Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal and Regulatory Proceedings. Apple Inc. (Apple) v. QUALCOMM Incorporated: On January 20, 2017, Apple filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California seeking declarations with respect to several of our patents and alleging that we breached certain agreements and violated federal antitrust and California state unfair competition laws. In its initial complaint, Apple sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement by Apple of nine of our patents, or in the alternative, a declaration of royalties Apple must pay for the patents. Apple further sought a declaration that our sale of baseband processor chipsets exhausts our patent rights for patents embodied in those chipsets. Separately, Apple sought to enjoin us from seeking excessive royalties from Apple and to disgorge royalties paid by Apple’s contract manufacturers that the court finds were not fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND). Apple also claimed that our refusal to make certain payments to Apple under a Business Cooperation and Patent Agreement (Cooperation Agreement) constituted a breach of contract in violation of California law and sought damages in the amount of the unpaid payments, alleged to be approximately $1 billion. In addition, Apple claimed that we have refused to deal with competitors in contravention of our agreements with applicable standard setting organizations, have used our market position to impose contractual obligations on Apple that prevented Apple from challenging our licensing practices, have tied the purchase of our CDMA-enabled and “premium” LTE-enabled chipsets to licensing certain of our patents and have required Apple to purchase baseband processor chipsets exclusively from us as a condition of our payment to Apple of certain rebates, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. Apple sought injunctive relief with respect to these claims and a judgment awarding its expenses, costs and attorneys’ fees. On April 10, 2017, we filed our Answer and Counterclaims (amended on May 24, 2017) in response to Apple’s complaint denying Apple’s claims and asserting claims against Apple. The counterclaims against Apple include tortious interference with our long-standing Subscriber Unit License Agreements (SULAs) with third-party contract manufacturers of Apple devices, causing those contract manufacturers to withhold certain royalty payments owed to us and violate their audit obligations; breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing relating to the Cooperation Agreement; unjust enrichment and declaratory relief relating to the Cooperation Agreement; breach of contract based on Apple’s failure to pay amounts owed to us under a Statement of Work relating to a high-speed feature of our baseband processor chipsets; breach of the parties’ software agreement; and violation of California Unfair Competition Law based on Apple’s threatening us to prevent us from promoting the superior performance of our own baseband processor chipsets. We also seek declaratory judgments that we have satisfied our FRAND commitments with respect to Apple, and that our SULAs with the contract manufacturers do not violate either competition law or our FRAND commitments. On June 19, 2017, Apple filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss our counterclaim for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The court granted that motion on November 8, 2017. On June 20, 2017, Apple filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the rest of our counterclaims, and also filed an Amended Complaint reiterating all of the original claims and adding claims for declaratory judgments of invalidity of the nine patents that are subject to declaratory judgment claims in the original complaint, adding new declaratory judgment claims for non-infringement, invalidity and a declaration of royalties for nine more patents. Apple also added claims for declaratory judgments that certain of our agreements are unenforceable. On July 21, 2017, we filed an Answer to Apple’s Amended Complaint as well as a motion to dismiss the new declaratory judgment claims for non-infringement, invalidity and a declaration of royalties for the nine additional patents. The court granted our motion on November 8, 2017. On May 17, 2017, we filed a complaint (captioned QUALCOMM Incorporated v. Compal Electronics, Inc. et al .) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against certain of Apple’s contract manufacturers, Compal Electronics, Inc. (Compal), FIH Mobile, Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (together with FIH Mobile, Ltd., Foxconn), Pegatron Corporation (Pegatron) and Wistron Corporation (Wistron), asserting claims for injunctive relief, specific performance, declaratory relief and damages stemming from the defendants’ breach of contracts by ceasing the payment of royalties for iPhones and other devices which they manufacture for Apple. On July 17, 2017, Compal, Foxconn, Pegatron and Wistron each filed third-party complaints for contractual indemnity against Apple seeking to join Apple as a party to the action. On July 18, 2017, Apple filed an answer to these third-party complaints acknowledging its indemnity agreements and consenting to be joined. On that same day, the defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaims to the complaint, asserting defenses and counterclaims similar to allegations previously made by Apple in the Apple Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated case discussed above. In addition, the defendants asserted certain new claims, including claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. The defendants seek damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, restitution of certain royalties and other relief. Also, on July 18, 2017, Apple filed a motion to consolidate this action with the Apple Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated case. On September 13, 2017, the court