Paullee
1 day ago
Avanci 5G snags Chinese state-owned licensor, but wait for first licensee from country continues
Adam Houldsworth
25 July 2024
Share
Avanci 5G snags Chinese state-owned licensor, but wait for first licensee from country continuesImage from Shutterstock/Alga-Studio
Avanci’s 5G connected vehicle licensing continues to attract new patentees. Today it was announced that China Unicom – one of the country’s three major mobile network operators – has signed up to license its 5G era portfolio through the platform, becoming the latest of several government-owned Chinese Avanci licensors.
This development stands in contrast to the recent actions of another Chinese state organ – the State Administration for Market Regulation – that sent a letter to Avanci cautioning it to ensure compliance with the country’s competition rules. And, crucially, Avanci’s success in attracting Chinese private and state-owned licensors has not yet been mirrored in its efforts to sign up Chinese car companies as licensees.
Less than one year after launching its 5G-era licensing programme, Avanci already has 68 licensors on board – more than have joined the company’s 4G platform (itself widely perceived to have been a success) since its 2016 launch.
These include several privately-owned Chinese companies, such as Huawei, Coolpad and Unisoc. But they also include several partly state-owned entities, ZTE and TCL, as well as wholly state-owned telecoms equipment entity Datang and wholly state-owned mobile network operators China Telecom and China Mobile.
China Unicom’s decision to join means that all three of the country’s largest network operators are now Avanci 5G licensors. China Unicom – like China Telecom – did not participate in Avanci’s 4G programme and has now chosen to work with the company for the first time.
This underscores the growing confidence placed in Avanci by organisations owned by the Chinese government to license their cellular connectivity patents to carmakers around the world.
However, not all Chinese state entities have given the same vote of confidence. Last month, the State Administration for Market Regulation, which enforces China’s beefed-up 2022 Anti-Monopoly Law, announced that it had delivered a letter to Avanci to “remind and urge” it to avoid anticompetitive conduct and to take effective measures to prevent or rectify any relevant problems.
This follows the SAMR’s 2023 introduction of new Provisions on Prohibition on Abuse of IPR, which emphasise that patent pools/joint licensing programmes can fall foul of the country’s anti-monopoly laws in several scenarios (listed here) including when they are licensing patents at an unfairly high price.
SAMR does not appear to have made any concrete accusations against Avanci or even to have launched any formal investigation. However, its announcement suggests that it has concerns – or at least potential concerns – about cellular SEP licensing practices in the automotive space.
Another state-run organisation, the China Automotive Technology and Research Center, published an Automotive SEP Research Report, along with Peking University and the China Society of Automotive Engineers, in September 2023. Aspects of this report are likely to make uncomfortable reading for Avanci; it calculates that the aggregate royalty burden for any $27,500 car sold in China should be between $0.28 and $2 per vehicle – compared to the $32 per car charged by Avanci’s 5G pool.
In fact, no Chinese OEM has yet signed up as a licensee for either Avanci’s 4G or 5G platform, despite the extraordinary success of those programmes in licensing carmakers from other parts of the world.
Having started life with just Mercedes-Benz on board in August last year, the 5G pool now has at least 31 auto brands signed up as licensees. These include another two German-owned groups of OEMs – BMW, Volkswagen and their subsidiaries – Korean implementers Hyundai, Genesis and Kia, a Japanese brand – Yanmar – and US car giants General Motors and Ford.
The 4G programme has attracted several times this number of licensees. It was recently announced that it now has more than 100 auto brands under licence. These include the vast majority of OEMs from Europe, the US, Japan and Korea – but none from China’s booming car industry.
The absence of Chinese licensees is a significant challenge for Avanci, especially given the size of country’s automotive sector, which is increasingly penetrating markets beyond China, especially in the electric vehicle space.
This is reflected in the efforts being made by Avanci’s 5G programme chief Laurie Fitzgerald. As IAM reported, she paid a lengthy visit to China earlier this year where, among other things, she gave a presentation and engaged in a panel discussion at one of the most popular Chinese IP conferences, IP Forefront ICT Forum in Shanghai. Avanci has also opened new offices in Beijing and Shenzhen in recent years.
Avanci will hope that the country’s OEMs – which include many state-run businesses – will, like China’s state-run patentees, soon see a clear commercial/legal rationale for joining its licensing schemes.
One hopeful development in this respect is the rapid expansion of the Chinese carmakers into foreign markets – especially the European Union – which will increase the leverage of SEP owners who have been reluctant to file lawsuits in the OEMs’ home market.
