligations, existing stock repurchase program and dividend program in the next twelve months.

On April 4, 2011, we completed an offering of $230.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 2.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2016 (the "Notes"). The net proceeds from the offering were approximately $222.0 million, after deducting the initial purchaser's discount and offering expenses. A portion of the net proceeds of the offering were used to fund the cost of the convertible note hedge transactions entered into in connection with the offering of the Notes. We expect to use the remaining net proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes, which may include, among other things: acquisitions of intellectual property-related assets or businesses or securities in such businesses; capital expenditures; and working capital.

Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments

At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had the following amounts of cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments (in thousands):

	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011		Increase / (Decrease)
Cash and cash equivalents	$	268,628	$	342,211	$	(73,583	)
Short-term investments	347,374		335,783		11,591
Total Cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments	$	616,002	$	677,994	$	(61,992	)

The decrease in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments was primarily attributable to repurchases of common stock of $25.3 million, $25.7 million used in operating activities, $9.2 million in capital investments and $4.6 million of dividend payments.

Cash flows used in operations

We used the following cash flows from our operating activities in first quarter2012 and 2011 (in thousands):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012			2011			Increase / (Decrease)
Net cash used in operating activities	$	(25,705	)	$	(5,207	)	$	(20,498	)

20

Cash used in operating activities during first quarter2012 included cash operating expenses (operating expenses less depreciation of fixed assets, amortization of patents, non-cash compensation, accretion of debt discount, and amortization of financing costs) of $39.8 million, cash payments for short-term and long-term incentive compensation of $10.3 million, cash payments for foreign source withholding taxes of $0.9 million. These items were partially offset by $27.2 million of cash receipts from patent license and technology solutions agreements along with other changes in working capital. We received $8.0 million of fixed fee payments and $14.2 million of per-unit royalty payments, including past sales, current royalties and prepayments, from existing licensees and a new licensee. Cash receipts from our technology solutions agreements totaled $5.0 million, primarily related to royalties and other license fees associated with our SlimChip modem core.

  Cash used in operating activities during first quarter 2011 was primarily due to cash operating expenses (operating expenses less depreciation of fixed assets, amortization of intangible assets, non-cash compensation, and impairments of long-term investments) of $32.3 million, short-term and long-term incentive compensation payments of $20.1 million and foreign source withholding tax payments of $3.0 million. These uses of cash were partially offset by receipts of approximately $45.2 million related to patent license and technology solutions agreements. We received $11.0 million of fixed fee payments and $25.2 million of per-unit royalty payments, including past sales and prepayments, from existing licensees and a new licensee. Cash receipts from our technology solutions agreements totaled $9.0 million, primarily related to royalties and other license fees associated with our SlimChip modem core. Additionally, $5.2 million of other working capital changes partially offset cash used in operating activities during first quarter 2011.

Working capital

We believe that working capital, adjusted to exclude cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments,and current deferred revenue provides additional information about non-cash assets and liabilities that might affect our near-term liquidity. While we believe cash and short-term investments are important measures of our liquidity, the remaining components of our current assets and current liabilities, with the exception of deferred revenue, could affect our near-term liquidity and or cash flow. We have no material obligations associated with our deferred revenue, and the amortization of deferred revenue has no impact on our future liquidity and or cash flow. Our adjusted working capital, a non-GAAP financial measure, reconciles to working capital, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (in thousands) as follows:

	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011		Increase / (Decrease)
Current assets	$	705,843	$	768,887	$	(63,044	)
Less: current liabilities	141,558		173,153		(31,595		)
Working capital	564,285		595,734		(31,449		)
Subtract:
Cash and cash equivalents	268,628		342,211		(73,583		)
Short-term investments	347,374		335,783		11,591
Add:
Current deferred revenue	108,212		134,087		(25,875		)
Adjusted working capital	$	56,495	$	51,827	4,668

The $4.7 million increase in adjusted working capital is primarily attributable to a $2.9 million net decrease in accrued compensation primarily related to first quarter 2012 payments against our short-term incentive obligation.

Cash used in investing and financing activities

We used net cash in investing activities of $19.6 million in firstquarter2012 and $8.7 million in firstquarter2011. We purchased$10.5 million and $1.1 million of short-term marketable securities, net of sales, in first quarter2012 and 2011, respectively. This increase in net purchases was driven by additional reinvestment of cash on hand as of December 31, 2011. Purchases of property and equipment decreased to $0.5 million in firstquarter2012 from $0.9 million in firstquarter2011 due to lower levels of investments in our new and existing facilities. Investment costs associated with patents increased to $8.6 million in firstquarter2012 from $6.7 million in firstquarter2011, primarily due to costs associated with a patent acquisition transaction in firstquarter2012.

Net cash used in financing activities increased by $26.9 million primarily due to our repurchases of common stock of $25.3 million and lower levels of proceeds from stock option exercises.

21

Other

Our combined short-term and long-term deferred revenue balance at March 31, 2012 was approximately $248.9 million, a decrease of $39.1 million from December 31, 2011. We have no material obligations associated with such deferred revenue. In first quarter2012, deferred revenue decreased $39.1 million due to $56.9 million of deferred revenue recognized, partially offset by gross increases in deferred revenue of $17.7 million. The deferred revenue recognized was comprised of $33.7 million of amortized fixed fee royalty payments and $23.2 million in per-unit exhaustion of prepaid royalties (based upon royalty reports provided by our licensees). The gross increases in deferred revenue of $17.7 million primarily related to cash received or due from patent licensees and technology solutions customers. Of the $17.7 million, $3.4 million relates to the technology solutions agreement arbitration discussed above in the "Overview" section.

Based on current license agreements, we expect the amortization of fixed fee royalty payments to reduce the March 31, 2012 deferred revenue balance of $248.9 million by $108.2 million over the next twelve months. Additional reductions to deferred revenue will be dependent upon the level of per-unit royalties our licensees report against prepaid balances and the resolution of the technology solutions agreement arbitration.

For both the period ended March 31, 2012 and the period ended December 31, 2011, we had 0.3 million options outstanding that had exercise prices less than the fair market value of our stock at each balance sheet date. These options would have generated $4.7 million and $4.9 million, respectively, of cash proceeds to the Company if they had been fully exercised as of such dates.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

First Quarter 2012 Compared to First Quarter 2011

Revenues

The following table compares first quarter 2012 revenues to first quarter 2011 revenues (in millions):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012		2011		(Decrease)/ Increase
Per-unit royalty revenue	$	34.4	$	39.5	$	(5.1	)	(13	)%
Fixed fee amortized royalty revenue	33.7		35.2		(1.5		)	(4	)%
Current patent royalties	68.1		74.7		(6.6		)	(9	)%
Past sales	0.5		2.3		(1.8		)	(78	)%
Total patent licensing royalties	68.6		77.0		(8.4		)	(11	)%
Technology solutions revenue	0.7		1.5		(0.8		)	(53	)%
Total revenue	$	69.3	$	78.5	$	(9.2	)	(12	)%

The $9.2 milliondecrease in total revenue was primarily attributable to an $8.4 milliondecrease in patent licensing royalties. Of this decrease in patent licensing royalties, $5.1 million was attributable to a decrease in per-unit royalties, primarily from our Japanese per-unit licensees as a result of lower shipments. Fixed fee amortized royalty revenue decreased $1.5 million primarily due to the transition of a fixed fee patent license agreement to a per-unit patent license agreement at the end of first quarter 2011. Past sales of $0.5 million in first quarter 2012 related to a new patent license agreement signed during the quarter. Royalties from past sales totaled $2.3 million in first quarter 2011 and related to the first quarter 2011 resolution of a routine audit of an existing licensee and the signing of a new patent license agreement in first quarter 2011. The decrease in technology solutions revenue was due to lower royalties recognized in connection with our SlimChip modem IP as a result of the ongoing arbitration proceeding related to one of our technology solutions agreements.