granted Apple’s consolidation motion. Fact discovery is closed in these cases. On August 31, 2018, Apple filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over our counterclaim that our license offers to Apple have not violated our obligation to license standard-essential patents on FRAND terms. On March 20, 2019, the court denied Apple’s motion. Also, on August 31, 2018, Apple filed motions for partial summary judgment on the following issues: that part of our claim for Apple’s alleged tortious interference with its contract manufacturers’ agreements is barred by the statute of limitations; that our claim for damages under the Cooperation Agreement is unfounded; and that certain of our patent rights are exhausted by the sale of our baseband processor chipsets. On November 8, 2018, the court ruled on Apple’s motion regarding its alleged tortious interference, holding that Apple is not liable for tortious interference that occurred prior to January 20, 2015, but may be held liable for subsequent tortious interference. On December 18, 2018, the court denied Apple’s motion regarding patent exhaustion as moot in light of the dismissal of the claims at issue discussed below. On March 14, 2019, the court granted Apple’s motion for summary judgment against our claims for damages under the Cooperation Agreement. Amounts unpaid (and previously accrued) by us under the Cooperation Agreement were recorded in customer-related liabilities (in other current liabilities) at March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018 (Note 2). On September 14, 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss Apple’s declaratory judgment claims relating to the nine specific patents identified in its original complaint on the basis that we granted Apple and its contract manufacturers a covenant-not-to-sue on those patents. The judge granted our motion on November 20, 2018, which disposed of a total of 56 claims pled by Apple and its contract manufacturers, including non-infringement, validity, damages and patent exhaustion for each of the nine patents. A jury trial commenced on April 15, 2019, and on April 16, 2019, we entered into settlement agreements with Apple and its contract manufacturers to dismiss all outstanding litigation between the parties (Note 12). On January 23, 2017, an Apple subsidiary in China filed two complaints against us in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. On March 31, 2017, the court granted an application by Apple Inc. to join the actions as a plaintiff, and Apple amended the complaints. One of the complaints alleges a violation of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML complaint); the other complaint requests a determination of the terms of a patent license between us and Apple (FRAND complaint). The AML complaint alleges that (i) we have abused our dominant position in communication standard-essential patents licensing markets and certain global baseband processor chipset markets by charging and offering royalty terms that were excessively high; (ii) we refused to license certain implementers of standardized technologies, including Apple and baseband processor chipset manufacturers; (iii) we forced Apple to use only our products and services; and (iv) we bundled licenses to standard-essential patents with licenses to non-standard-essential patents and imposed other unreasonable or discriminatory trading terms on Apple in violation of the AML. The AML complaint seeks a decree that we cease the alleged abuse of dominance, as well as damages in the amount of 1 billion Chinese renminbi (approximately $149 million based on the exchange rate on March 31, 2019 ). The FRAND complaint makes allegations similar to the AML complaint and further alleges that we refused to offer licensing terms for our cellular standard-essential patents consistent with our FRAND licensing commitments and failed to provide to Apple certain information about our patents. The FRAND complaint seeks (i) a declaration that the license terms offered to Apple by us for our mobile communication standard-essential patents are not compliant with FRAND; (ii) an order that we cease our actions that allegedly violate our FRAND obligations, including pricing on unfair, unreasonable and excessive terms, refusing to deal, imposing unreasonable trade conditions and failing to provide information on our patents; and (iii) a determination of FRAND-compliant license terms for our Chinese standard-essential patents. Apple also seeks its expenses in each of the cases. On August 3, 2017, we received three additional complaints filed by an Apple subsidiary in China and Apple Inc. against us in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The complaints seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement of three of our patents. We filed jurisdictional and other objections to the complaints. On November 30, 2017, Apple and certain of its Chinese subsidiaries filed three patent infringement complaints against us in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Apple seeks damages and costs. We have filed jurisdictional objections to the complaints. On February 16, 2017, Apple and one of its Japanese subsidiaries filed four complaints against us in the Tokyo District Court. In three of the complaints, Apple seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement by Apple of three of our patents. Apple further seeks a declaration that our patent rights with respect to those three patents are exhausted by our SULAs with the contract manufacturers of Apple’s devices as well as our sale of baseband processor chipsets. Apple also seeks an award of fees. On January 30, 2018, April 27, 2018 and July 13, 2018, the court dismissed each of Apple’s three declaratory judgment complaints, finding that Apple lacked standing based on the facts it alleged in those complaints. Apple has appealed all three decisions. On December 12, 2018, February 19, 2019 and March 4, 2019, the Intellectual Property High Court ruled in our