However, the Supreme People’s Court’s recent ruling that Chinese courts have jurisdiction over the licensing rates and terms of foreign patent pools remains a potential concern for Avanci and its licensors.
Gamco
2 days ago
Tesla Loses Bid To Sue Over 5G License Rate In UK
By Hanna Vioque
Law360, London (July 16, 2024, 6:49 PM BST) -- A London court ruled Monday that Tesla can't sue InterDigital for a worldwide license covering 5G technology, throwing a wrench in the automaker's plans to launch 5G-equipped vehicles in the U.K.
The High Court held that Tesla doesn't have a serious licensing claim against InterDigital because its dispute over fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory — or FRAND — terms depends on a failed claim against another defendant, Avanci, the agent providing licenses on behalf of InterDigital and 65 other patent holders.
But the automaker can still seek to invalidate three InterDigital patents that it argues aren't new or essential to 5G standards, the court ruled.
"I am unpersuaded that using [InterDigital Holdings] as a representative defendant to this licensing claim will work satisfactorily in the absence of Avanci as a defendant to the claim, owing to the difficulty for InterDigital in defending the global rate-setting claim without all the information and documents that it needs in order to do that," Judge Timothy Fancourt wrote.
Tesla previously purchased a worldwide license from Avanci to use 2G, 3G and 4G standard essential patents and sought a 5G SEP license to equip its electric cars with more advanced gear. But the automaker accused Avanci of offering terms that weren't FRAND, set at a fixed rate of $32 per car, the judgment says.
But Judge Fancourt concluded that the case against Avanci is contingent on Tesla being able to stand up an independent case against InterDigital, saying it is "too remote" to prop up a stand-alone claim. At the same time, the High Court held that Tesla can't force InterDigital to represent all the other patent holders, meaning that the automaker doesn't have a viable case to join Avanci to.
The court found a number of issues with letting Tesla pursue the challenge as a representative action with InterDigital standing in for all the other patent holders in the 5G pool.
For one, even though the patent holders appear to have the same interest in defending Tesla's claim, the court concluded there could be conflict of interest between the companies in the future. It would also be unfair to make InterDigital take on all the cost of defending the case, the court found.
Tesla also failed to convince the judge that the High Court is clearly the better forum to settle the case, even though it is far from certain that Delaware's Chancery Court — where the defendants have agreed to litigate the issue — would agree to set a worldwide licensing rate.
"This is a dispute about a license where the patentees and Avanci have agreed to license the 5G platform portfolio on the basis of a single global rate … and Tesla wishes to take a global license," Judge Fancourt wrote. "It would be surprising if, on the facts of this case, having determined that $32 was not FRAND, the court would not go a step further and say what rate was FRAND."
The judge also pointed out that even though the courts of England and Wales have agreed to set worldwide FRAND rates for single patents in the past, there is no guarantee they would agree to do so for a patent pool.
While Judge Fancourt said it had "given [him] some concern" that Tesla could pursue the claim in the High Court, he indicated that the chance for the parties to resolve the dispute in Delaware allayed his worries.
Tesla and its U.K. arm, Tesla Motors Ltd., launched their case in December. The automaker said Avanci's 5G licensing rates are more than double the amount it charges Tesla to use 4G on its vehicles. It contends that the rates are above the agreed ceiling for a FRAND licensing rate.
InterDigital is a wireless and digital tech company that specializes in telecommunications. It owns a range of SEPs in the U.K. and internationally that are essential for meeting standards that the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, or ETSI, has set for 4G and 5G, Tesla said.
When a patent becomes essential to a standard set by the institute, that requires the owner to license those patents on FRAND terms.
Texas-based Avanci facilitates joint patent licensing arrangements — or pools — for holders of standard essential patents for the relevant standards set by ETSI.
InterDigital applauded Judge Fancourt's decision Tuesday, saying that the company "remain[ed] committed to receiving a fair return on our innovation wherever it is implemented."?
Representatives for Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Tesla is represented by James Segan KC of Blackstone Chambers, and Ligia Osepciu of Monckton Chambers, instructed by Peter Damerell and Bethan Hopewell of Powell Gilbert LLP.
InterDigital Patent Holdings Inc. and Interdigital Holdings Inc. are represented by Thomas Raphael KC of Tenty Essex Chambers and Maxwell Keay of 8 New Square, instructed by Alex Brodie of Gowling WLG (UK) LLP.
