6. LITIGATION AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

ARBITRATIONS AND COURT PROCEEDINGS (OTHER THAN DE DISTRICT COURT ACTIONS RELATED TO USITC PROCEEDINGS)

Huawei Arbitration

On December 23, 2013, InterDigital and Huawei agreed to engage in an expedited binding arbitration to resolve their licensing disputes. Pursuant to their agreement, on April 9, 2014, InterDigital and Huawei initiated an arbitration with the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) jointly seeking a determination by an arbitral tribunal of FRAND royalty terms and conditions to be included in a binding worldwide patent license agreement to take effect upon issuance of the arbitration award. An arbitration hearing was held on January 12-16, 2015. On May 26, 2015, the panel convened by the ICC delivered a confidential partial award. The panel convened by the ICC delivered a confidential final award dated July 14, 2015.

On June 9, 2015, InterDigital filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “New York District Court”) for an order confirming the arbitration award (the “New York Proceeding”). On the same day, Huawei filed an action in the Paris Court of Appeal requesting annulment of the arbitration award (the “Paris Proceeding”).

On July 24, 2015, Huawei opposed InterDigital’s petition in the New York Proceeding and filed a motion to stay the New York Proceeding pending the Paris Proceeding. On August 14, 2015, InterDigital amended its petition in the New York Proceeding to take into account the issuance of the arbitration panel’s final award. A hearing in the New York Proceeding was held on February 16, 2016. On February 17, 2016, the judge notified the parties that he had rendered a decision on Huawei’s motion to stay the New York Proceeding, finding that the New York Proceeding should be stayed pending the Paris Proceeding, subject to a requirement that Huawei post suitable security, pursuant to Article VI of the New York Convention, in the amount of the final award, together with interest. The stay is subject to revision should circumstances change, and InterDigital can renew its petition for an order confirming the award following the outcome of the Paris Proceeding. On March 28, 2016, the New York District Court issued an order setting the amount of Huawei’s security.

Huawei filed its brief seeking annulment in the Paris Proceeding on July 24, 2015. A hearing in the Paris Proceeding was held on March 8, 2016. On April 12, 2016, the Paris Court of Appeal denied Huawei’s request to annul the arbitration award. Shortly thereafter, Huawei indicated to InterDigital that it was considering an appeal of the Paris Court of Appeal decision to the highest court in France. On April 26, 2016, the parties submitted a proposed order to the New York District Court, which was entered by the court that same day, notifying the court of their agreements regarding payments under the partial and final arbitration awards and the status of the New York Proceeding. As it considers and pursues an appeal of the Paris Court of Appeal decision, Huawei agreed to make payments, without prejudice to its right to a further appeal, of amounts then outstanding and amounts that become due under the arbitration awards (including the resulting license agreement). In addition, InterDigital agreed not to seek to lift the stay in the New York Proceeding pending receipt of all such payments and pending any further appeal that Huawei has the right to pursue to the courts of France, and not to require Huawei to post security.

On May 5, 2016, we received notice from the French Cour de Cassation, the highest court in France, that Huawei had filed on April 27, 2016 an appeal of the April 12, 2016 Paris Court of Appeal decision with the French Cour de Cassation. Huawei complied with its obligations under the New York District Court’s order, including by making the requisite payments under the arbitration awards. Huawei made the first payments in second quarter 2016.

In August 2016, InterDigital and Huawei signed a multi-year, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-bearing patent license agreement (the “2016 Huawei PLA”). The agreement covers sales of 3G and 4G terminal unit products by Huawei and its affiliates and sets forth cash payments to InterDigital and a process for the transfer of patents from Huawei to InterDigital, as well as a framework for discussions regarding joint research and development efforts.

As a result of the 2016 Huawei PLA, the companies have settled all proceedings related to this arbitration. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of the New York Proceedings, which were closed on September 8, 2016. In accordance with the agreement, Huawei also petitioned the French Cour de Cassation to dismiss the Paris Proceedings, and these proceedings were dismissed on October 13, 2016.

The parties agreed in the 2016 Huawei PLA that the Chinese Supreme People’s Court proceeding regarding the royalty rate for the license to InterDigital’s Chinese standards-essential patents (discussed below) would survive execution of the agreement and is excluded from the dismissal provisions of the agreement, but that the royalty terms of the 2016 Huawei PLA establish the worldwide royalties to be paid by Huawei to InterDigital under the agreement notwithstanding any further decisions arising from the Chinese Supreme People’s Court proceeding.

Huawei China Proceedings

On February 21, 2012, InterDigital was served with two complaints filed by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in China on December 5, 2011. The first complaint named as defendants InterDigital, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation and InterDigital Communications, LLC (now InterDigital Communications, Inc.), and alleged that InterDigital had abused its dominant market position in the market for the licensing of essential patents owned by InterDigital by engaging in allegedly unlawful practices, including differentiated pricing, tying and refusal to deal. The second complaint named as defendants the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital Communications, LLC (now InterDigital Communications, Inc.), InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. and IPR Licensing, Inc. and alleged that InterDigital had failed to negotiate on FRAND terms with Huawei. Huawei asked the court to determine the FRAND rate for licensing essential Chinese patents to Huawei and also sought compensation for its costs associated with this matter.

On February 4, 2013, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court issued rulings in the two proceedings. With respect to the first complaint, the court decided that InterDigital had violated the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law by (i) making proposals for royalties from Huawei that the court believed were excessive, (ii) tying the licensing of essential patents to the licensing of non-essential patents, (iii) requesting as part of its licensing proposals that Huawei provide a grant-back of certain patent rights to InterDigital and (iv) commencing a USITC action against Huawei while still in discussions with Huawei for a license. Based on these findings, the court ordered InterDigital to cease the alleged excessive pricing and alleged improper bundling of InterDigital's Chinese essential and non-essential patents, and to pay Huawei 20.0 million RMB (approximately $3.2 million) in damages related to attorneys’ fees and other charges, without disclosing a factual basis for its determination of damages. The court dismissed Huawei's remaining allegations, including Huawei's claim that InterDigital improperly sought a worldwide license and improperly sought to bundle the licensing of essential patents on multiple generations of technologies. With respect to the second complaint, the court determined that, despite the fact that the FRAND requirement originates from ETSI's Intellectual Property Rights policy, which refers to French law, InterDigital's license offers to Huawei should be evaluated under Chinese law. Under Chinese law, the court concluded that the offers did not comply with FRAND. The court further ruled that the royalties to be paid by Huawei for InterDigital's 2G, 3G and 4G essential Chinese patents under Chinese law should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sales price of each Huawei product.

