InterDigital (IDCC) Risk Analysis

Potential changes to certain U.S. and international patent laws, rules and regulations may occur in the future, some or all of which may affect our research and development investments, patent prosecution costs, the scope of future patent coverage we secure, the number of forums in which we can seek to enforce our patents, the remedies that we may be entitled to in patent litigation, and attorneys' fees or other remedies that could be sought against us, and may require us to reevaluate and modify our research and development activities and patent prosecution, licensing and enforcement strategies. For example, the State Administration for Market Regulation in China regularly reviews its policies related to intellectual property and antitrust laws, and any such review could result in ambiguous standards and/or create a worse position for patent holders like us. Additionally, the European Commission ("EC") has initiated a review of the EU's IP policies as they relate to SEPs and FRAND. This review is currently being discussed and debated inside the European Parliament and the European Council and any change to the legal or regulatory landscape as a result of this review could impact our ability to negotiate license agreements on favorable terms or at all, while also limiting our potential legal remedies and materially impacting our business. Further, legislation designed to reduce the value of SEPs and alter the U.S. patent system, including legislation designed to reduce the jurisdiction and remedial authority of the USITC, has periodically been introduced in Congress. Any potential changes in the law, the IPR policies of standards bodies or other developments that reduce the available forums or the types of relief available in such forums (such as injunctive relief), restrict permissible licensing practices (such as our ability to license on a worldwide portfolio basis) or that otherwise cause us to seek alternative forums (such as arbitration or state court), would make it more difficult for us to enforce our patents, whether in adversarial proceedings or in negotiations. Because we have historically depended on the availability of certain forms of legal process to enforce our patents and obtain fair and adequate compensation for our investments in research and development and the unauthorized use of our intellectual property, developments that undermine our ability to do so could have a negative impact on future licensing efforts. Rulings in our legal proceedings, as well as those of third parties, may affect our strategies for patent prosecution, licensing and royalty setting and enforcement. For example, in the past, the USITC and U.S. courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have taken actions that have been viewed as unfavorable to patentees, including us. Decisions that occur in the U.S. or in international forums may change the law applicable to various patent law issues, such as, for example, patentability, validity, claim construction, patent exhaustion, patent misuse, permissible licensing practices, available forums, and remedies such as damages and injunctive relief, in ways that are detrimental to the ability of patentees to enforce patents and obtain suitable relief. There are regularly discussions within the EC regarding potential regulations and policy changes that could determine how and whether a patent is essential to a standard. The risk of having our patents determined essential based on a single methodology or specific criteria and conditions associated with patent enforcement and licensing as imposed by the EC would affect our strategies as well. Ongoing uncertainty related to the feasibility and criteria used for this evaluation as well as the cost associated with such essentiality determination could impact the assessment of our SEP portfolio. We continue to monitor and evaluate our strategies for prosecution, licensing and enforcement with regard to these developments; however, any resulting change in such strategies may have an adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

From time to time, we make strategic decisions about our patent portfolio, whether through a formal portfolio review or opportunistic dispositions. Cost savings expectations of any portfolio review are inherently uncertain and, therefore, we cannot provide assurance that we will achieve any expected, or any actual cost savings from any such action. Our portfolio review activities may place substantial demands on our management, which could lead to the diversion of management's attention from other business priorities. We have divested a number of assets, including as part of a recent strategic portfolio rationalization review. Any assets that we divest could turn out to be more valuable than we had anticipated and we may not realize the anticipated benefits of any strategic decision about our patent portfolio. Due to cost constraints, we also regularly undertake strategic decisions in respect of where and how we file for patents. These decisions could later prove to be incorrect, which could ultimately harm our licensing potential or enforcement options, which could in turn harm our financial results and business prospects.

Some third parties have challenged, and we expect will continue to challenge, the infringement, validity and enforceability of certain of our patents. In some instances, certain of our patent claims could be substantially narrowed or declared invalid, unenforceable, not essential or not infringed. For example, in limited cases, certain of our patents have been held invalid by courts in proceedings initiated by counterparties to our litigation proceedings. We cannot ensure that the validity and enforceability of our patents will be maintained or that our patents will be determined to be applicable to any particular product or standard. Moreover, third parties could attempt to circumvent certain of our patents through design changes. Any significant adverse findings as to the validity, infringement, enforceability or scope of our patents and/or any successful design-around of our patents could result in the loss of patent licensing revenue from existing licensees, through termination or modification of agreements or otherwise, and could substantially impair our ability to secure new patent licensing arrangements, either at all or on beneficial terms.

Domestic and foreign antitrust authorities regularly review their policies with respect to the use of SEPs, including the enforcement of such patents against competitors and others. Such scrutiny has in the past resulted in enforcement actions against Qualcomm and other licensing companies, and could lead to additional investigations of, or enforcement actions against, us. Such inquiries and/or enforcement actions could impact the availability of injunctive and monetary relief, which may adversely affect our strategies for patent prosecution, licensing and enforcement and increase our costs of operation. Such inquiries and/or enforcement actions could also result in monetary fines, penalties or other remedies or sanctions that could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The legal doctrines of patent exhaustion and implied license may be subject to different judicial interpretations. Our commercialization or licensing of certain technologies and/or our M&A activities could potentially lead to patent exhaustion or implied license issues that could adversely affect our patent licensing program(s) and limit our ability to derive licensing revenue from certain patents under such program(s), whether through the assumption of license agreements that would result in our patents being captured by such agreements, the acquisition of a business that sells or licenses products that practice our patents, or otherwise. In the event of successful challenges by current or prospective licensees based on these doctrines that result in a material decrease to our patent licensing revenue, our financial condition and operating results may be materially adversely affected.