Avanci LLC is represented by Brian Nicholson KC and Kathryn Pickard of 11 South Square, instructed by Osborne Clarke LLP and EIP Europe LLP.
The case is Tesla Inc. and others v. IDAC Holdings Inc. and others, case number HP-2023-000042, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
[Link not available]
Gamco
2 days ago
Invalid Patents Sink Tech Co.'s Claims Against Lenovo
By Travis BlandÂ
Law360 (July 18, 2024, 5:40 PM EDT) -- A North Carolina federal judge has cut claims in an infringement suit over data transfer patents by wireless and video technology company InterDigital against Lenovo, finding some of the challenged patents are invalid.
U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan on Wednesday gave judgment on the pleading to Lenovo concerning two of InterDigital's wireless transfer technologies, ruling the patents were for common ideas of transferring information without any concrete improvements and thus ineligible for being patented.
"The claims in the file sharing patents simply provide a method for implementing the abstract idea of wirelessly transferring data using conventional software and hardware," Judge Flanagan said. "The elements in the claims of the file sharing patents thus do not provide an 'inventive concept.'"
Two of InterDigital's patents for data transferring, which the company claimed Lenovo, owner of Motorola, infringed, were aimed at the "abstract idea" of wireless communication, the order said.
InterDigital's patented methods used routine steps to perform wireless communication, the order said.
"Beyond pointing to the unpatentable intrinsic speed and efficiency benefits," InterDigital does "not allege how this alleged improvement helps touchscreen devices carry out their basic function of wirelessly transferring data," Judge Flanagan said.
However, the judge refused to throw out infringement claims based on InterDigital's wireless video transfer technology.
The company's patented method for transferring video didn't just play on the abstract idea of coding and decoding video but made software improvements that increased the performance of wireless devices, the order said.
Improved coding and decoding that made devices work better rendered the patent valid, Judge Flanagan said, disagreeing with Lenovo that case law it cited supported the ineligibility of InterDigital's video transfer patent.
Along with the remaining claims for infringement on the video transfer patent, claims remain on allegation that Lenovo is misusing two other patents. Lenovo didn't ask for the claims connected to the two other patents to be tossed in the judgment on the pleadings motion.
In September, several InterDigital entities sued Lenovo, claiming it infringed five patents that "enable wireless file-sharing between devices" and are important to "delivery and consumption of an enormous amount of video content on a daily basis."
In the district court case, InterDigital seeks a finding that Lenovo is infringing the patents-at-issue and damages, among other things, according to court records.
InterDigital filed a parallel action before the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking a ban on imports of purportedly infringing products, including the Lenovo ThinkPad laptop and Motorola Edge+ smartphone, according to ITC records.
[Link not available]
Paullee
3 days ago
Doesn't look like IDCC is going to appeal
July 23, 2024
VIA ECF
The Honorable Joshua D. Wolson
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
3809 U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 3-B
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Re: InterDigital Tech. Corp., et al. v. Lenovo Holding Co., Inc., et al.
C.A. No. 19-1590-JDW
Dear Judge Wolson:
Pursuant to the Court’s July 18, 2023 order, Dkt. 318, the parties provide the below
update regarding the status of their UK proceedings.
As indicated in our June 6, 2024 status update, Dkt. 332, the UK Court of Appeal heard
the parties’ appeal of the English High Court of Justice’s 2023 Order in the InterDigital v.
Lenovo UK proceedings (“UK I”) during the week of June 10, 2024. On July 12, 2024, the Court
of Appeal issued its decision modifying the royalty terms for the FRAND 3G, 4G and 5G license
between InterDigital and Lenovo for the period from 2007 to December 31, 2023 and dismissing
Lenovo’s appeals. See
https://assets.caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2024/743/ewca_civ_2024_743.pdf.
The UK Court of Appeal has denied Lenovo’s request to further appeal its judgment to
the UK Supreme Court. Lenovo may still seek permission to appeal directly with the UK
Supreme Court. As such, the UK I proceedings have not fully concluded. The parties will
further update the Court when the UK I proceedings have fully concluded and a final agreement
between the parties has been executed covering the period through 2023.
In light of the foregoing, and consistent with the parties’ prior requests to this Court, the
parties respectfully request that this case remain stayed.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Neal C. Belgam
Neal C. Belgam
Case 1:19-cv-01590-JDW Document 323 Filed 07/23/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 12834
FISH21049
4 days ago
Returns On Capital Are A Standout For InterDigital
If you're looking for a multi-bagger, there's a few things to keep an eye out for. Firstly, we'd want to identify a growing return on capital employed (ROCE) and then alongside that, an ever-increasing base of capital employed. If you see this, it typically means it's a company with a great business model and plenty of profitable reinvestment opportunities. So when we looked at the ROCE trend of InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC) we really liked what we saw.