On March 11, 2013, InterDigital filed notices of appeal with respect to the judgments in both proceedings, seeking reversal of the court’s February 4, 2013 rulings. On October 16, 2013, the Guangdong Province High Court issued a ruling affirming the ruling of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in the second proceeding, and on October 21, 2013, issued a ruling affirming the ruling of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in the first proceeding.

InterDigital believes that the decisions are seriously flawed both legally and factually. For instance, in determining a purported FRAND rate, the Chinese courts applied an incorrect economic analysis by evaluating InterDigital’s lump-sum patent license agreement with Apple in hindsight to posit a running royalty rate. Indeed, the ALJ in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-800 rejected that type of improper analysis. Moreover, the Chinese courts had an incomplete record and applied incorrect facts, including with respect to InterDigital’s now-expired license agreement with Apple, which had been found in an arbitration between InterDigital and Apple to be limited in scope.

On April 14, 2014, InterDigital filed a petition for retrial of the second proceeding with the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”), seeking dismissal of the judgment or at least a higher, market-based royalty rate for a license to InterDigital’s Chinese standards-essential patents (“SEPs”). The petition for retrial argues, for example, that (1) the lower court improperly determined a Chinese FRAND running royalty rate by using as a benchmark the Apple lump sum fixed payment license agreement, and looking in hindsight at the unexpectedly successful sales of Apple iPhones to construct an artificial running royalty rate that neither InterDigital nor Apple could have intended and that would have varied significantly depending on the relative success or failure in hindsight of Apple iPhone sales; (2) the Apple license agreement was also an inappropriate benchmark because its scope of product coverage was significantly limited as compared to the license that the court was considering for Huawei, particularly when there are other more comparable license agreements; and (3) if the appropriate benchmarks had been used, and the court had considered the range of royalties offered by other similarly situated SEP holders in the wireless telecommunications industry, the court would have determined a FRAND royalty that was substantially higher than 0.019%, and would have found, consistent with findings of the ALJ’s initial determination in the USITC 337-TA-800 proceeding, that there was no proof that InterDigital’s offers to Huawei violated its FRAND commitments.

The SPC held a hearing on October 31, 2014, regarding whether to grant a retrial and requested that both parties provide additional information regarding the facts and legal theories underlying the case. The SPC convened a second hearing on April 1, 2015 regarding whether to grant a retrial. If the retrial is granted, the SPC will likely schedule one or more additional hearings before it issues a decision on the merits of the case. The SPC retrial proceeding was excluded from the dismissal provisions of the 2016 Huawei PLA, and a decision in this proceeding is still pending.

ZTE China Proceedings

On July 10 and 11, 2014, InterDigital was served with two complaints filed by ZTE Corporation in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in China on April 3, 2014. The first complaint names as defendants the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. and IPR Licensing, Inc. This complaint alleges that InterDigital has failed to comply with its FRAND obligations for the licensing of its Chinese standards-essential patents. ZTE is asking the court to determine the FRAND rate for licensing InterDigital’s standards-essential Chinese patents to ZTE and also seeks compensation for its litigation costs associated with this matter. The second complaint names as defendants InterDigital, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation and InterDigital Communications, Inc. This complaint alleges that InterDigital has a dominant market position in China and the United States in the market for the licensing of essential patents owned by InterDigital, and abused its dominant market position in violation of the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law by engaging in allegedly unlawful practices, including excessively high pricing, tying, discriminatory treatment, and imposing unreasonable trading conditions. ZTE seeks relief in the amount of 20.0 million RMB (approximately $3.0 million based on the exchange rate as of September 30, 2016), an order requiring InterDigital to cease the allegedly unlawful conduct and compensation for its litigation costs associated with this matter.

On August 7, 2014, InterDigital filed petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court to hear the actions. On August 28, 2014, the court denied InterDigital’s jurisdictional challenge with respect to the anti-monopoly law case. InterDigital filed an appeal of this decision on September 26, 2014. On September 28, 2014, the court denied InterDigital’s jurisdictional challenge with respect to the FRAND case, and InterDigital filed an appeal of that decision on October 27, 2014. On December 18, 2014, the Guangdong High Court issued decisions on both appeals upholding the Shenzhen Intermediate Court’s decisions that it had jurisdiction to hear these cases. On February 10, 2015, InterDigital filed a petition for retrial with the Supreme People’s Court regarding its jurisdictional challenges to both cases.

The Shenzhen Court held hearings on the anti-monopoly law case on May 11, 13, 15 and 18, 2015. At the May hearings, ZTE withdrew its claims alleging discriminatory treatment and the imposition of unfair trading conditions and increased its damages claim to 99.8 million RMB (approximately $15.0 million based on the exchange rate as of September 30, 2016). The Shenzhen Court held hearings in the FRAND case on July 29-31, 2015 and held a second hearing on the anti-monopoly law case on October 12, 2015. It is possible that the court may schedule further hearings in these cases before issuing its decisions.

The Company has not recorded any accrual at September 30, 2016 for contingent losses associated with these matters based on its belief that losses, while reasonably possible, are not probable in accordance with accounting guidance.