In first quarter 2012 and first quarter 2011, 65% and 58% of our total revenues, respectively, were attributable to companies that individually accounted for 10% or more of our total revenues. In first quarter 2012 and first quarter 2011, the following licensees accounted for 10% or more of our total revenues:

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012	2011
Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.	37%	33%
Research in Motion Limited	17%	15%
HTC Corporation	11%	10%

22

Operating Expenses

The following table summarizes the change in operating expenses by category (in millions):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012		2011		Increase/ (Decrease)
Patent administration and licensing	$	23.2	$	15.9	$	7.3	46	%
Development	17.5		17.4		0.1		1	%
Selling, general and administrative	9.2		7.8		1.4		18	%
Total operating expenses	$	49.9	$	41.1	$	8.8	21	%

The $8.8 million increase in operating expenses was primarily due to net changes in the following items (in millions):

	Increase/ (Decrease)
Intellectual property enforcement and non-patent litigation	$	8.2
Personnel-related costs	0.9
Depreciation and patent amortization	0.5
Other	0.2
Long-term compensation	(1.0		)
	$	8.8

Intellectual property enforcement and non-patent litigation increased $8.2 million primarily due to costs associated with the ITC action initiated in second half 2011. Personnel-related costs grew $0.9 million primarily due to increased personnel levels within our advanced research group. Depreciation and patent amortization increased $0.5 million due to higher levels of capitalized patent costs in recent years. These increases were partially offset by a decrease of $1.0 million in long-term compensation due to lower accrual rates for all active cycles of our LTCP.

Patent Administration and Licensing Expense: The increase in patent administration and licensing expense primarily resulted from the above-noted increases in intellectual property enforcement and patent amortization, offset in part by the above-noted decreases in long-term compensation.

Development Expense: The increase in development expense was primarily attributable to the above-noted increase in personnel related costs and was offset by the above-noted decrease in long-term compensation.

Selling, General and Administrative Expense: The increase in selling, general and administrative expense was primarily attributable to the above-noted increase in non-patent litigation. Non-patent litigation costs increased due to the previously discussed arbitration proceeding related to one of our technology solutions agreements. This increase was partially offset by the above-noted decrease in long-term compensation.

Other (Expense) Income

The following table compares firstquarter2012 other (expense) income to firstquarter2011 other (expense) income (in millions):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012			2011			(Decrease)/Increase
Interest expense	$	(3.7	)	$	—		$	(3.7	)	30,833	%
Other	—			(1.4		)	1.4			(100	)%
Investment income	1.0			0.5			0.5			100	%
	$	(2.7	)	$	(0.9	)	$	(1.8	)	200	%

The change between periods primarily resulted from the recognition of $3.7 million of interest expense associated with the Notes issued on April 4, 2011, which was partially offset by higher returns on our investment balances in first quarter 2012 as compared to first quarter 2011 and a decrease in other expense due to $1.3 million of investment impairments recorded in first

23

quarter 2011.

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995 — FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such statements include certain information under the heading “Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and other information regarding our current beliefs, plans and expectations, including without limitation the matters set forth below. Words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “forecast,” variations of any such words or similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q include, without limitation, statements regarding:

• The potential effects of new accounting standards on our financial statements or results of operations;

• Our amortization of fixed fee royalty payments over the next twelve months to reduce our March 31, 2012 deferred revenue balance;

• Our expectation that we will use deferred tax assets to offset future U.S. federal income tax returns;

• The timing, outcome and impact of our various litigation, arbitration and administrative matters;

• Our ability to obtain additional liquidity through debt and equity financings; and

• Our belief that our available sources of funds will be sufficient to finance our operations, capital requirements, debt obligations, existing stock repurchase program and dividend program in the next twelve months.

Forward-looking statements concerning our business, results of operations and financial condition are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, and actual events that occur, to differ materially from results contemplated by the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the risks and uncertainties outlined in greater detail in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors of our 2011 Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statement for any reason, except as otherwise required by law.

Item 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK.

There have been no material changes in quantitative and qualitative market risk from the disclosures included in our 2011 Form 10-K.

Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

The Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, with the assistance of other members of management, have evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that the information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and to ensure that the information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended March 31, 2012 that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

24

PART II — OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

Huawei Delaware State Court Proceeding

Reference is made to the Huawei Delaware State Court Proceeding initiated in October 2011 by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively, “Huawei”) against InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Communications, LLC (collectively, “InterDigital” for the purposes of the discussion of this matter) previously disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the "2011 Form 10-K"). On March 22, 2012, following the March 2, 2012 denial of Huawei's motion to partially lift the stay in the Delaware District Court proceeding (discussed below), Huawei filed a renewed motion for expedited proceedings. On April 5, 2012, InterDigital filed its opposition to Huawei's renewed motion and filed a renewed motion to stay or dismiss the proceedings. On April 12, 2012, Huawei filed a reply in support of its renewed motion for expedited proceedings.

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

Reference is made to the U.S. International Trade Commission ("USITC") proceeding and related Delaware District Court proceeding initiated in July 2011 by InterDigital's wholly-owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, the “Company,” “InterDigital,” “we,” or “our” for the purposes of the discussion of this matter) against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively, “Huawei”) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, "ZTE" and together with Nokia and Huawei, “Respondents”) previously disclosed in the 2011 Form 10-K. On March 2, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) denied Huawei's and ZTE USA's requests, made in November 2011 and December 2011, respectively, to partially lift the stay of the Delaware District Court proceedings in order to adjudicate certain proposed counterclaims and granted InterDigital's December 2011 request for a discretionary stay with respect to Huawei's proposed FRAND-based counterclaims.

Nokia New York Southern District Proceeding

Reference is made to the notice of appeal filed by InterDigital with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“New York District Court”) as previously disclosed in the 2011 Form 10-K, in which InterDigital indicated that it was appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") the New York District Court's March 10, 2010 order denying InterDigital's motion to collect against the preliminary injunction bond posted by Nokia in March 2008 in connection with a preliminary injunction that was later ruled to have been wrongly obtained. On March 5, 2012, the Second Circuit granted Nokia's December 30, 2011 motion to stay any efforts by InterDigital to collect on the injunction bond pending a decision in Nokia's appeal of the New York District Court's July 14, 2011 order entitling InterDigital to recover the full amount of the $500,000 preliminary injunction bond and requiring Nokia to direct its surety promptly to make payment to InterDigital. On April 17, 2012, the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the merits of Nokia's appeal of the July 14, 2011 order.

See Note 4, “Litigation and Legal Proceedings,” to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part I, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for further discussion regarding these proceedings.

Item 1A.RISK FACTORS.

In addition to factors set forth in the Statement Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 - Forward Looking-Statements in Part I, Item 2 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, you should carefully consider the factors discussed in Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors of the 2011 Form 10-K, which could materially affect our business, financial condition or future results. The risks described in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and in our 2011 Form 10-K are not the only risks facing our company. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and/or operating results.

