InterDigital (IDCC) Risk Factors

The standard terms of our per-unit license agreements require our licensees to document the sale of licensed products and report this data to us on a quarterly basis. Although our standard license terms give us the right to audit books and records of our licensees to verify this information, audits can be expensive, time consuming, incomplete and subject to dispute. From time to time, we audit certain of our licensees to verify independently the accuracy of the information contained in their royalty reports in an effort to decrease the likelihood that we will not receive the royalty revenues to which we are entitled under the terms of our license agreements, but we cannot give assurances that these audits will be sufficient or effective.

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.

Adverse decisions in litigation or regulatory actions relating to our licensing practices, including, but not limited to, findings that we have not complied with our FRAND commitments and/or engaged in anticompetitive or unfair licensing activities or that any of our license agreements are void or unenforceable, could have an adverse impact on our cash flow and revenue. Regulatory bodies may assess fines in the event of adverse findings, and as part of court or arbitration proceedings, a judgment could require us to pay damages (including the possibility of treble damages for antitrust claims). In addition, to the extent that legal decisions find patent license agreements to be void or unenforceable in whole or in part, that could lead to a decrease in the revenue associated with and cash flow generated by such agreements, and, depending on the damages requested, could lead to the refund of certain payments already made. Such decisions could also cause serious reputational harm. Finally, adverse legal decisions related to our licensing practices could have an adverse effect on our ability to enter into license agreements, which, in turn, could cause our cash flow and revenue to decline.

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.

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 royalty rates for patents be lower than historic royalty rates and/or that such rates 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 royalty rates 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 royalty rates we receive for use of our patented inventions, thereby decreasing future revenue and cash flow.

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 rate 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.

While some companies seek licenses before they commence manufacturing and/or selling devices or services that use our patented inventions, most do not. Consequently, we approach companies and seek to establish license agreements for using our inventions. We expend significant time and effort identifying users and potential users of our inventions and negotiating license agreements with companies that may be reluctant to take licenses. However, if a third party implementer is unwilling to take a license on reasonable terms or in a reasonable time frame, or at all, we have in the past commenced, and may in the future commence, legal or administrative actions against such third parties to enforce our intellectual property rights. In turn, we have faced, and expect to continue to face, counterclaims and other legal proceedings that challenge the essential nature of our patents, or that claim that our patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. Litigation adversaries have and may continue to allege that we have not complied with certain commitments to standards-setting organizations and therefore that we are not entitled to the relief that we seek. For example, Lenovo and other parties have alleged that we have not complied with an obligation to offer a license to a party on FRAND terms and conditions. Parties have also filed, and may in the future file, antitrust claims, unfair competition claims or regulatory complaints on that or other bases, and may seek damages and other relief based on such claims. Litigation adversaries have also filed against us, and other third parties may in the future file, validity challenges such as inter partes proceedings in the USPTO or the China National Intellectual Property Administration, which can lead to delays of our patent infringement actions as well as potential findings of invalidity. Such parties may also seek to obtain a determination that our patents are not infringed, are not essential or are unenforceable. Litigation may be also required to protect our trade secrets, enforce patent license and confidentiality agreements or determine the validity, enforceability and scope of proprietary rights of others. The cost of enforcing and defending our intellectual property and of defending our licensing practices has been and may continue to be significant, in particular with rising fees from outside counsel. As a result, we could be subject to significant legal fees and costs, including in certain jurisdictions the costs and fees of opposing counsel if we are unsuccessful. In addition, litigation, arbitration and administrative proceedings require significant key employee involvement for significant periods of time, which could divert these employees from other business activities.

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to define and keep pace with changes in industry standards, technological developments and varying customer requirements. Changes in industry standards and needs could adversely affect the development of, and demand for, our technology, rendering our technology currently under development obsolete and unmarketable. The patents and applications comprising our portfolio have fixed terms, and, if we fail to anticipate or respond adequately to these changes through the development or acquisition of new patentable inventions, patents or other technology, we could miss a critical market opportunity, reducing or eliminating our ability to capitalize on our patents, technology solutions or both.

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.