Pegatron Actions

In first quarter 2015, we learned that on or about February 3, 2015, Pegatron Corporation (“Pegatron”) filed a civil suit in Taiwan Intellectual Property Court against InterDigital, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries alleging breach of the Taiwan Fair Trade Act (the “Pegatron Taiwan Action”). Pegatron and InterDigital entered into a patent license agreement in April 2008 (the “Pegatron PLA”). Pegatron was a subsidiary of Asustek Computer Incorporated until the completion of its spin-off from Asustek in June 2010. On May 26, 2015, InterDigital, Inc. received a copy of the civil complaint filed by Pegatron in the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court. The complaint named as defendants InterDigital, Inc. as well as InterDigital’s wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. (together, for purposes of this discussion, “InterDigital”). The complaint alleged that InterDigital abused its market power by improperly setting, maintaining or changing the royalties Pegatron is required to pay under the Pegatron PLA, and engaging in unreasonable discriminatory treatment and other unfair competition activities in violation of the Taiwan Fair Trade Act. The complaint sought minimum damages in the amount of approximately $52 million, which amount could be expanded during the litigation, and that the court order multiple damages based on its claim that the alleged conduct was intentional. The complaint also sought an order requiring InterDigital to cease enforcing the royalty provisions of the Pegatron PLA, as well as all other conduct that allegedly violates the Fair Trade Act.

On June 5, 2015 InterDigital filed an Arbitration Demand with the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”) seeking declaratory relief denying all of the claims in Pegatron’s Taiwan Action and for breach of contract. On or about June 10, 2015, InterDigital filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (the “CA Northern District Court”) seeking a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Anti-suit Injunction against Pegatron prohibiting Pegatron from prosecuting the Pegatron Taiwan Action. The complaint also seeks specific performance by Pegatron of the dispute resolution procedures set forth in the Pegatron PLA and compelling arbitration of the disputes in the Pegatron Taiwan Action. On June 29, 2015, the court granted InterDigital’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring Pegatron take immediate steps to dismiss the Taiwan Action without prejudice. On July 1, 2015, InterDigital was informed that Pegatron had withdrawn its complaint in the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court and that the case had been dismissed without prejudice.

On August 3, 2015, Pegatron filed an answer and counterclaims to InterDigital’s CA Northern District Court complaint. Pegatron accused InterDigital of violating multiple sections of the Taiwan Fair Trade Act, violating Section Two of the Sherman Act, breaching ETSI, IEEE, and ITU contracts, promissory estoppel (pled in the alternative), violating Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code, and violating the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. These counterclaims stem from Pegatron’s accusation that InterDigital violated FRAND obligations. As relief, Pegatron seeks a declaration regarding the appropriate FRAND terms and conditions for InterDigital’s “declared essential patents,” a declaration that InterDigital’s standard essential patents are unenforceable due to patent misuse, an order requiring InterDigital to grant Pegatron a license on FRAND terms, an order enjoining InterDigital’s alleged ongoing breaches of its FRAND commitments, and damages in the amount of allegedly excess non-FRAND royalties Pegatron has paid to InterDigital, plus interest and treble damages. On August 7, 2015, Pegatron responded to InterDigital’s arbitration demand, disputing the arbitrability of Pegatron’s claims. On September 24, 2015, InterDigital moved to compel arbitration and dismiss Pegatron’s counterclaims or, in the alternative, stay the counterclaims pending the parties’ arbitration. Pegatron’s opposition to this motion was filed on October 22, 2015, and InterDigital’s reply was filed on November 12, 2015. On January 20, 2016, the court granted InterDigital’s motion to compel arbitration of Pegatron’s counterclaims and to stay the counterclaims pending the arbitrators’ determination of their arbitrability. On January 27, 2016, the parties stipulated to stay all remaining aspects of the CA Northern District case pending such an arbitrability determination. On the same day, the court granted the stay and administratively closed the case. The arbitration remains pending.

Asustek Actions

On April 15, 2015, Asustek Computer Incorporated (“Asus”) filed a complaint in the CA Northern District Court against InterDigital, Inc., and its subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., and InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. The complaint asserted the following causes of action: violation of Section Two of the Sherman Act, violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, breach of contract resulting from ongoing negotiations, breach of contract leading to and resulting in the parties’ April 2008 patent license agreement (the “2008 Asus PLA”), promissory estoppel, waiver, and fraudulent inducement to contract. Among other allegations, Asus alleged that InterDigital breached its FRAND commitment. As relief, Asus sought a judgment that the 2008 Asus PLA is void or unenforceable, damages in the amount of excess royalties Asus paid under the 2008 Asus PLA plus interest, a judgment setting the proper FRAND terms and conditions for InterDigital’s patent portfolio, an order requiring InterDigital to grant Asus a license on FRAND terms and conditions, and punitive damages and other relief.

In response, on May 30, 2015, InterDigital filed an Arbitration Demand with the ICDR. InterDigital claimed that Asus breached the 2008 Asus PLA’s dispute resolution provision by filing its CA Northern District Court lawsuit and sought declaratory relief that it is not liable for any of the claims in Asus’s complaint. On June 2, 2015, InterDigital filed in the CA Northern District Court a motion to compel arbitration on each of Asus’s claims. On August 25, 2015, the court granted InterDigital’s motion for all of Asus’s claims except its claim for breach of contract resulting from ongoing negotiations. Aside from this claim, the court ruled that the issue of arbitrability should be decided by an arbitrator, and stayed the proceedings pending that determination.

Asus asserted counterclaims in the arbitration that mirrored its CA Northern District Court claims, except that it did not assert the breach of contract claim that the court determined was not arbitrable and it added a claim of violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. Asus also contended that its counterclaims were not arbitrable. InterDigital added a claim for breach of the 2008 Asus PLA’s confidentiality claim. The arbitration is scheduled for an evidentiary hearing in January 2017.