Item 2.UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

25

The following table provides information regarding company purchases of its common stock during first quarter 2012.

Period	Total Number of Shares (or Units) Purchased (1)	Average Price Paid per Share (Unit)		Total Number of Shares (or Units) Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs (2)	Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares (or Units) that May Yet be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs (3)
January 1, 2012 - January 31, 2012	—	—		—	$	75,000,220
February 1, 2012 - February 29, 2012	617,700	$	38.29	617,700	$	51,351,428
March 1, 2012 - March 31, 2012	43,212	$	38.78	43,212	$	49,675,806
Total	660,912	$	38.32	660,912	$	49,675,806

__________

(1) Total number of shares purchased during each period reflects share purchase transactions that were completed (i.e., settled) during the period indicated.

(2) Shares were purchased pursuant to the company's $100.0 million share repurchase program (the “2009 Repurchase Program"), which was authorized by the company's board of directors on March 11, 2009. The 2009 Repurchase Program has no expiration date. The company may repurchase shares under the 2009 Repurchase Program through open market purchases, pre-arranged trading plans, or privately negotiated purchases.

(3) Amounts shown in this column reflect the amounts remaining under the 2009 Repurchase Program.

From April 1, 2012 through April 25, 2012, we repurchased 0.7 million shares for $24.7 million, bringing the cumulative repurchase total under the 2009 Repurchase Program to 2.4 million shares at a cost of $75.0 million.

Item 6.EXHIBITS.

The following is a list of exhibits filed with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q:

Exhibit Number	Exhibit Description
Exhibit 31.1	Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 31.2	Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.1	Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. †
Exhibit 32.2	Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. †
Exhibit 101	The following financial information from InterDigital, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2012, formatted in eXtensible Business Reporting Language:
	(i) Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, (ii) Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, (iii) Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, (iv) Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 and (v) Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. ††

26

______________________________

†

This exhibit will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such exhibit will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or Securities Exchange Act, except to the extent that InterDigital, Inc. specifically incorporates it by reference.

††

As provided in Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, this information will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability under those sections.

27

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

	INTERDIGITAL, INC.
Date: April 26, 2012	/s/ WILLIAM J. MERRITT
	William J. Merritt
	President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: April 26, 2012	/s/ SCOTT A. MCQUILKIN
	Scott A. McQuilkin
	Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 26, 2012	/s/ RICHARD J. BREZSKI
	Richard J. Brezski
	Chief Accounting Officer

28

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number	Exhibit Description
Exhibit 31.1	Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 31.2	Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.1	Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. †
Exhibit 32.2	Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. †
Exhibit 101	The following financial information from InterDigital, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2012, formatted in eXtensible Business Reporting Language:
	(i) Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, (ii) Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, (iii) Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, (iv) Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 and (v) Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. ††

______________________________

†

This exhibit will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such exhibit will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or Securities Exchange Act, except to the extent that InterDigital, Inc. specifically incorporates it by reference.

††

As provided in Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, this information will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability under those sections.

29

EX-31.1

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, William J. Merritt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InterDigital, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 26, 2012	/s/ WILLIAM J. MERRITT
	William J. Merritt
	President and Chief Executive Officer

EX-31.2

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Scott A. McQuilkin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InterDigital, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 26, 2012	/s/ SCOTT A. MCQUILKIN
	Scott A. McQuilkin
	Chief Financial Officer

EX-32.1

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InterDigital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William J. Merritt, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 26, 2012	/s/ WILLIAM J. MERRITT
	William J. Merritt
	President and Chief Executive Officer

EX-32.2

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InterDigital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott A. McQuilkin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 26, 2012	/s/ SCOTT A. MCQUILKIN
	Scott A. McQuilkin
	Chief Financial Officer

XML

Net Income Per Share (Notes)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

NET INCOME PER SHARE: [Abstract]

Schedule of Earnings Per Share, Basic and Diluted [Table Text Block]

NET INCOME PER SHARE:

Basic Earnings Per Share ("EPS") is calculated by dividing net income available to common shareholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if options or other securities with features that could result in the issuance of common stock were exercised or converted to common stock. The following tables reconcile the numerator and the denominator of the basic and diluted net income per share computation (in thousands, except for per share data):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012				2011
	Basic		Diluted		Basic		Diluted
Numerator:
Net income applicable to common shareholders	$	10,930	$	10,930	$	23,339	$	23,339
Denominator:
Weighted-average shares outstanding: Basic	45,401		45,401		45,306		45,306
Dilutive effect of stock options, RSUs, convertible securities, and warrants			545				566
Weighted-average shares outstanding: Diluted			45,946				45,872
Earnings Per Share:
Net income: Basic	$	0.24	$	0.24	$	0.52	$	0.52
Dilutive effect of stock options, RSUs, convertible securities, and warrants			—				(0.01		)
Net income: Diluted			$	0.24			$	0.51

For both three months ended March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011, zero options to purchase shares of common stock were excluded from the computation of diluted earnings per share because their effect would have been anti-dilutive.

For three months ended March 31, 2012, 4.0 million shares of common stock issuable under convertible securities were excluded from the computation of diluted EPS because their effect would have been anti-dilutive. For three months ended March 31, 2012, 4.0 million shares of common stock issuable under warrants were excluded from the computation of diluted EPS because their effect would have been anti-dilutive.  There were no warrants or convertible securities outstanding for three months ended March 31, 2011.

XML

Income Taxes (Notes)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Income Tax Contingency [Line Items]

Income Tax Disclosure [Text Block]

INCOME TAXES:

In firstquarter2012, our effective tax rate was approximately 34.4% based on the statutory federal tax rate net of discrete federal and foreign taxes. During first quarter2011, our effective tax rate was approximately 35.8% based on the statutory federal tax rate net of discrete foreign taxes.

During firstquarter2012 and 2011, we paid approximately $0.9 million and $3.0 million, respectively, of foreign source withholding tax. We previously accrued approximately $0.8 million of the firstquarter2012 foreign source withholding payments and established a corresponding deferred tax asset representing the associated foreign tax credit that we expect to utilize to offset future U.S. federal income taxes.

XML

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) (USD $) In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	Mar. 31, 2012	Dec. 31, 2011
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 268,628	$ 342,211
Short-term investments	347,374	335,783
Accounts receivable, less allowances of $1,750	31,029	28,079
Deferred tax assets	52,573	53,990
Prepaid and other current assets	6,239	8,824
Total current assets	705,843	768,887
NON-CURRENT ASSETS:
PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, NET	7,229	7,997
PATENTS, NET	140,245	137,963
DEFERRED TAX ASSETS	51,550	54,110
OTHER NON-CURRENT ASSETS, NET	27,550	28,011
Total non-current assets	226,574	228,081
TOTAL ASSETS	932,417	996,968
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Current portion of long-term debt	104	180
Accounts payable	4,274	7,110
Accrued compensation and related expenses	11,229	14,129
Deferred revenue	108,212	134,087
Taxes payable	4,432	3,265
Divided payable	4,469	4,570
Other accrued expenses	8,838	9,812
Total current liabilities	141,558	173,153
LONG-TERM DEBT	194,427	192,529
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES
LONG-TERM DEFERRED REVENUE	140,681	153,953
OTHER LONG-TERM LIABILITIES	2,479	5,651
TOTAL LIABILITIES	479,145	525,286
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY:
Preferred Stock, $0.10 par value, 0 and 14,399 shares authorized 0 shares issued and outstanding	0	0
Common Stock, $0.01 par value, 100,000 shares authorized, 68,968 and 68,602 shares issued and 45,398 and 45,032 shares outstanding	693	691
Additional paid-in capital	573,708	573,950
Retained earnings	473,145	466,727
Accumulated other comprehensive income	298	(439)
Stockholders' Equity before Treasury Stock	1,047,844	1,040,929
Treasury stock, 23,570 shares of common held at cost	594,572	569,247
Total shareholders’ equity	453,272	471,682
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY	$ 932,417	$ 996,968