Historically, we strive for the terms of our patent license agreements, including royalties, to be reached through arms-length bilateral negotiations with our licensees. We could agree, as we did with Samsung and Lenovo pursuant to binding arbitration agreements, to have royalties and any other disputed terms set by third party adjudicators (such as arbitrators). We have no guarantee that the royalties or other terms set by arbitrators, courts or other third parties will be favorable to us. It is possible that courts or regulators could decide to set or otherwise determine the FRAND consistency of such terms or the manner in which such terms are determined, including by determining a worldwide royalty for our SEPs. Changes to or clarifications of our obligations to be prepared to offer licenses to SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions could require such terms, including our royalties, to be determined through third party adjudications. Finally, we and certain of our current and prospective licensees have initiated, and we and others could in the future initiate, legal proceedings or regulatory proceedings requesting third party adjudicators or regulators to set FRAND terms and conditions for a worldwide license to our SEPs, or to determine the FRAND-consistency of current terms and conditions in our patent license agreements. Chinese courts have affirmed their position that in certain SEP licensing disputes, Chinese courts can set worldwide royalties, and in December 2023, one such court issued such a decision setting a worldwide royalty for Nokia's cellular patents. We have faced similar proceedings with OPPO in China to determine a worldwide royalty for certain of our SEPs as well as royalty-setting proceedings in the UK initiated by Lenovo and Tesla. If any court or arbitration tribunal decision sets a worldwide royalty rate that is unfavorable to us, our standard essential patent portfolio could be significantly devalued as it relates to the FRAND royalty an implementer should pay, which could in turn negatively impact pricing with other licensees. To the extent that our patent royalties for our patent license agreements are determined through arbitration or other third party adjudications or regulatory or court proceedings rather than through bilateral negotiations, because such proceedings are inherently unpredictable and uncertain and there are currently few precedents for such determinations, it is possible that royalties may be lower than our accounting estimates and/or comparable licenses. This could also have a negative impact on royalties we are able to obtain from future licensees, which may have an adverse effect on our revenue and cash flow. Prospective customers may delay, and in some cases have delayed, negotiations on the basis of an adverse decision. In addition, to the extent that other terms and conditions for our patent license agreements are determined through such means, such terms and conditions could be less favorable than our historical terms and conditions, which could have an adverse effect on our licensing business more broadly.

Royalty payments to us under future license agreements could be lower than anticipated. Certain licensees and others in the wireless and consumer electronics industries, individually and collectively, are demanding that royalties for patents be lower than historic royalties and/or should be applied to royalty bases smaller than the selling price of an end product (such as the "smallest salable patent practicing unit"). There is also increasing downward pricing pressure on certain wireless products, including handsets, and other consumer electronics devices that we believe implement our patented inventions, and some of our royalties are tied to the pricing of these devices. In addition, a number of other companies also claim to hold patents that are essential with respect to products we aim to license. Demands by certain licensees to reduce royalties due to pricing pressure or the number of patent holders seeking royalties on these technologies could result in a decrease in the royalties we receive for use of our patented inventions, thereby decreasing future revenue and cash flow.

Certain of our technology and our suppliers' technology may contain or may be derived from "open source" software, which, under certain open source licenses, may offer accessibility to a portion of a product's source code and may expose related intellectual property to adverse licensing conditions. Licensing of such technology may impose certain obligations on us if we were to distribute derivative works of the open source software. For example, these obligations may require us to make source code for derivative works available or license such derivative works under a particular type of license that is different from what we customarily use to license our technology. While we believe we have taken appropriate steps and employ adequate controls to protect our intellectual property rights, our use of open source software presents risks that, if we inappropriately use open source software, we may be required to re-engineer our technology, discontinue the sale of our technology, release the source code of our proprietary technology to the public at no cost or take other remedial actions, which could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition. There is a risk that open source licenses could be construed in a way that could impose unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to commercialize our solutions, which could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition. In addition, developing open source products, while adequately protecting the intellectual property rights upon which our licensing business depends, may prove burdensome and time-consuming under certain circumstances, thereby placing us at a competitive disadvantage.

We invest significant resources in the development of advanced technology and related solutions. However, certain of our inventions that we believe will be employed in current and future products, including 4G, 5G, HEVC, VVC and others, are the subject of patent applications where no patent has been issued to us yet by the relevant patent issuing authorities. There is no assurance that these applications will issue as patents, either at all or with claims that would be required by products in the market currently or in the future. Our investments may not be recoverable or may not result in meaningful revenue if a sufficient number of our technologies are not patented and/or adopted by the relevant standards or if products based on the technologies in which we invest are not widely deployed. Competing technologies could reduce the opportunities for the adoption or deployment of technologies we develop. In addition, it is possible that in certain technology areas, such as in the IoT space, the adoption of proprietary systems could compete with or replace standards-based technology. It is also possible in certain technology areas, such as video coding and the IoT, that open source and/or purportedly royalty-free solutions such as AV1, VP-9 and OCF could compete with or replace proprietary standards-based technology. If the technologies in which we invest do not become patented, are not adopted by the relevant standards, or are not adopted by and deployed in the mainstream markets, at all or at the rate or within time periods that we expect, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.