On July 14, 2016, Asus filed a motion to lift the stay in the CA Northern District Court proceeding along with a notice of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on arbitrability, informing the court of the arbitrators’ decision that, other than InterDigital’s breach of contract claims and Asus’s fraudulent inducement claim, no other claim or counterclaim is arbitrable. Asus then filed in the CA Northern District Court an amended complaint on August 18, 2016. This amended complaint includes all of the claims in Asus’s first CA Northern District Court complaint except fraudulent inducement and adds a claim of violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks the same relief as its first CA Northern District Court complaint, but also seeks a ruling that each of InterDigital’s patents “declared [to standards-setting organizations] to be essential or potentially essential” is unenforceable and any contracts InterDigital entered into in furtherance of its unlawful conduct are void. On September 8, 2016, InterDigital filed its answer and counterclaims to Asus’ amended complaint. It denied Asus’s claims and filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment that Asus’s tort claims are invalid or preempted as applied under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and Title 35 of the U.S. Code.

The company has not recorded any accrual at September 30, 2016 for contingent losses associated with these matters, nor can it estimate potential ranges of loss, as these matters are not at a sufficiently advanced stage to allow for such estimates.

Microsoft Sherman Act Delaware Proceedings

On August 20, 2015, Microsoft Mobile, Inc. and Microsoft Mobile Oy (collectively “Microsoft”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) against InterDigital, Inc., InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Holdings, Inc., and IPR Licensing, Inc. The complaint alleges that InterDigital has monopolized relevant markets for 3G and 4G cellular technology in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. As relief, Microsoft seeks declaratory judgments that InterDigital has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, that “each of InterDigital’s U.S. patents declared by it to be Essential” to the 3G and 4G standards is unenforceable, and that all agreements InterDigital has entered into in furtherance of its alleged unlawful conduct are void. Microsoft also seeks an award of treble damages and the following injunctive relief: requiring InterDigital to grant Microsoft a non-confidential license to its U.S. standards essential patents (“SEPs”) on FRAND terms as determined by a court, requiring InterDigital to disclose to Microsoft the terms of its other SEP licenses, preventing InterDigital from enforcing any exclusion orders it might receive with respect to its SEPs, and requiring InterDigital to re-assign any declared SEPs that it has assigned to controlled entities.

On November 4, 2015, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss and to strike Microsoft’s complaint. A hearing on this motion was held on March 1, 2016, and on April 13, 2016, the Delaware District Court denied InterDigital’s motion. On April 27, 2016, InterDigital filed a motion with the Delaware District Court to certify questions addressed in the court’s April 13, 2016 decision for interlocutory appeal. The court denied InterDigital’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal on June 13, 2016.

On May 27, 2016, InterDigital filed its answer and counterclaims. InterDigital denied Microsoft’s claim that InterDigital violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and asserted several defenses. InterDigital also filed two counterclaims for declaratory judgment: (i) that Microsoft’s Sherman Act claim is invalid and preempted as applied under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and Title 35 of the U.S. Code; and (ii) that Microsoft waived entitlement to benefit from FRAND commitments by InterDigital due to Microsoft’s reverse hold-up behavior. Microsoft filed an answer to InterDigital’s counterclaims on June 20, 2016. Trial is scheduled to begin in September 2018.

Sharp Arbitration

On December 19, 2014, Sharp Corporation (“Sharp”) filed a demand for arbitration against the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary InterDigital Technology Corporation (“ITC”) with the American Arbitration Association’s International Center for Dispute Resolution. Sharp’s demand for arbitration was based on ITC’s alleged breach of the August 10, 2001 patent license agreement (as amended) (the “2001 PLA”) between Sharp and ITC. Sharp claimed that ITC breached its FRAND commitments under the ETSI IPR policy, Section 6.1, by enforcing the 2001 PLA, thereby requiring Sharp to pay what it alleged to be excessive and discriminatory royalties. Sharp also claimed that ITC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the 2001 PLA by charging what Sharp alleged are excessive and discriminatory royalties. Sharp further alleged that ITC should be promissorily estopped from charging allegedly excessive and discriminatory royalties, and that ITC should provide an accounting of overpayments resulting from ITC’s alleged failure to observe its FRAND commitments. Sharp was seeking (a) a declaration that ITC breached its FRAND commitments and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (b) calculation of new FRAND rates for the 2001 PLA, and (c) an order that ITC must return an amount to be determined for Sharp’s alleged overpayment under the 2001 PLA.

On August 12, 2016, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement that resolves their outstanding disputes. As a result, Sharp withdrew its demand for arbitration, and on September 29, 2016, the arbitration administrator confirmed that the matter has been closed. The parties have also agreed to expand the scope of Sharp’s license agreement to add coverage for 4G technologies.

REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS

Investigation by Taiwan Fair Trade Commission

On December 6, 2013, InterDigital received notice from the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (“TFTC”) that the TFTC had initiated an investigation to examine alleged anti-competitive behavior under Taiwan’s Fair Trade Act (FTA). Companies found to violate the FTA may be ordered to cease and rectify the unlawful conduct, take other necessary corrective action, and/or pay an administrative fine. During second quarter 2016, InterDigital was informed by its local counsel that the staff of the TFTC has completed its investigation and has forwarded its recommendations to the Commission. InterDigital is fully cooperating with the TFTC’s investigation.

Investigation by National Development and Reform Commission of China

On September 23, 2013, counsel for InterDigital was informed by China’s National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) that the NDRC had initiated a formal investigation into whether InterDigital has violated China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”) with respect to practices related to the licensing of InterDigital’s standards-essential patents to Chinese companies. Companies found to violate the AML may be subject to a cease and desist order, fines and disgorgement of any illegal gains. On March 3, 2014, the Company submitted to NDRC, pursuant to a procedure set out in the AML, a formal application for suspension of the investigation that included proposed commitments by the Company. On May 22, 2014, NDRC formally suspended its investigation of the Company based on the commitments proposed by the Company. The Company’s commitments with respect to the licensing of its patent portfolio for wireless mobile standards to Chinese manufacturers of cellular terminal units (“Chinese Manufacturers”) are as follows:

Whenever InterDigital engages with a Chinese Manufacturer to license InterDigital’s patent portfolio for 2G, 3G and 4G wireless mobile standards, InterDigital will offer such Chinese Manufacturer the option of taking a worldwide portfolio license of only its standards-essential wireless patents, and comply with F/RAND principles when negotiating and entering into such licensing agreements with Chinese Manufacturers.