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited) Statement (USD $) In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2012	Mar. 31, 2011
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
NET INCOME	$ 10,930	$ 23,339
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization	6,287	5,842
Accretion of debt discount	(1,899)	0
Amortization of Financing Costs	326	0
Deferred revenue recognized	(56,865)	(61,610)
Increase in deferred revenue	17,718	17,338
Deferred income taxes	3,977	10,775
Share-based Compensation	1,572	1,676
Impairment of long-term investment	0	1,301
Other	15	61
Decrease (increase) in assets:
Receivables	(2,950)	11,056
Deferred charges	(125)	(42)
Other current assets	(2,181)	1,340
Increase (decrease) in liabilities:
Accounts payable	(1,479)	(950)
Accrued compensation	(9,634)	(14,537)
Accrued taxes payable	1,167	(858)
Other accrued expenses	(974)	2,658
Net cash provided by operating activities	(25,705)	(5,207)
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
Purchases of short-term investments	131,792	185,714
Sales of short-term investments	121,336	184,585
Purchases of property and equipment	531	931
Capitalized patent costs	8,627	6,671
Net cash used in investing activities	(19,614)	(8,731)
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
Net proceeds from exercise of stock options	240	2,612
Payments on long-term debt, including capital lease obligations	77	46
Dividends paid	4,570	4,526
Excess Tax Benefit from Share-based Compensation, Financing Activities	1,468	564
Repurchase of common stock	(25,325)	0
Net cash provided (used) by financing activities	(28,264)	(1,396)
NET INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS	(73,583)	(15,334)
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF PERIOD	342,211	215,451
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF PERIOD	$ 268,628	$ 200,117

XML

Concentration of Credit Risk and Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities (Details) (USD $)	Mar. 31, 2012		Dec. 31, 2011
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	$ 616,002,000		$ 677,994,000
Commercial Paper	44,000,000		4,000,000
Long-term Debt, Excluding Current Maturities	194,400,000		192,500,000
Long-term Debt, Fair Value	230,900,000		240,900,000
Money Market Funds and Demand Deposits [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	224,655,000	[1]	338,211,000	[1]
Mutual and Exchange Traded Funds [Domain]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	24,194,000		96,130,000
Commercial Paper [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	199,623,000		160,574,000
US Government and Government Agencies and Authorities [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	78,774,000		66,647,000
Corporate Bonds and Asset Backed Securities [Domain]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	88,756,000		16,432,000
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	248,849,000		434,341,000
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] | Money Market Funds and Demand Deposits [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	224,655,000		338,211,000
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] | Mutual and Exchange Traded Funds [Domain]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	24,194,000		96,130,000
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] | Commercial Paper [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] | US Government and Government Agencies and Authorities [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 1 [Member] | Corporate Bonds and Asset Backed Securities [Domain]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	367,153,000		243,653,000
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member] | Money Market Funds and Demand Deposits [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member] | Mutual and Exchange Traded Funds [Domain]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member] | Commercial Paper [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	199,623,000		160,574,000
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 2 [Member] | Corporate Bonds and Asset Backed Securities [Domain]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	88,756,000		16,432,000
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member] | Money Market Funds and Demand Deposits [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member] | Mutual and Exchange Traded Funds [Domain]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member] | Commercial Paper [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member] | US Government and Government Agencies and Authorities [Member]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	0		0
Fair Value, Inputs, Level 3 [Member] | Corporate Bonds and Asset Backed Securities [Domain]
Fair Value, Assets and Liabilities Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Line Items]
Assets, Fair Value Disclosure, Recurring	$ 0		$ 0

[1] Includes $4.0 million of commercial paper that is included within cash and cash equivalents.

XML

Significant Accounting Policies (Notes)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Basis of Presentation [Abstract]

Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policies [Text Block]

BASIS OF PRESENTATION:

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited, condensed consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair statement of the financial position of InterDigital, Inc. (individually and/or collectively with its subsidiaries referred to as “InterDigital,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our,” unless otherwise indicated) as of March 31, 2012, and the results of our operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 and our cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. The accompanying unaudited, condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the instructions for Form 10-Q and, accordingly, do not include all of the detailed schedules, information and notes necessary to state fairly the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by GAAP for year-end financial statements. Therefore, these financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (our “2011 Form 10-K”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on February 27, 2012. The results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the entire year. We have one reportable segment.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

Change in Accounting Policies

There have been no material changes in our existing accounting policies from the disclosures included in our 2011 Form 10-K.

New Accounting Guidance

Accounting Standards Updates: Fair Value Measurements: Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS

In May 2011, the FASB issued authoritative guidance that is more closely aligned with the fair value measurement and disclosure guidance issued by the International Accounting Standards Board ("IASB"). The issuance of this standard results in global fair value measurement and disclosure guidance that minimizes the differences between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. Many of the changes in the final standard represent clarifications to existing guidance, while some changes related to the valuation premise and the application of premiums and discounts and new required disclosures are more significant. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. We adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2012; however, the adoption of this guidance does not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements or related disclosures.

Accounting Standards Updates: Presentation of Comprehensive Income

In June 2011, the FASB issued authoritative guidance requiring most entities to present items of net income and other comprehensive income either in one continuous statement, referred to as the statement of comprehensive income, or in two separate, but consecutive, statements of net income and other comprehensive income. The option to present items of other comprehensive income in the statement of changes in equity was eliminated. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. We adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2012. We have chosen to present items of net income and other comprehensive income in two separate but consecutive statements.

XML

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) (Paranthetical) (USD $) In Thousands, except Per Share data, unless otherwise specified	Mar. 31, 2012	Dec. 31, 2011
CURRENT ASSETS:
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts Receivable	$ 1,750	$ 1,750
SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY:
Common Stock, Par or Stated Value Per Share	$ 0.01	$ 0.01
Common Stock, Shares Authorized	100,000	100,000
Common stock, shares issued	69,293	69,118
Common Stock, Shares, Outstanding	45,062	45,548
Preferred Stock, Par or Stated Value Per Share	$ 0.10	$ 0.10
Preferred Stock, Shares Authorized	14,399	14,399
Preferred Stock, Shares Issued	0	0
Preferred Stock, Shares Outstanding	0	0
Treasury Stock, Shares	24,231	23,570

XML

Long-Term Debt (Tables)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Long-term Debt, Unclassified [Abstract]

Schedule of Long-term Debt Instruments [Table Text Block]

The following table reflects the carrying value of the Company's convertible debt as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

	March 31, 2012			December 31, 2011
2.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2016	$	230,000		$	230,000
Less: Unamortized interest discount	(35,573		)	(37,471		)
Net carrying amount of 2.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2016	$	194,427		$	192,529

The following table presents the amount of interest cost recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011 relating to the contractual interest coupon, accretion of the debt discount, and the amortization of financing costs (in thousands):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012		2011
Contractual coupon interest	$	1,438	$	—
Accretion of debt discount	1,899		—
Amortization of financing costs	326		—
Total	$	3,663	$	—