Understanding Return On Capital Employed (ROCE)
For those that aren't sure what ROCE is, it measures the amount of pre-tax profits a company can generate from the capital employed in its business. The formula for this calculation on InterDigital is:
Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) Ă· (Total Assets - Current Liabilities)
0.24 = US$214m Ă· (US$1.8b - US$904m) (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2024).
Therefore, InterDigital has an ROCE of 24%. That's a fantastic return and not only that, it outpaces the average of 7.6% earned by companies in a similar industry.
What Does the ROCE Trend For InterDigital Tell Us?
InterDigital's ROCE growth is quite impressive. Looking at the data, we can see that even though capital employed in the business has remained relatively flat, the ROCE generated has risen by 656% over the last five years. So our take on this is that the business has increased efficiencies to generate these higher returns, all the while not needing to make any additional investments. It's worth looking deeper into this though because while it's great that the business is more efficient, it might also mean that going forward the areas to invest internally for the organic growth are lacking.
On a side note, we noticed that the improvement in ROCE appears to be partly fueled by an increase in current liabilities. Essentially the business now has suppliers or short-term creditors funding about 50% of its operations, which isn't ideal. And with current liabilities at those levels, that's pretty high.
The Bottom Line
In summary, we're delighted to see that InterDigital has been able to increase efficiencies and earn higher rates of return on the same amount of capital. And a remarkable 110% total return over the last five years tells us that investors are expecting more good things to come in the future. Therefore, we think it would be worth your time to check if these trends are going to continue.
If you want to search for more stocks that have been earning high returns, check out this free list of stocks with solid balance sheets that are also earning high returns on equity.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/returns-capital-standout-interdigital-nasdaq-183439988.html
Monterey2000
4 days ago
Gamco, according to AI ChatGPT source:
In the United Kingdom, the levels of court
for patent case appeals and the respective
timelines for appealing to a higher court are as
follows:
1. **Intellectual Property Office (IPO)**:
- Initial decisions on patent applications,
oppositions, and other matters are made
here.
- Appeals from the IPO's decisions are made
to the Patents Court of the High Court of
Justice.
2. **Patents Court (High Court of Justice)**:
- This specialized division handles patent
disputes and appeals from the IPO.
- Decisions from the Patents Court can be
appealed to the Court of Appeal.
- An appeal must typically be lodged within
21 days of the Patents Court's decision.
3. **Court of Appeal**:
- This court hears appeals from the Patents
Court.
- A further appeal to the Supreme Court can
be made with permission, which is granted
only if the case involves a point of law of
general public importance.
- Appeals to the Supreme Court must
generally be filed within 28 days of the
Court of Appeal's decision.
4. **Supreme Court**:
- The final court of appeal for patent cases
in the UK.
- It reviews decisions from the Court of
Appeal.
These timelines ensure that the appeals
process is conducted in a timely manner,
allowing for the swift resolution of patent
disputes.
Gamco
5 days ago
Invalid Patents Sink Tech Co.'s Claims Against Lenovo
By Travis Bland ·  Listen to article
Law360 (July 18, 2024, 5:40 PM EDT) -- A North Carolina federal judge has cut claims in an infringement suit over data transfer patents by wireless and video technology company InterDigital against Lenovo, finding some of the challenged patents are invalid.
U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan on Wednesday gave judgment on the pleading to Lenovo concerning two of InterDigital's wireless transfer technologies, ruling the patents were for common ideas of transferring information without any concrete improvements and thus ineligible for being patented.
"The claims in the file sharing patents simply provide a method for implementing the abstract idea of wirelessly transferring data using conventional software and hardware," Judge Flanagan said. "The elements in the claims of the file sharing patents thus do not provide an 'inventive concept.'"
Two of InterDigital's patents for data transferring, which the company claimed Lenovo, owner of Motorola, infringed, were aimed at the "abstract idea" of wireless communication, the order said.
InterDigital's patented methods used routine steps to perform wireless communication, the order said.
"Beyond pointing to the unpatentable intrinsic speed and efficiency benefits," InterDigital does "not allege how this alleged improvement helps touchscreen devices carry out their basic function of wirelessly transferring data," Judge Flanagan said.
However, the judge refused to throw out infringement claims based on InterDigital's wireless video transfer technology.