2.	As part of its licensing offer, InterDigital will not require that a Chinese Manufacturer agree to a royalty-free, reciprocal cross-license of such Chinese Manufacturer's similarly categorized standards-essential wireless patents.

Prior to commencing any action against a Chinese Manufacturer in which InterDigital may seek exclusionary or injunctive relief for the infringement of any of its wireless standards-essential patents, InterDigital will offer such Chinese Manufacturer the option to enter into expedited binding arbitration under fair and reasonable procedures to resolve the royalty rate and other terms of a worldwide license under InterDigital's wireless standards-essential patents. If the Chinese Manufacturer accepts InterDigital's binding arbitration offer or otherwise enters into an agreement with InterDigital on a binding arbitration mechanism, InterDigital will, in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement and patent license agreement, refrain from seeking exclusionary or injunctive relief against such company.

The commitments contained in item 3 above will expire five years from the effective date of the suspension of the investigation, or May 22, 2019.

USITC PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED DELAWARE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

Nokia and ZTE 2013 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-868) and Related Delaware District Court Proceedings

USITC Proceeding (337-TA-868)

On January 2, 2013, the Company’s wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc. and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (the “USITC” or “Commission”) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, the “337-TA-868 Respondents”), alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in that they engaged in unfair trade practices by selling for importation into the United States, importing into the United States and/or selling after importation into the United States certain 3G and 4G wireless devices (including WCDMA-, cdma2000- and LTE-capable mobile phones, USB sticks, mobile hotspots, laptop computers and tablets and components of such devices) that infringe one or more of up to seven of InterDigital’s U.S. patents. The complaint also extended to certain WCDMA and cdma2000 devices incorporating Wi-Fi functionality. InterDigital’s complaint with the USITC sought an exclusion order that would bar from entry into the United States infringing 3G or 4G wireless devices (and components), including LTE devices, that are imported by or on behalf of the 337-TA-868 Respondents, and also sought a cease-and-desist order to bar further sales of infringing products that have already been imported into the United States. Certain of the asserted patents were also asserted against Nokia, Huawei and ZTE in earlier pending USITC proceedings (including the Nokia, Huawei and ZTE 2011 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800) and the Nokia 2007 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613), as set forth below) and therefore were not asserted against those 337-TA-868 Respondents in this investigation.

On December 23, 2013, InterDigital and Huawei reached a settlement agreement to enter into binding arbitration to resolve their global patent licensing disputes (see “Huawei Arbitration” above). Pursuant to the settlement agreement, InterDigital and Huawei moved to dismiss all litigation matters pending between the parties except the action filed by Huawei in China to set a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) rate for the licensing of InterDigital’s Chinese standards-essential patents (discussed above under “Huawei China Proceedings”), the decision in which InterDigital is permitted to further appeal. As a result, effective February 12, 2014, the Huawei Respondents were terminated from the 337-TA-868 investigation.

From February 10 to February 20, 2014, ALJ Essex presided over the evidentiary hearing in this investigation. The patents in issue in this investigation as of the hearing were U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 (the “’966 patent”) and 7,286,847 (the “’847 patent”) asserted against ZTE and Samsung, and U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151 (the “’151 patent”) asserted against ZTE, Samsung and Nokia.

On June 3, 2014, InterDigital and Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Samsung on the basis of settlement. The ALJ granted the joint motion by initial determination issued on June 9, 2014, and the USITC determined not to review the initial determination on June 30, 2014.

On June 13, 2014, the ALJ issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) in the 337-TA-868 investigation. In the ID, the ALJ found that no violation of Section 337 had occurred in connection with the importation of 3G/4G devices by ZTE or Nokia, on the basis that the accused devices do not infringe asserted claims 1-6, 8-9, 16-21 or 23-24 of the ’151 patent, claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, or 11 of the ’966 patent, or claims 3 or 5 of the ’847 patent. The ALJ also found that claim 16 of the ’151 patent was invalid as indefinite. Among other determinations, the ALJ further determined that InterDigital did not violate any FRAND obligations, a conclusion also reached by the ALJ in the 337-TA-800 investigation, and that Respondents have engaged in patent “hold out.”

On June 30, 2014, InterDigital filed a Petition for Review with the USITC seeking review and reversal of certain of the ALJ’s conclusions in the ID. On the same day, Respondents filed a Conditional Petition for Review urging alternative grounds for affirmance of the ID’s finding that Section 337 was not violated and a Conditional Petition for Review with respect to FRAND issues.

In June 2014, Microsoft Mobile Oy (“MMO”) was added as a respondent in the investigation.

On August 14, 2014, the Commission determined to review in part the June 13, 2014 ID but terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation.

On October 10, 2014, InterDigital filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”), appealing certain of the adverse determinations in the Commission’s August 8, 2014 final determination including those related to the ’966 and ’847 patents. On June 2, 2015, InterDigital moved to voluntarily dismiss the Federal Circuit appeal, because, even if it were to prevail, it did not believe there would be sufficient time following the court’s decision and mandate for the USITC to complete its proceedings on remand such that the accused products would be excluded before the ’966 and ’847 patents expire in June 2016. The court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on June 18, 2015.