XML

Document and Entity Information Document	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2012	Apr. 24, 2012
Entity Information [Line Items]
Entity Registrant Name	INTERDIGITAL, INC.
Entity Central Index Key	0001405495
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Filer Category	Accelerated Filer
Document Type	10-Q
Document Period End Date	Mar. 31, 2012
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2012
Document Fiscal Period Focus	Q1
Amendment Flag	false
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		44,352,434

XML

Income Taxes (Details) (USD $) In Millions, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2012	Mar. 31, 2011
Income Tax Contingency [Line Items]
Effective Income Tax Rate, Continuing Operations	34.40%	35.80%
Foreign Country [Member]
Income Tax Contingency [Line Items]
Income Taxes Paid	0.9	3.0
Foreign Withholding Taxes Accrued		0.8

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Unaudited) Statement (USD $) In Thousands, except Per Share data, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2012	Mar. 31, 2011
REVENUES	$ 69,305	$ 78,458
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Patent administration and licensing	23,228	15,948
Development	17,489	17,424
Selling, general and administrative	9,183	7,780
Total Operating Expenses	49,900	41,152
Income from operations	19,405	37,306
Interest and investment income, net	(2,734)	(942)
Income before income taxes	16,671	36,364
INCOME TAX PROVISION	(5,741)	(13,025)
NET INCOME	$ 10,930	$ 23,339
NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE — BASIC	$ 0.24	$ 0.52
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING — BASIC	45,401	45,306
NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE — DILUTED	$ 0.24	$ 0.51
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING — DILUTED	45,946	45,872
CASH DIVIDEND DECLARED PER COMMON SHARE	$ 0.10	$ 0.10

XML

Concentration of Credit Risk and Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities (Notes)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK AND FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND FINANCIAL LIABILITIES: [Abstract]

Fair Value, Assets Measured on Recurring and Nonrecurring Basis [Table Text Block]

CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK AND FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND FINANCIAL LIABILITIES:

Concentration of Credit Risk and Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Financial instruments that potentially subject us to concentration of credit risk consist primarily of cash equivalents, short-term investments, and accounts receivable. We place our cash equivalents and short-term investments only in highly rated financial instruments and in United States government instruments.

Our accounts receivable are derived principally from patent license and technology solutions agreements. At March 31, 2012, three licensees comprised 99% of our net accounts receivable balance. At December 31, 2011, three licensees represented 97% of our net accounts receivable balance. We perform ongoing credit evaluations of our licensees, who generally include large, multinational, wireless telecommunications equipment manufacturers. We believe that the book values of our financial instruments approximate their fair values.

Fair Value Measurements

Effective January 1, 2008, we adopted the provisions of the FASB fair value measurement guidance that relate to our financial assets and financial liabilities. We adopted the guidance related to non-financial assets and liabilities as of January 1, 2009. We use various valuation techniques and assumptions when measuring fair value of our assets and liabilities. We utilize market data or assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the valuation technique. This guidance established a hierarchy that prioritizes fair value measurements based on the types of input used for the various valuation techniques (market approach, income approach and cost approach). The levels of the hierarchy are described below:

Level 1 Inputs — Level 1 includes financial instruments for which quoted market prices for identical instruments are available in active markets.

Level 2 Inputs — Level 2 includes financial instruments for which there are inputs other than quoted prices included within Level 1 that are observable for the instrument such as quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets with insufficient volume or infrequent transactions (less active markets) or model-driven valuations in which significant inputs are observable or can be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data, including market interest rate curves, referenced credit spreads and pre-payment rates.

Level 3 Inputs — Level 3 includes financial instruments for which fair value is derived from valuation techniques including pricing models and discounted cash flow models in which one or more significant inputs are unobservable, including the Company’s own assumptions. The pricing models incorporate transaction details such as contractual terms, maturity and, in certain instances, timing and amount of future cash flows, as well as assumptions related to liquidity and credit valuation adjustments of marketplace participants.

Our assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the valuation of financial assets and financial liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy. We use quoted market prices for similar assets to estimate the fair value of our Level 2 investments. Our financial assets are included within short-term investments on our condensed consolidated balance sheets, unless otherwise indicated. Our financial assets that are accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis are presented in the tables below as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

	Fair Value as of March 31, 2012
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Money market and demand accounts (a)	$	224,655	$	—	$	—	$	224,655
Mutual and exchange traded funds	24,194		—		—		24,194
Commercial paper (b)	—		199,623		—		199,623
U.S. government securities	—		78,774		—		78,774
Corporate bonds and asset backed securities	—		88,756		—		88,756
	$	248,849	$	367,153	$	—	$	616,002

______________________________

(a) Included within cash and cash equivalents.

(b) Includes $44.0 million of commercial paper that is included within cash and cash equivalents.

	Fair Value as of December 31, 2011
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Money market and demand accounts (a)	$	338,211	$	—	$	—	$	338,211
Mutual and exchange traded funds	96,130		—		—		96,130
Commercial paper (b)	—		160,574		—		160,574
U.S. government securities	—		66,647		—		66,647
Corporate bonds and asset backed securities	—		16,432		—		16,432
	$	434,341	$	243,653	$	—	$	677,994

______________________________

(a) Included within cash and cash equivalents.

(b) Includes $4.0 million of commercial paper that is included within cash and cash equivalents.

The carrying amount of long-term debt reported in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was $194.4 million and $192.5 million, respectively. Using inputs such as actual trade data, benchmark yields, broker/dealer quotes and other similar data, which were obtained from independent pricing vendors, quoted market prices or other sources, we determined the fair value of these level 2 Notes (as defined in Note 7 "Long-Term Debt") to be $230.9 million as of March 31, 2012 and $240.9 million as of December 31, 2011.

XML

Equity Transactions (Notes)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

EQUITY TRANSACTIONS: [Abstract]

Stockholders' Equity Note Disclosure [Text Block]

EQUITY TRANSACTIONS:

Changes in shareholders’ equity for the three months ended March 31, 2012 were as follows (in thousands):

	Total Shareholders' Equity
Balance as of December 31, 2011	$	471,682
Net income	10,930
Unrealized gain on investments, net	737
Cash dividends declared	(4,469		)
Repurchase of Common Stock	(25,325		)
Net proceeds for exercise of stock options	240
Taxes withheld upon restricted stock unit vestings	(3,563		)
Tax benefit from share-based compensation	1,468
Share-based compensation	1,572
Balance as of March 31, 2012	$	453,272

Repurchase of Common Stock

In March 2009, our Board of Directors authorized a $100.0 million share repurchase program (the “2009 Repurchase Program”). The Company may repurchase shares under the 2009 Repurchase Program through open market purchases, pre-arranged trading plans, or privately negotiated purchases. We made no share repurchases during first quarter 2011. During first quarter 2012 we repurchased 0.7 million shares for $25.3 million. We repurchased 0.7 million shares at a cost of $24.7 million from April 1, 2012 through April 25, 2012, bringing the cumulative repurchase total under the 2009 Repurchase Program to 2.4 million shares at a cost of $75.0 million.