favor on each of Apple’s appeals, finding that the Tokyo District Courts were correct in dismissing Apple’s declaratory judgment complaints. The court has yet to rule on whether Apple has standing in the remaining complaint. On May 15, 2017, we learned of the fourth complaint. In that complaint, Apple and one of its Japanese subsidiaries seek damages of 100 million Japanese yen (approximately $1 million based on the exchange rate on March 31, 2019 ) from us, based on allegations that we violated the Japanese Antimonopoly Act and the Japanese Civil Code. In particular, the fourth complaint alleges that (i) we hold a monopoly position in the market for baseband processor chipsets that implement certain cellular standards; (ii) we collect double royalties through our license agreements and the sale of baseband processor chipsets which exhaust certain of our patent rights; (iii) we refused to grant Apple a license on FRAND terms and forced Apple to execute a rebate agreement under unreasonable conditions; (iv) we refused to grant Apple a direct license; and (v) we demanded a license fee based on the market value of the total device. We have filed jurisdictional and other objections to this complaint. On March 2, 2017, we learned that Apple and certain of its European subsidiaries issued a Claim Form against us in the UK High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court on January 23, 2017. Apple subsequently filed an Amended Claim Form and Particulars of Claim. Both the Amended Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim allege several European competition law claims, including our refusal to license competing chipmakers, failure to offer Apple a direct license to our standard-essential patents on FRAND terms, demanding excessive royalties for our standard-essential patents, and demanding excessive license fees for the use of our standard-essential patents in connection with baseband processor chipsets purchased from us. Apple also seeks declarations that we are obliged to offer a direct patent license to Apple in respect of standard-essential patents actually practiced on FRAND terms and that using our baseband processor chipsets does not infringe any of our patents because we exhausted our patent rights. Finally, Apple seeks declarations that five of our European (UK) patents are invalid and not essential, and an order that each of those patents be revoked. On April 18, 2017, Apple and one of its Taiwanese subsidiaries filed a complaint against us in the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court alleging that we have abused a dominant market position in licensing wireless standard-essential patents and selling baseband processor chipsets, including improper pricing, refusal to deal, exclusive dealing, tying, imposing unreasonable trade terms and discriminatory treatment. The complaint seeks rulings that we not use the sales price of the terminal device as the royalty base for standard-essential patents; not leverage our cellular standard-essential patents to obtain licenses of our non-standard-essential patents or demand cross-licenses without proper compensation; not refuse, reduce, delay or take any other action to limit the supply of our baseband processor chipsets to non-licensees; that we must license our standard-essential patents on FRAND terms; and that we shall not, based on standard-essential patents, seek injunctions. The complaint also seeks damages of 10 million Taiwan dollars (less than $1 million based on the exchange rate on March 31, 2019 ), among other relief. On April 16, 2019, we entered into settlement agreements with Apple and its contract manufacturers to dismiss all outstanding litigation between the parties (Note 12). QUALCOMM Incorporated v. Apple Inc. : On July 6, 2017, we filed a complaint against Apple in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California asserting claims for damages and injunctive relief for infringement of six of our patents directed to a variety of features found in iPhone models. On July 7, 2017, we filed a complaint against Apple in the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting that the ITC institute an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 based on Apple’s infringement of the same six patents. We sought a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against importation of iPhone models that do not contain a Qualcomm brand baseband processor chipset. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. Apple filed an Answer and Counterclaims in the District Court case on September 26, 2017. On November 29, 2017, Apple filed a First Amended Answer and Counterclaims asserting that our Snapdragon processors infringe eight Apple patents. On August 8, 2017, the ITC issued a notice of institution of an investigation. On August 25, 2017, we withdrew allegations as to one patent in both the ITC investigation and the district court case. On April 25, 2018, we withdrew allegations as to two additional patents in the ITC investigation, but not the District Court case, in order to satisfy certain briefing limitations and to narrow the issues for hearing. The ITC investigation evidentiary hearing by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was held June 18-26, 2018. The ALJ’s Initial Determination on the merits was issued on September 28, 2018. The ALJ found that we had established a violation of Section 337 by Apple due to the infringement of one of the three asserted patents. However, the ALJ recommended against an exclusion order on the grounds of public interest. On October 15, 2018, the parties each filed petitions for review of portions of the ALJ’s decision by the full ITC. On December 12, 2018, the ITC announced that it would review the ALJ’s determination of violation on one patent and requested public comments on the potential impact on the public interest if an exclusion order is issued. The ITC denied review of the ALJ’s findings of no violation as to the other two patents. On March 26, 