Related Delaware District Court Proceedings

On January 2, 2013, the Company’s wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc. and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. filed four related district court actions in the Delaware District Court against the 337-TA-868 Respondents. These complaints allege that each of the defendants infringes the same patents with respect to the same products alleged in the complaint filed by InterDigital in USITC Proceeding (337-TA-868). The complaints seek permanent injunctions and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined, as well as enhanced damages based on willful infringement, and recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

On January 24, 2013, Huawei filed its answer and counterclaims to InterDigital’s Delaware District Court complaint. Huawei asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, equitable estoppel, waiver of right to enjoin and declarations that InterDigital has not offered or granted Huawei licenses on FRAND terms, declarations seeking the determination of FRAND terms and declarations of noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the asserted patents. In addition to the declaratory relief specified in its counterclaims, Huawei seeks specific performance of InterDigital’s purported contracts with Huawei and standards-setting organizations, appropriate damages in an amount to be determined at trial, reasonable attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.

On January 31, 2013, ZTE filed its answer and counterclaims to InterDigital’s Delaware District Court complaint; ZTE asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, equitable estoppel, waiver of right to enjoin and declarations that InterDigital has not offered ZTE licenses on FRAND terms, declarations seeking the determination of FRAND terms and declarations of noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability. In addition to the declaratory relief specified in its counterclaims, ZTE seeks specific performance of InterDigital's purported contracts with ZTE and standards-setting organizations, appropriate damages in an amount to be determined at trial, reasonable attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.

On February 28, 2013, Nokia filed its answer and counterclaims to InterDigital’s Delaware District Court complaint, and then amended its answer and counterclaims on March 5, 2013. Nokia asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, equitable estoppel, a declaration setting FRAND terms and conditions, a declaration that InterDigital is estopped from seeking an exclusion order based on its U.S. declared-essential patents, a declaration of patent misuse, a declaration that InterDigital has failed to offer FRAND terms, a declaration that Nokia has an implied license to the asserted patents, and declarations of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability. In addition to the declaratory relief specified in its counterclaims, Nokia seeks an order that InterDigital specifically perform its purported contracts by not seeking a USITC exclusion order for its essential patents and by granting Nokia a license on FRAND terms and conditions, an injunction preventing InterDigital from participating in a USITC investigation based on essential patents, appropriate damages in an amount to be determined, including all attorney’s fees and costs spent in participating in all three USITC Investigations (337-TA-868, 337-TA-800 and 337-TA-613), and any other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On March 13, 2013, InterDigital filed an amended Delaware District Court complaint against Nokia and Samsung, respectively, to assert allegations of infringement of the recently issued ’244 patent. On April 1, 2013, Nokia filed its answer and counterclaims to InterDigital’s amended Delaware District Court complaint. On April 24, 2013, Samsung filed its answer and a counterclaim to InterDigital’s amended Delaware District Court complaint.

On March 21, 2013, pursuant to stipulation, the Delaware District Court granted InterDigital leave to file an amended complaint against Huawei and ZTE, respectively, to assert allegations of infringement of the ’244 patent. On March 22, 2013, Huawei and ZTE filed their respective answers and counterclaims to InterDigital’s amended Delaware District Court complaint. On April 9, 2013, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss Huawei’s and ZTE’s counterclaims relating to their FRAND allegations. On April 22, 2013, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss Nokia’s counterclaims relating to its FRAND allegations. On July 12, 2013, the Delaware District Court held a hearing on InterDigital’s motions to dismiss. By order issued the same day, the Delaware District Court granted InterDigital’s motions, dismissing counterclaims for equitable estoppel, implied license, waiver of the right to injunction or exclusionary relief, and violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 with prejudice. It further dismissed the counterclaims for breach of contract and declaratory relief related to InterDigital’s FRAND commitments with leave to amend.

On August 6, 2013, Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE filed answers and amended counterclaims for breach of contract and for declaratory judgments seeking determination of FRAND terms. The counterclaims also continue to seek declarations of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. Nokia also continued to assert a counterclaim for a declaration of patent misuse. On August 30, 2013, InterDigital filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment counterclaims relating to the request for determination of FRAND terms. On May 28, 2014, the court granted InterDigital’s motion and dismissed defendants’ FRAND-related declaratory judgment counterclaims, ruling that such declaratory judgments would serve no useful purpose.

On December 30, 2013, InterDigital and Huawei filed a stipulation of dismissal on account of the confidential settlement agreement and agreement to arbitrate their disputes in this action. On the same day, the Delaware District Court granted the stipulation of dismissal.

On February 11, 2014, the Delaware District Court judge entered an InterDigital, Nokia, and ZTE stipulated Amended Scheduling Order that bifurcated issues relating to damages, FRAND-related affirmative defenses, and any FRAND-related counterclaims.

On August 28, 2014, the court granted in part a motion by InterDigital for summary judgment that the asserted ’151 patent is not unenforceable by reason of inequitable conduct, holding that only one of the references forming the basis of defendants’ allegations would remain in issue, and granted a motion by InterDigital for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’966 and ’847 patents are not invalid for lack of enablement.

On August 5, 2014, InterDigital and Samsung filed a stipulation of dismissal in light of the parties’ settlement agreement. On the same day, the court granted the stipulation of dismissal and dismissed the action with prejudice.

By order dated August 28, 2014, MMO was joined in the case as a defendant.

The ZTE trial addressing infringement and validity of the ’966, ’847, ’244 and ’151 patents was held from October 20 to October 27, 2014. During the trial, the judge determined that further construction of certain claim language of the ’151 patent was required, and the judge decided to hold another trial as to ZTE's infringement of the ’151 patent at a later date. On October 28, 2014, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of InterDigital, finding that the ’966, ’847 and ’244 patents are all valid and infringed by ZTE 3G and 4G cellular devices. The court issued formal judgment to this effect on October 29, 2014.

On November 26, 2014, ZTE filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of the ’966, ’847 and ’244 patents are not infringed and, in the alternative, for a new trial. InterDigital filed an opposition on December 15, 2014, and ZTE filed a reply on January 7, 2015.

The ZTE trial addressing infringement of the ’151 patent was held from April 20 to April 22, 2015. On April 22, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of ZTE, finding that the ’151 patent is not infringed by ZTE 3G and 4G cellular devices.