The company's patented method for transferring video didn't just play on the abstract idea of coding and decoding video but made software improvements that increased the performance of wireless devices, the order said.
Improved coding and decoding that made devices work better rendered the patent valid, Judge Flanagan said, disagreeing with Lenovo that case law it cited supported the ineligibility of InterDigital's video transfer patent.
Along with the remaining claims for infringement on the video transfer patent, claims remain on allegation that Lenovo is misusing two other patents. Lenovo didn't ask for the claims connected to the two other patents to be tossed in the judgment on the pleadings motion.
In September, several InterDigital entities sued Lenovo, claiming it infringed five patents that "enable wireless file-sharing between devices" and are important to "delivery and consumption of an enormous amount of video content on a daily basis."
In the district court case, InterDigital seeks a finding that Lenovo is infringing the patents-at-issue and damages, among other things, according to court records.
InterDigital filed a parallel action before the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking a ban on imports of purportedly infringing products, including the Lenovo ThinkPad laptop and Motorola Edge+ smartphone, according to ITC records.
Chinese technology giant Lenovo, in the summer of 2023, walked away the "overall winner"
dws
1 week ago
InterDigital Announces Date for Second Quarter 2024 Financial Results
Company Release - 7/18/2024
WILMINGTON, Del., July 18, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, today announced that the company will release its second quarter 2024 financial results before the market open on Thursday, August 1, 2024.
InterDigital executives will host a conference call that same day at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) to discuss the company performance.
For a live webcast of the conference call visit www.interdigital.com and click on the “Webcast” link on the Investors page. The company encourages participants to take advantage of the webcast option.
For telephone access to the conference call, visit www.interdigital.com and click on the “Dial-In Registration” link on the Investors page. Registration is necessary to obtain a dial-in phone number and PIN to join.
A replay of the conference call will be available on InterDigital’s website under Events in the Investors section. The replay will be available for one year.
About InterDigital®
InterDigital is a global research and development company focused primarily on wireless, video, artificial intelligence (“AI”), and related technologies. We design and develop foundational technologies that enable connected, immersive experiences in a broad range of communications and entertainment products and services. We license our innovations worldwide to companies providing such products and services, including makers of wireless communications devices, consumer electronics, IoT devices, cars and other motor vehicles, and providers of cloud-based services such as video streaming. As a leader in wireless technology, our engineers have designed and developed a wide range of innovations that are used in wireless products and networks, from the earliest digital cellular systems to 5G and today’s most advanced Wi-Fi technologies. We are also a leader in video processing and video encoding/decoding technology, with a significant AI research effort that intersects with both wireless and video technologies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on Nasdaq.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
InterDigital Contact:
investor.relations@interdigital.com
+1 (302) 300-1857
Gamco
2 weeks ago
UPDATE 1-Tesla's UK lawsuit for 5G patents licence thrown out by UK court
Reuters 07/15/2024 06:17
LONDON, July 15 (Reuters) - U.S. technology firm InterDigital and a patent licensing platform on Monday won their bid to throw out a London lawsuit by Tesla TSLA.O, which was seeking a patent licence ahead of the automaker's launch of 5G vehicles in Britain.
Elon Musk's company sued InterDigital IDCC.O and Avanci – which licenses patents from multiple owners, largely for automotive uses – at London's High Court in 2023.
Tesla wanted the court to determine the fair, reasonable and -discriminatory (FRAND) terms of a licence for Tesla to use patents owned by patent holders, including InterDigital and which are licensed by Avanci.
Tesla's lawyers said in court filings for a hearing in May that the company "plans imminently to launch 5G vehicles in the UK".
InterDigital and Avanci, however, asked the court to throw out Tesla's bid for a ruling on FRAND terms for a licence.
The High Court ruled in their favour on Monday, with Judge Timothy Fancourt saying in a written ruling that Tesla's bid for a licence must be thrown out but Tesla's claim to revoke three of InterDigital's patents can continue.
(Reporting by Sam Tobin, Editing by Kylie MacLellan)
Paullee
2 weeks ago
a final note
Home / UK Court of Appeal Rules on Side of Fairness in Ongoing Lenovo v ... /
UK Court of Appeal Rules on Side of Fairness in Ongoing Lenovo v InterDigital Case
14-Jul-2024 | Source : Lenovo | Visits : 145
HONG KONG - The UK Court of Appeal ruled in the ongoing landmark case between InterDigital and Lenovo for license rates for 3G, 4G, and 5G patents, ruling a limited and very modest uplift of the original royalty rate to 22.5 US cents per unit, only 6.5 cents higher than what Lenovo argued at trial was Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND), a press release stated by Lenovo.