Dividends

Prior to 2011, we had not paid any cash dividends on our shares of common stock. In fourth quarter 2010, our Board of Directors approved the Company’s initial dividend policy and declared the first quarterly cash dividend of $0.10 per share. Cash dividends on outstanding common stock declared in firstquarter2012 and 2011 were as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

2012	Per Share		Total		Cumulative by Fiscal Year
First quarter	$	0.10	$	4,469	$	4,469
2011
First quarter	$	0.10	$	4,535	$	4,535
Second quarter	0.10		4,540		9,075
Third quarter	0.10		4,549		13,624
Fourth quarter	0.10		4,570		18,194
	$	0.40	$	18,194

Common Stock Warrants

On March 29, 2011 and March 30, 2011, we entered into privately negotiated warrant transactions with Barclays Bank PLC, through its agent, Barclays Capital Inc., whereby we sold to Barclays Bank PLC warrants to acquire, subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately 3.5 million and approximately 0.5 million shares of our common stock, respectively, at a strike price of $66.3528 per share, also subject to adjustment. The warrants become exercisable in tranches starting in June 2016. In consideration for the warrants issued on March 29, 2011 and March 30, 2011, the Company received $27.6 million and $4.1 million, respectively, on April 4, 2011.

XML

Long-Term Debt (Details) (USD $) Share data in Millions, except Per Share data, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended				3 Months Ended							3 Months Ended		3 Months Ended			3 Months Ended		3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2012	Mar. 31, 2011	Dec. 31, 2011	Apr. 04, 2011	Mar. 31, 2012 Note Warrant2 [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Convertible Note Hedge 2 [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Convertible Note Hedge [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Note Warrant [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Convertible Note Hedge 1 [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Convertible Note/ Hedge Warrant, net [Member]	Mar. 29, 2011 Convertible Note Overallotment [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Convertible Debt [Member]	Dec. 31, 2011 Convertible Debt [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Convertible Debt [Member] Convertible Notes 2016 [Member]	Apr. 04, 2011 Convertible Debt [Member] Convertible Notes 2016 [Member]	Mar. 29, 2011 Convertible Debt 1 [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Other Long-term Liabilities [Member] Convertible Debt [Member]	Apr. 04, 2011 Other Long-term Liabilities [Member] Convertible Debt [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Equity [Member] Convertible Debt [Member]	Apr. 04, 2011 Equity [Member] Convertible Debt [Member]	Mar. 30, 2011 Equity [Member] Convertible Debt [Member]	Mar. 29, 2011 Equity [Member] Convertible Debt [Member]
Debt Instrument [Line Items]
Interest Expense, Debt, Excluding Amortization	$ 1,438,000	$ 0
Accretion of Discount	1,899,000	0
Amortization of Financing Costs	326,000	0
Proceeds from Issuance of Warrants					4,100,000			27,600,000
Senior Notes											30,000,000	230,000,000	230,000,000			200,000,000		187,000,000		43,000,000
Debt Instrument, Unamortized Discount	(35,573,000)		(37,471,000)
Senior Convertible Notes [Equity net of tax]																				28,000,000
Debt Conversion, Converted Instrument, Amount														1,000
Debt Instrument, Convertible, Conversion Price															$ 57.65
Class of Warrant or Right, Outstanding	4.0																				0.5	3.5
Derivative, Price Risk Option Strike Price																						$ 66.3528
Proceeds from (Payments for) Other Financing Activities						5,600,000	42,700,000		37,100,000	10,900,000
Debt Instrument, Interest Rate, Effective Percentage				7.00%
Payments of Debt Issuance Costs												8,000,000					6,500,000		(1,500,000)
Debt Instrument, Interest Rate, Stated Percentage															2.50%
Debt Instrument, Convertible, Conversion Ratio														17.3458
Senior convertible notes net of unamortized discount	194,427,000		192,529,000
Senior Convertible Note, Note Hedge, and Warrant Transaction Interest Expense	$ 3,663,000	$ 0

XML

Net Income Per Share (Details) (USD $)	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2012	Mar. 31, 2011
Earnings Per Share, Basic & Dilutive, by Common Class, Including Two Class Method [Line Items]
NET INCOME	$ 10,930,000	$ 23,339,000
Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding, Basic	45,401,000	45,306,000
Weighted Average Number Diluted Shares Outstanding Adjustment	545,000	566,000
Weighted Average Number of Shares Outstanding, Diluted	45,946,000	45,872,000
Net Incme Per Common Share, Basic	$ 0.24	$ 0.52
Dilutive Securities, Effect on Basic Earnings Per Share	$ 0.00	$ (0.01)
Net Income Per Common Share, Diluted	$ 0.24	$ 0.51
Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share, Amount		0
Class of Warrant or Right, Outstanding	4,000,000
Stock Options [Member]
Earnings Per Share, Basic & Dilutive, by Common Class, Including Two Class Method [Line Items]
Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share, Amount	0
Convertible Debt Securities [Member]
Earnings Per Share, Basic & Dilutive, by Common Class, Including Two Class Method [Line Items]
Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share, Amount	4,000,000

XML

Equity Transactions Shareholders Equity Rollforward (Tables)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

EQUITY TRANSACTIONS: [Abstract]

Schedule of Stockholders Equity [Table Text Block]

Changes in shareholders’ equity for the three months ended March 31, 2012 were as follows (in thousands):

	Total Shareholders' Equity
Balance as of December 31, 2011	$	471,682
Net income	10,930
Unrealized gain on investments, net	737
Cash dividends declared	(4,469		)
Repurchase of Common Stock	(25,325		)
Net proceeds for exercise of stock options	240
Taxes withheld upon restricted stock unit vestings	(3,563		)
Tax benefit from share-based compensation	1,468
Share-based compensation	1,572
Balance as of March 31, 2012	$	453,272

Dividends Declared [Table Text Block]

Cash dividends on outstanding common stock declared in firstquarter2012 and 2011 were as follows (in thousands, except per share data):

2012	Per Share		Total		Cumulative by Fiscal Year
First quarter	$	0.10	$	4,469	$	4,469
2011
First quarter	$	0.10	$	4,535	$	4,535
Second quarter	0.10		4,540		9,075
Third quarter	0.10		4,549		13,624
Fourth quarter	0.10		4,570		18,194
	$	0.40	$	18,194

XML

Long-Term Debt (Notes)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Long-term Debt, Unclassified [Abstract]

Long-term Debt [Text Block]

LONG-TERM DEBT:

Senior Convertible Note, Note Hedge and Warrant Transactions

     On April 4, 2011, InterDigital issued $230.0 million in aggregate principal amount of its 2.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2016 (the “Notes”) pursuant to an indenture (the “Indenture”), dated as of April 4, 2011, by and between the Company and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the “Trustee”). The Notes bear interest at a rate of 2.50% per year, payable in cash on March 15 and September 15 of each year, commencing September 15, 2011. The Notes will mature on March 15, 2016, unless earlier converted or repurchased. The Notes are the Company's senior unsecured obligations and rank equally in right of payment with any of the Company's future senior unsecured indebtedness, and the Notes are structurally subordinated to the Company's future secured indebtedness to the extent of the value of the related collateral and to the indebtedness and other liabilities, including trade payables, of the Company's subsidiaries, except with respect to any subsidiaries that become guarantors pursuant to the terms of the Indenture.

     The Notes will be convertible into cash and, if applicable, shares of the Company's common stock at an initial conversion rate of 17.3458 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of Notes (which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $57.65 per share). The conversion rate, and thus the conversion price, may be adjusted under certain circumstances, including in connection with conversions made following certain fundamental changes and under other circumstances as set forth in the Indenture.