On April 23, 2015, InterDigital filed a motion to partially dismiss its complaint pertaining to the ’151 patent against Nokia and MMO, as well as Nokia and MMO’s counterclaims that relate to the ’151 patent (including inequitable conduct), and on April 27, 2015, the judge granted the motion.

On April 27, 2015, the court ruled that Nokia Corporation should be severed for a separate trial addressing infringement of the ’244 patent.

On May 5, 2015, the court scheduled the Nokia Inc./MMO jury trial addressing infringement of the ’244 patent for November 16, 2015. On May 29, 2015, the court entered a new scheduling order for damages and FRAND-related issues due to changes in the schedule of the liability portion of the MMO proceedings, scheduling trials related to damages and FRAND-related issues for October 2016 with ZTE and November 2016 with MMO.

On September 14, 2015, a panel of Administrative Law Judges of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) issued a final written decision in two Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) cases concerning the ’244 patent. These IPR proceedings were commenced on petitions filed by ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. and by Microsoft Corporation, respectively. Specifically, the panel determined that a number of claims of the ’244 patent are unpatentable as obvious. IPR Licensing, Inc. appealed to the Federal Circuit seeking review of the PTAB’s decision. The appeals are pending. On October 13, 2015, by stipulation of the parties, the Delaware District Court stayed the action involving MMO and Nokia Inc., including the November 2015 and November 2016 trials concerning infringement of the ’244 patent and damages and FRAND-related issues, respectively, pending completion of the IPR proceedings, including all appeals and subsequent proceedings before the PTAB. This stay is with respect to MMO and Nokia Inc. only, and does not apply to the Delaware action pending against ZTE.

On May 12, 2015, Nokia/MMO moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’244 patent, alleging that the accused devices do not practice a particular claim element of the ’244 patent. On June 2, 2015, InterDigital opposed Nokia/MMO’s motion, and filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment that the accused devices infringe the claim element at issue in Nokia/MMO’s motion for summary judgment. On October 13, 2015, the Delaware District Court denied the pending summary judgment cross-motions without prejudice in light of the stay discussed above, indicating that the motions could be considered refiled if and when the stay is lifted if either party requests it.

On December 21, 2015, the court entered another scheduling order that vacated the October 2016 date for the ZTE trial related to damages and FRAND-related issues as set forth in the May 2015 scheduling order.

On March 18, 2016, the court denied ZTE’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative for a new trial, with respect to the ’966 and ’847 patents. The court postponed its ruling on ZTE’s motion as to the ’244 patent pending the Federal Circuit’s decision on InterDigital’s appeal of the September 14, 2015 PTAB ruling and administratively closed that portion of the motion. On April 8, 2016, the court set a new schedule for the FRAND/damages portion of the ZTE case with a target trial date in February 2018.

On April 18, 2016, ZTE filed a stipulated request for dismissal with prejudice of its counterclaims for breach of contract and patent unenforceability based on FRAND and withdrew its corresponding FRAND-related affirmative defenses. The court granted this request the same day. Also on April 18, 2016, ZTE filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) seeking certification of partial final judgment on the claims for infringement of the ’966 and ’847 patents to allow ZTE to file an immediate appeal as to those patents. The motion was granted on June 7, 2016, and a partial final judgment was entered on June 20, 2016. On July 18, 2016, ZTE filed its notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit. As a result, InterDigital’s damages claims are currently effectively stayed pending the appeal.

Nokia and ZTE 2011 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800) and Related Delaware District Court Proceeding

USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800)

On July 26, 2011, InterDigital’s wholly owned subsidiaries InterDigital Communications, LLC (now InterDigital Communications, Inc.), InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. filed a complaint with the USITC against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (collectively, the “337-TA-800 Respondents”), alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in that they engaged in unfair trade practices by selling for importation into the United States, importing into the United States and/or selling after importation into the United States certain 3G wireless devices (including WCDMA- and cdma2000-capable mobile phones, USB sticks, mobile hotspots and tablets and components of such devices) that infringe several of InterDigital’s U.S. patents. The action also extended to certain WCDMA and cdma2000 devices incorporating WiFi functionality. InterDigital’s complaint with the USITC sought an exclusion order that would bar from entry into the United States any infringing 3G wireless devices (and components) that are imported by or on behalf of the 337-TA-800 Respondents, and also sought a cease-and-desist order to bar further sales of infringing products that have already been imported into the United States. In May 2012, Huawei Device USA, Inc. was added as a 337-TA-800 Respondent.

The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from February 12-21, 2013. The patents in issue as of the hearing were U.S. Patent Nos. 8,009,636 (the “’636 patent”), 7,706, 830 (the “’830 patent”), 7,502,406 (the “’406 patent”), 7,616,970 (the “’970 patent”), 7,706,332 (the “’332 patent”), 7,536,013 (the “’013 patent”) and 7,970,127 (the “’127 patent”). The ALJ’s Initial Determination (“ID”) issued on June 28, 2013, finding no violation because the asserted patents were not infringed and/or invalid. Among other determinations, with respect to the 337-TA-800 Respondents’ FRAND and other equitable defenses, the ALJ found that Respondents had failed to prove either that InterDigital violated any FRAND obligations, that InterDigital failed to negotiate in good faith, or that InterDigital’s licensing offers were discriminatory. The ALJ also found that InterDigital is not precluded from seeking injunctive relief based on any alleged FRAND commitments.

Petitions for review of the ID to the Commission were filed by InterDigital and the 337-TA-800 Respondents on July 15, 2013. On September 4, 2013, the Commission determined to review the ID in its entirety.

On December 19, 2013, the Commission issued its final determination. The Commission adopted, with some modification, the ALJ’s finding of no violation of Section 337 as to Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE. The Commission did not rule on any other issue, including FRAND and domestic industry, and stated that all other issues remain under review.

