Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

When re-reading the Q1 conference call in April 2012, Scott McQuilkin said the following ...

By: Rakitno in IDCC | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 10 Jul 12 9:42 PM | 634 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications 		Msg. 45669 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 45666 by my3sons87)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

When re-reading the Q1 conference call in April 2012, Scott McQuilkin said the following:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/529821-interdigital-s-ceo-discusses-q1-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

Importantly, these results do not include revenue for disputed royalties that has been deferred pending the outcome of an arbitration proceeding related to one of the company’s technology solutions agreements. As of March 31, we’d deferred $33.1 million in revenue in connection with this arbitration, including $3.4 million of revenue that we did not recognize in the first quarter 2012. We’re confident in our position for this arbitration, and based on the current schedule, we expect that it will be resolved this year.At that time, we will recognize an amount of deferred revenue consistent with the outcome of the arbitration.

This dispute, if allegedly, is with Intel who later agreed to purchase $375M in patents from InterDigital in June 2012. Even before this sale, the Company expected to resolve this arbitration this year. The hearing was expected to be held at the end of June 2012. 

In addition to this arbitration, we’re also involved in other arbitrations where we believe we have a strong position. One arbitration relates to product coverage at an existing license and currently involves several million dollars of disputed royalties, none of which we have recognized as revenue to date. We believe that our position with respect to this arbitration is also very strong and expect that it will be resolved this year.

Again, the Company feels that this and the above noted arbitration, that they have a very strong position and expect both of them to be resolved this year.

This second mystery arbitration above is with a current licensee who I do not believe is LG, nor do I believe the Company would define them as such, given what Scott continues to describe:

A third arbitration is currently in process, also relates to product coverage.

No further details given about this arbitration, no mention of timeline resolution nor revenue disputed as with the two above. Just the single sentence description given above. This one is likely the LG matter filed in March 2012.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
While the investigation was terminated as to LG, the ALJ in
By: my3sons87 in IDCC
Tue, 10 Jul 12 8:07 PM 		Msg. 45666 of 48237

his ruling noted that he felt the issue of whether the parties have an arbitrable issue should be left to the arbitrator. Both IDCC and the Staff attorney opposed this.

However, on March 19, 2012 LG filed an arbitration demand with the AAA for arbitration, of the arbitrability of the contract.

LG claims they are currently licensed and IDCC oh no you are not.

« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next