     Prior to 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on the business day immediately preceding December 15, 2015, the Notes will be convertible only under certain circumstances as set forth in the Indenture. Commencing on December 15, 2015, the Notes will be convertible in multiples of $1,000 principal amount, at any time prior to 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on the business day immediately preceding the maturity date of the Notes. Upon any conversion, the conversion obligation will be settled in cash up to, and including, the principal amount and, to the extent of any excess over the principal amount, in shares of common stock.

     If a fundamental change (as defined in the Indenture) occurs, holders may require the Company to purchase all or a portion of their Notes for cash at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change repurchase date.

     The Company may not redeem the Notes prior to their maturity date.

     On March 29 and March 30, 2011, in connection with the offering of the Notes, InterDigital entered into convertible note hedge transactions with respect to its common stock with Barclays Bank PLC, through its agent, Barclays Capital Inc. The two convertible note hedge transactions cover, subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately 3.5 million and approximately 0.5 million shares of common stock, respectively, at a strike price that corresponds to the initial conversion price of the Notes, also subject to adjustment, and are exercisable upon conversion of the Notes.

     On April 4, 2011, the Company paid $37.1 million and $5.6 million for the convertible note hedge transactions entered into on March 29 and March 30, 2011, respectively. The aggregate cost of the convertible note hedge transactions was $42.7 million. As described in more detail below, this cost was partially offset by the proceeds from the sale of the warrants in separate transactions.

     The convertible note hedge transactions are intended generally to reduce the potential dilution to the common stock upon conversion of the Notes in the event that the market price per share of the common stock is greater than the strike price.

     The convertible note hedge transactions are separate transactions and are not part of the terms of the Notes. Holders of the Notes have no rights with respect to the convertible note hedge transactions.

     On March 29 and March 30, 2011, InterDigital also entered into privately-negotiated warrant transactions with Barclays Bank PLC, through its agent, Barclays Capital Inc., whereby InterDigital sold warrants to acquire, subject to customary anti-dilution adjustments, approximately 3.5 million shares and approximately 0.5 million shares, respectively, of common stock at a strike price of $66.3528 per share, also subject to adjustment. The warrants become exercisable in tranches starting in June 2016. As consideration for the warrants issued on March 29 and March 30, 2011, the Company received, on April 4, 2011, $27.6 million and $4.1 million, respectively.

     If the market value per share of the common stock, as measured under the warrants, exceeds the strike price of the warrants at the time the warrants are exercisable, the warrants will have a dilutive effect on the Company's earnings per share.

Accounting Treatment of the Senior Convertible Note, Convertible Note Hedge and Warrant Transactions

     The offering of the Notes on March 29, 2011 was for $200.0 million and included an overallotment option that allowed the initial purchaser to purchase up to an additional $30.0 million aggregate principal amount of Notes. The initial purchaser exercised its overallotment option on March 30, 2011, bringing the total amount of Notes issued on April 4, 2011 to $230.0 million.

     In connection with the offering of the Notes, as discussed above, InterDigital entered into convertible note hedge transactions with respect to its common stock. The $42.7 million cost of the convertible note hedge transactions was partially offset by the proceeds from the sale of the warrants described above, resulting in a net cost of $10.9 million.

     Existing accounting guidance provides that the March 29, 2011 convertible note hedge and warrant contracts be treated as derivative instruments for the period during which the initial purchaser's overallotment option was outstanding. Once the overallotment provision was exercised on March 30, 2011, the March 29 convertible note hedge and warrant contracts were reclassified to equity, as the settlement terms of the Company's note hedge and warrant contracts both provide for net share settlement. There was no material net change in the value of these convertible note hedges and warrants during the one day they were classified as derivatives and the equity components of these instruments will not be adjusted for subsequent changes in fair value.

     Under current accounting guidance, the Company bifurcated the proceeds from the offering of the Notes between the liability and equity components of the debt. On the date of issuance, the liability and equity components were calculated to be approximately $187.0 million and $43.0 million, respectively. The initial $187.0 million liability component was determined based on the fair value of similar debt instruments excluding the conversion feature. The initial $43.0 million ($28.0 million net of tax) equity component represents the difference between the fair value of the initial $187.0 million in debt and the $230.0 million of gross proceeds. The related initial debt discount of $43.0 million is being amortized using the effective interest method over the life of the Notes. An effective interest rate of 7% was used to calculate the debt discount on the Notes.

     In connection with the above-noted transactions, the Company incurred $8.0 million of directly related costs. The initial purchaser's transaction fees and related offering expenses were allocated to the liability and equity components of the debt in proportion to the allocation of proceeds and accounted for as debt issuance costs. We allocated $6.5 million of debt issuance costs to the liability component of the debt, which were capitalized as deferred financing costs. These costs are being amortized to interest expense over the term of the debt using the effective interest method. The remaining $1.5 million of costs allocated to the equity component of the debt were recorded as a reduction of the equity component of the debt.

The following table reflects the carrying value of the Company's convertible debt as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

	March 31, 2012			December 31, 2011
2.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2016	$	230,000		$	230,000
Less: Unamortized interest discount	(35,573		)	(37,471		)
Net carrying amount of 2.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2016	$	194,427		$	192,529

The following table presents the amount of interest cost recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011 relating to the contractual interest coupon, accretion of the debt discount, and the amortization of financing costs (in thousands):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012		2011
Contractual coupon interest	$	1,438	$	—
Accretion of debt discount	1,899		—
Amortization of financing costs	326		—
Total	$	3,663	$	—

XML

Net Income Per Share (Tables)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

NET INCOME PER SHARE: [Abstract]

Schedule of Earnings Per Share Reconciliation [Table Text Block]

The following tables reconcile the numerator and the denominator of the basic and diluted net income per share computation (in thousands, except for per share data):

	For the Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012				2011
	Basic		Diluted		Basic		Diluted
Numerator:
Net income applicable to common shareholders	$	10,930	$	10,930	$	23,339	$	23,339
Denominator:
Weighted-average shares outstanding: Basic	45,401		45,401		45,306		45,306
Dilutive effect of stock options, RSUs, convertible securities, and warrants			545				566
Weighted-average shares outstanding: Diluted			45,946				45,872
Earnings Per Share:
Net income: Basic	$	0.24	$	0.24	$	0.52	$	0.52
Dilutive effect of stock options, RSUs, convertible securities, and warrants			—				(0.01		)
Net income: Diluted			$	0.24			$	0.51

XML

Concentration of Credit Risk and Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities (Tables)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK AND FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND FINANCIAL LIABILITIES: [Abstract]

Fair Value, Measurement Inputs, Disclosure [Table Text Block]

Our financial assets that are accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis are presented in the tables below as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (in thousands):

	Fair Value as of March 31, 2012
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Money market and demand accounts (a)	$	224,655	$	—	$	—	$	224,655
Mutual and exchange traded funds	24,194		—		—		24,194
Commercial paper (b)	—		199,623		—		199,623
U.S. government securities	—		78,774		—		78,774
Corporate bonds and asset backed securities	—		88,756		—		88,756
	$	248,849	$	367,153	$	—	$	616,002

______________________________

(a) Included within cash and cash equivalents.

(b) Includes $44.0 million of commercial paper that is included within cash and cash equivalents.