The amount ruled on appeal is only 5 US cents off the rate set by Justice Mellor (17.5 US cents), but significantly less than half (27 US cents lower) the 49-50 US cents rate that InterDigital sought as a per-unit rate both at trial and appeal. Beyond the royalty rate, Justice Mellor’s original ruling otherwise remained undisturbed, including his determination of InterDigital’s un-FRAND conduct. As further evidence of its willingness and commitment to FRAND licensing, Lenovo is publicly offering InterDigital 22.5 US cents per cellular unit for a forward-looking license and hope this fully resolves the parties’ disputes.
Commenting on the ruling, Lenovo’s John Mulgrew, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel & Chief Intellectual Property Officer, welcomes the decision:
“We are pleased with the Court’s commitment to confirm fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms for licensing, and are encouraged by what this decision means for ongoing negotiations with InterDigital, wider industry IP litigation cases, and most importantly, how this facilitates the proliferation of affordable innovation to customers around the world. Given the decision is far closer to Lenovo’s original position than InterDigital’s, we believe this is a further win for Lenovo and reinforces our continued commitment to FRAND licensing and being a willing licensee in the face of supra-FRAND offers and behavior.”
my3sons87
2 weeks ago
From the link I posted.
The case is a clear validation of the quality of our innovation and of our behavior through many years of negotiations. It is also a strong rebuke of Lenovo’s years of delay tactics and abuse of the FRAND negotiation process.
The first instance decision from the Munich Regional Court found our 4G/5G patent-in-suit to be infringed and ruled that Lenovo should face a sales ban in Germany over all 4G and 5G-enabled devices. It also found that InterDigital always acted consistently with its FRAND commitment and that Lenovo failed to act in a FRAND compliant manner.
Using language that has become all-too familiar for SEP-owning innovators around the behavior of recalcitrant licensees, the court is particularly critical of Lenovo’s behavior.
As the court writes: Lenovo shows that “they are not interested in finding a solution that is fair to both sides. Rather, their behavior shows that even in situations in which, from an economic point of view, an agreement is obvious, they continue to negotiate in order to strengthen their own position by further delaying an agreement.”
The court is clear that Lenovo’s behavior constitutes a “hold-out tactic” which is “not in line with the legal system.”
The court also rejects Lenovo’s argument that they made a FRAND offer for a forward-looking 5G license by offering a royalty determined by the UK’s High Court last year, based on a 4G agreement from 2017. In contrast to Lenovo’s actions, the court casts InterDigital’s negotiation behavior in a far more positive light observing that we are, “interested in a final solution to the disputes that existed between the parties for many years.”
orientbull
2 weeks ago
This is from the original UK judge prior to the appeal
Hold out, it seems to me, has been a principal driver for the flexibility and creativity used by InterDigital in its licensing. As I have described, InterDigital’s licensing approach has been heavily influenced by two obstacles: (a) the lack of the ability (until recently) to obtain a global FRAND ruling and (b) the perceived influence of national limitation periods. SEP licensors now have the ability to litigate to determine global FRAND terms and, if my ruling regarding limitation is upheld on appeal, there will be much less incentive for implementers to engage in hold out. However, that second point has undoubtedly been a, or the, principal reason for the practice which has grown up of waiving or heavily discounting past royalties. Mr Djavaherian said in his cross-examination that it is a common occurrence that past royalties are either waived or discounted, whether there is a dispute or not. Nonetheless, the influence of those two points continues to be reflected in InterDigital’s approach to licensing.
Gamco
2 weeks ago
OLD NEWS:
InterDigital signs HEVC license agreement with Lenovo
Source: GlobeNewswire Inc.
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced that it has signed a new multi-year royalty-bearing global license with Lenovo covering InterDigital’s HEVC video patents. The new license brings to an end all related HEVC litigation between the two companies.
“We are pleased that Lenovo has chosen to take a license to our HEVC portfolio in another clear demonstration of the value of our video innovation,” commented Eeva Hakoranta, Chief Licensing Officer, InterDigital. “We remain committed to resolving our remaining licensing disputes with Lenovo.”
About InterDigital®
InterDigital develops mobile and video technologies that are at the core of devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry’s most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks, better video delivery, and richer multimedia experiences years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world’s leading technology companies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on Nasdaq.
News
Market Data
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
