Company: IDCC
Filing Date: 2025-02-06
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001405495-25-000011
Chunk: 11

Company: InterDigital, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-02-06
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1
Chunk 11
---
, we could have a disagreement with a licensee as to the amount of reported sales and royalties.  Our patent license agreements typically provide for private confidential arbitration as the mechanism for resolving disputes with our licensees.  In arbitration, licensees may seek to assert various claims, defenses, or counterclaims, such as claims based on waiver, promissory estoppel, breach of contract, fraudulent inducement to contract, antitrust, and unfair competition.  Arbitration proceedings can be resolved through an award rendered by the arbitrators or by settlement between the parties.  Parties to arbitration might have the right to have the award reviewed in a court of competent jurisdiction; however, based on public policy favoring the use of arbitration, it is generally difficult to have arbitration awards vacated or modified.  The party securing an arbitration award may seek to have that award confirmed as a judgment through an enforcement proceeding.  The purpose of such a proceeding is to secure a judgment that can be used for, if need be, seizing assets of the other party.

In addition, arbitration may be a particularly effective means for resolving disputes with prospective licensees concerning the appropriate FRAND terms and conditions for license agreements that include SEPs, particularly where negotiations have otherwise reached an impasse. Binding arbitration to resolve the terms and conditions of a worldwide FRAND license to our patent portfolio is an efficient and cost-effective mechanism, as it allows the parties to avoid piecemeal litigation in multiple jurisdictions and ensures that an enforceable patent license agreement that is consistent with FRAND commitments will be in place at the end of the arbitration process.  

Competition

With respect to our technology development activities and resulting commercialization efforts, we face competition from companies, including in-house development teams at other wireless and video technology companies, consumer electronics device companies, semiconductor companies, wireless operators, video streaming and cloud service companies, and other technology providers, developing other and similar technologies that are competitive with our technologies that we may market or set forth into the standards-setting arena.

Due to the exclusionary nature of patent rights, we do not compete, in a traditional sense, with other patent holders for patent licensing relationships or sale transactions.  Other patent holders do not have the same rights to the inventions and technologies encompassed by our patent portfolio.  In any device, piece of equipment, or service that contains intellectual property, the manufacturer or implementer may need to obtain licenses from multiple holders of intellectual property.  In licensing our patent portfolio, we compete with other patent holders for a share of the royalties