Search the web
Welcome, Guest
[Sign Out, My Account]
EDGAR_Online

Quotes & Info
Enter Symbol(s):
e.g. YHOO, ^DJI
Symbol Lookup | Financial Search
IDCC > SEC Filings for IDCC > Form 8-K on 18-Jun-2014All Recent SEC Filings

Show all filings for INTERDIGITAL, INC.

Form 8-K for INTERDIGITAL, INC.


18-Jun-2014

Other Events


Item 8.01. Other Events.

On June 13, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued an Initial Determination ("ID") in the United States International Trade Commission's ("ITC" or "Commission") Investigation No. 337-TA-868 brought against ZTE and Nokia (the "868 Investigation").

In the ID, the ALJ found that no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ("Section 337") has occurred in connection with the importation of 3G/4G devices by ZTE or Nokia, on the basis that the accused devices do not infringe the asserted claims of InterDigital's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,941,151 (the "'151 patent"), 7,190,966 (the "'966 patent"), or 7,286,847 (the "'847 patent").

In concluding that the accused devices do not infringe the asserted claims in the '966 and '847 "power ramp-up" patents, the ALJ's decision hinged on the construction of one patent claim term related to a claim term that InterDigital believes the Commission misconstrued in its decision in the previous 337-TA-800 investigation (the "800 Investigation") regarding the same family of patents. InterDigital has appealed that claim construction from the 800 Investigation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit"). InterDigital believes it has a very strong appeal based on a favorable prior ruling from the Federal Circuit related to this claim term on both the '966 and '847 patents, a favorable decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware involving this claim term in these same patents, and the Commission's own decision in connection with the remand proceeding in investigation No. 337-TA-613 (the "613 Investigation") dealing with these patents.

The ALJ also determined that, except for Claim 16 of the '151 patent, none of the asserted patents were invalid. The ALJ further determined that InterDigital did not violate any FRAND obligations, a conclusion also reached by the ALJ in the 800 Investigation. Additionally, the ID recognized that both InterDigital's licensing and research and development programs satisfy the economic criteria of the Section 337 domestic industry requirement, confirming numerous prior rulings by the Commission in InterDigital ITC investigations as well as by the Federal Circuit in affirming the Commission's domestic industry conclusions in the 613 Investigation.

InterDigital intends to seek review by the Commission of the adverse portions of the ID and, if necessary, by the Federal Circuit.


  Add IDCC to Portfolio     Set Alert         Email to a Friend  
Get SEC Filings for Another Symbol: Symbol Lookup
Quotes & Info for IDCC - All Recent SEC Filings
Copyright © 2014 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service
SEC Filing data and information provided by EDGAR Online, Inc. (1-800-416-6651). All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.