	Fair Value as of December 31, 2011
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Money market and demand accounts (a)	$	338,211	$	—	$	—	$	338,211
Mutual and exchange traded funds	96,130		—		—		96,130
Commercial paper (b)	—		160,574		—		160,574
U.S. government securities	—		66,647		—		66,647
Corporate bonds and asset backed securities	—		16,432		—		16,432
	$	434,341	$	243,653	$	—	$	677,994

______________________________

(a) Included within cash and cash equivalents.

(b) Includes $4.0 million of commercial paper that is included within cash and cash equivalents.

XML

Concentration of Credit Risk and Fair Value of Financial Assets and Liabilities (Details)	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2012	Mar. 31, 2011
Concentration Risk [Line Items]
Concentration Risk, Additional Characteristic	three	three
Concentration Risk, Percentage	99.00%	97.00%

XML

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Other Comprehensive Income (USD $) In Thousands, unless otherwise specified	3 Months Ended
	Mar. 31, 2012	Mar. 31, 2011
NET INCOME	$ 10,930	$ 23,339
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Unrealized Holding Gain (Loss) on Securities Arising During Period, Tax	737	12
Total comprehensive income	$ 11,667	$ 23,351

XML

Litigation and Legal Proceedings (Notes)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS [Abstract]

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

TIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Huawei China Proceedings

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

Huawei Delaware State Court Proceeding

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

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

On March 22, 2012, following the March 2, 2012 denial of Huawei's motion to partially lift the stay in the Delaware District Court proceeding (discussed below), Huawei filed a renewed motion for expedited proceedings. On April 5, 2012, InterDigital filed its opposition to Huawei's renewed motion for expedited proceedings and filed a renewed motion to stay or dismiss. On April 12, 2012, Huawei filed a reply in support of its renewed motion for expedited proceedings.

Nokia, Huawei, ZTE and LG USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800) and Related Delaware District Court Proceeding

On July 26, 2011, InterDigital's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively, the “Company,” “InterDigital,” “we,” or “our” for the purposes of the discussion of this matter) filed a complaint with the USITC against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) (collectively, “Huawei”) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, “ZTE” and together with Nokia and Huawei, “Respondents”), alleging that they engaged in unfair trade practices by 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 “Asserted Patents”). The action also extends to certain WCDMA and cdma2000® devices incorporating WiFi functionality. InterDigital's complaint with the USITC seeks an exclusion order that would bar from entry into the U.S. any infringing 3G wireless devices (and components) that are imported by or on behalf of Respondents, and also seeks a cease and desist order to bar further sales of infringing products that have already been imported into the United States. On August 31, 2011, the USITC formally instituted an investigation against Respondents (337-TA-800). On October 5, 2011, InterDigital filed a motion requesting that the USITC add LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) as respondents to the Company's USITC complaint, and that the USITC add an additional patent to the USITC complaint as well. On December 5, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") granted this motion, and on December 21, 2011, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's determination, thus adding the LG entities as respondents and including allegations of infringement of the additional patent.

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

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

On January 6, 2012, the ALJ granted the parties' motion to extend the target date for completion of the investigation by four months from February 28, 2013 to June 28, 2013. On March 23, 2012, the ALJ issued a new procedural schedule for the USITC investigation, setting a trial date of October 22 to November 2, 2012. On January 20, 2012, LG filed a motion to terminate the USITC investigation as it relates to the LG entities alleging there is an arbitrable dispute. InterDigital filed its response opposing LG's motion on February 6, 2012.

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

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

On March 2, 2012, the Court denied Huawei's and ZTE USA's request to partially lift the stay and granted InterDigital's request for a discretionary stay with respect to Huawei's proposed FRAND-based counterclaims.

Prior Nokia USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613), Related Delaware District Court and Southern District of New York Proceedings and Federal Circuit Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nokia Delaware Proceeding

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

On December 10, 2007, pursuant to a joint request by the parties, the Delaware District Court entered an order staying the proceedings pending the full and final resolution of InterDigital's USITC investigation against Nokia (337-TA-613). Specifically, the full and final resolution of the USITC investigation includes any initial or final determinations of the Administrative Law Judge overseeing the proceeding, the USITC, and any appeals therefrom. Pursuant to the order, the parties and their affiliates are generally prohibited from initiating against the other parties, in any forum, any claims or counterclaims that are the same as the claims and counterclaims pending in the Nokia Delaware Proceeding, and should any of the same or similar claims or counterclaims be initiated by a party, the other parties may seek dissolution of the stay.

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

Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations

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

The December 10, 2007 order entered by the Delaware District Court to stay the Nokia Delaware Proceeding (described above) also stayed the Nokia Arbitration Concerning Presentations pending the full and final resolution of the USITC investigation against Nokia (337-TA-613) as described above.

Other

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

Contingency related to Technology Solutions Agreement Arbitration

Our wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications LLC and InterDigital Technology Corporation are engaged in an arbitration relating to a contractual dispute concerning the scope of royalty obligations and the scope of the licenses granted under one of our technology solutions agreements.  The arbitration hearing is currently scheduled for late June 2012. As of March 31, 2012, we have deferred related revenue of $33.1 million pending the resolution of this arbitration and recorded such amount within long term deferred revenue since the timing of the final outcome is not known.

XML

Equity Transactions (Details) (USD $) Share data in Millions, except Per Share data, unless otherwise specified	1 Months Ended	3 Months Ended					6 Months Ended	9 Months Ended	12 Months Ended	3 Months Ended				3 Months Ended
	Apr. 24, 2012	Mar. 31, 2012	Dec. 31, 2011	Sep. 30, 2011	Jun. 30, 2011	Mar. 31, 2011	Jun. 30, 2011	Sep. 30, 2011	Dec. 31, 2011	Mar. 31, 2012 Inception to Date [Domain]	Mar. 31, 2012 Current Period [Domain]	Mar. 30, 2011 Convertible Debt [Member] Equity [Member]	Mar. 29, 2011 Convertible Debt [Member] Equity [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Note Warrant2 [Member]	Mar. 31, 2012 Note Warrant [Member]
Equity Transactions [Roll Forward]
Balance as of December 31, 2011	$ 453,272,000	$ 471,682,000
NET INCOME		10,930,000				23,339,000
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss), Unrealized Holding Gain (Loss) on Securities Arising During Period, Tax		737,000				12,000
Dividends		4,469,000
Stock Issued During Period, Value, Stock Options Exercised		240,000
Adjustments Related to Tax Withholding for Share-based Compensation		3,563,000
Adjustments to Additional Paid in Capital, Income Tax Benefit from Share-based Compensation		1,468,000
Share-based Compensation		1,572,000
Balance as of March 31, 2012		453,272,000	471,682,000						471,682,000
Stock Repurchase Program, Authorized Amount		100,000,000
Stock Repurchased During Period, Shares	0.7					0				2.4	0.7
Stock Repurchased During Period, Value	24,700,000	(25,325,000)								(75,000,000)	(25,300,000)
Common Stock, Dividends, Per Share, Declared		$ 0.10	$ 0.10	$ 0.10	$ 0.10	$ 0.10			$ 0.40
Dividends, Common Stock, Cash		4,469,000	4,570,000	4,549,000	4,540,000	4,535,000	9,075,000	13,624,000	18,194,000
Class of Warrant or Right, Outstanding		4.0										0.5	3.5
Derivative, Price Risk Option Strike Price													$ 66.3528
Proceeds from Issuance of Warrants														$ 4,100,000	$ 27,600,000