On December 20, 2013, InterDigital filed in the Federal Circuit a petition for review seeking reversal of the Commission’s final determination. On February 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the USITC’s determinations that the claims of the ’830, ’636, ’406 and ’332 patents were not infringed, that the claims of the ’970 patent are invalid, and that the Respondents did not violate Section 337. On April 6, 2015, InterDigital filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc as to the ’830 and ’636 patents. The petition was denied on May 12, 2015, and the court’s mandate issued on May 19, 2015.

Related Delaware District Court Proceeding

On July 26, 2011, the same date that InterDigital filed USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800), it filed a parallel action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the 337-TA-800 Respondents alleging infringement of the same asserted patents identified in USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800). The Delaware District Court complaint seeks a permanent injunction and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined, as well as enhanced damages based on willful infringement, and recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. On September 23, 2011, the defendants in the Delaware District Court complaint filed a motion to stay the Delaware District Court action pending the parallel proceedings in the USITC. Because the USITC has instituted USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800), the defendants have a statutory right to a mandatory stay of the Delaware District Court proceeding pending a final determination in the USITC. On October 3, 2011, InterDigital amended the Delaware District Court complaint, adding LG as a defendant and adding the same additional patent that InterDigital requested be added to USITC Proceeding (337-TA-800). On October 11, 2011, the Delaware District Court granted the defendants' motion to stay. The case is currently stayed through December 13, 2016.

On January 14, 2014, InterDigital and Huawei filed a stipulation of dismissal of their disputes in this action on account of the confidential settlement agreement mentioned above. On the same day, the Delaware District Court granted the stipulation of dismissal.

Nokia 2007 USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613), Related Delaware District Court Proceeding and Federal Circuit Appeal

USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613)

In August 2007, InterDigital filed a USITC complaint against Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc., alleging a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in that Nokia engaged in an unfair trade practice by selling for importation into the United States, importing into the United States and/or selling after importation into the United States certain 3G mobile handsets and components that infringe two of InterDigital’s patents. In November and December 2007, respectively, a third patent and a fourth patent were added to the Company’s complaint against Nokia. The complaint sought an exclusion order barring from entry into the United States infringing 3G mobile handsets and components that are imported by or on behalf of Nokia. InterDigital’s complaint also sought a cease-and-desist order to bar further sales of infringing Nokia products that have already been imported into the United States.

On August 14, 2009, the ALJ overseeing USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613) issued an Initial Determination finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Initial Determination found that InterDigital’s patents were valid and enforceable, but that Nokia did not infringe these patents. In the event that a Section 337 violation were to be found by the Commission, the ALJ recommended the issuance of a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of infringing Nokia 3G WCDMA handsets and components, as well as the issuance of appropriate cease-and-desist orders.

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

On November 30, 2009, InterDigital filed with the Federal Circuit a petition for review of certain rulings by the USITC. In its appeal, InterDigital sought reversal of the Commission’s claim constructions and non-infringement findings with respect to certain claim terms in the ’966 and ’847 patents, vacatur of the Commission’s determination of no Section 337 violation and a remand for further proceedings before the Commission. On August 1, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the appeal, holding that the Commission had erred in interpreting the claim terms at issue and reversing the Commission’s finding of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit adopted InterDigital’s interpretation of such claim terms and remanded the case back to the Commission for further proceedings. In addition, the Federal Circuit rejected Nokia’s argument that InterDigital did not satisfy the domestic industry requirement. On September 17, 2012, Nokia filed a combined petition for rehearing by the panel or en banc with the Federal Circuit. On January 10, 2013, the Federal Circuit denied Nokia’s petition.

On January 17, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate remanding USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613) to the Commission for further proceedings. On February 12, 2014, the Commission issued a notice, order and opinion remanding the investigation to an ALJ. In doing so, the Commission determined certain issues and identified others that would be subject to further proceedings by the ALJ. The Commission assigned the investigation to an ALJ for limited remand proceedings consistent with its February 12, 2014 opinion.

In June 2014, MMO was added as a respondent in the investigation.

The evidentiary hearing in the remand proceeding was held January 26 - 28, 2015. On April 27, 2015, the ALJ issued his Remand Initial Determination (“RID”). The ALJ found that the imported accused handsets (1) contain chips that were not previously adjudicated and (2) infringe the asserted claims of the ’966 and ’847 patents, that there was no evidence of patent hold-up by InterDigital, that there is evidence of reverse hold-up by the respondents, and that the public interest does not preclude issuance of an exclusion order.

On May 11, 2015, Nokia Corporation and MMO each filed petitions to the Commission to review the RID. On June 25, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of its decision to review the RID in part. The Commission determined to review the RID’s findings concerning the application of the Commission’s prior construction of one claim limitation in Investigation Nos. 337-TA-800 and 337-TA-868, the RID’s findings as to whether the accused products satisfy that claim limitation, and the RID’s public interest findings. The Commission issued its final determination on August 28, 2015, finding that issue preclusion applied with respect to the construction of the claim limitations at issue, and issue preclusion also required a finding of non-infringement. The Commission determined there was no violation of Section 337 and terminated the 337-TA-613 investigation. The Commission found that consideration of the public interest issues was moot and did not address them.

Related Delaware District Court Proceeding

In addition, in August 2007, on the same date as the filing of USITC Proceeding (337-TA-613), InterDigital also filed a complaint in the Delaware District Court alleging that Nokia’s 3G mobile handsets and components infringe the same two InterDigital patents identified in the original USITC complaint. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction and damages in an amount to be determined. This Delaware action was stayed on January 10, 2008, pursuant to the mandatory, statutory stay of parallel district court proceedings at the request of a respondent in a USITC investigation. 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. This case remains stayed.

OTHER

We are party to certain other disputes and legal actions in the ordinary course of business, including arbitrations and legal proceedings with licensees regarding the terms of their agreements and the negotiation thereof. We do not currently believe that these matters, even if adversely adjudicated or settled, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. None of the above matters have met the requirements for accrual or disclosure of a potential range as of September 30, 2016.