2019, the ITC issued its final determination and found the remaining patent to be invalid. The ITC’s final determination did not take a position on the public interest considerations of any potential exclusion order. On March 2, 2018, the District Court granted our motion to sever, for separate trial, Apple’s counterclaims for patent infringement against us. On February 5, 2019, the District Court granted Apple’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to one of our asserted patents. Trial on the remaining three of our asserted patents began on March 4, 2019 and has concluded. The jury returned a verdict in our favor on all three patents, awarding us over $31 million in damages. Post trial proceedings are ongoing, and as a result, we did not record a gain in the second quarter of fiscal 2019. In parallel, Apple has challenged the validity of four of our patents asserted in the first ITC action and corresponding District Court case via Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has instituted trials on three of those patents. With respect to Apple’s patent claims against us, trial is scheduled to begin on July 15, 2019. We challenged the validity of all of Apple’s asserted patents with the PTAB. Those petitions are pending. On November 1, 2017, we filed a complaint against Apple in San Diego Superior Court for breach of the Master Software Agreement between the companies. The complaint recounts instances when Apple failed to protect our software as required by the agreement and failed to provide sufficient information to which we are entitled under the agreement in order to understand whether other breaches have occurred. The complaint seeks specific performance of Apple’s obligations to cooperate with an audit of its handling of our software, damages and injunctive relief. Apple filed its answer to the complaint on December 19, 2017. On September 24, 2018, we filed a motion seeking to amend our complaint to add causes of action for additional contract breaches and misappropriation of trade secrets. On October 26, 2018, the court granted our motion. We filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2018 and further amended the complaint on November 15, 2018. On December 17, 2018, Apple filed a demurrer objecting to the sufficiency of the second amended complaint. On February 8, 2019, the court denied Apple’s demurrer. Trial is scheduled to begin on February 7, 2020. On November 29, 2017, we filed three additional complaints against Apple in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of a total of 16 of our patents. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. The complaints seek damages and injunctive relief. On January 22, 2018, Apple filed answers and counterclaims in each of these cases seeking declaratory judgments that the asserted patents are invalid and/or not infringed. For the case relating to the November 30, 2017 ITC investigation described below, fact discovery closed on March 13, 2019, and trial is scheduled to begin on October 21, 2019. Apple has filed IPR petitions with the PTAB challenging the validity of four of our patents asserted in the November 30, 2017 ITC action and corresponding District Court action. The PTAB has granted the petition as to one of those patents. For the cases not related to the ITC investigation, Apple has challenged all of the asserted patents in IPR proceedings filed in the PTAB. No decisions have yet been issued by the PTAB. In total, Apple has filed 50 IPRs. The PTAB has initiated proceedings in 36 of the IPRs to date. As a result of the IPR proceedings, on August 29, 2018, the court stayed those two cases pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings. On November 30, 2017, we filed a complaint in the ITC accusing certain Apple products of infringing five of our patents. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. We seek a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against importation of iPhone models that do not contain a Qualcomm brand baseband processor chipset. On January 2, 2018, the ITC instituted an investigation. The evidentiary hearing by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) took place from September 17-24, 2018 and included three of our patents. On March 26, 2019, the ALJ’s Initial Determination was issued, found a violation as to one patent and recommended a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against iPhones that do not contain a Qualcomm brand baseband processor chipset. The target date for final determination by the ITC is July 26, 2019. On July 17, 2017, we filed complaints against Apple and certain of its subsidiaries in the Federal Republic of Germany, asserting infringement of one of our patents in the Mannheim District Court and infringement of another patent in the Munich District Court. On October 2, 2017, we filed claim extensions in these actions against Apple and certain of its subsidiaries, asserting infringement of two additional patents in the Mannheim District Court and infringement of five additional patents in the Munich District Court. On May 28, 2018, we filed additional claim extensions in these actions against Apple and certain of its subsidiaries, asserting infringement of three additional patents in the Mannheim District Court and infringement of one additional patent in the Munich District Court. The complaints seek remedies including, among other relief, declaratory relief confirming liability on the merits for damages and injunctive relief. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. Apple and/or its subsidiaries and, in some cases, also Intel have challenged the validity of the asserted patents in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office or nullity actions before the Federal Patent Court. On October 11, 2018, the Munich District Court issued a judgment declaring one of the patents asserted on October 2, 2017 as not infringed. We have appealed that judgment. On December 20, 2018, the Munich District Court issued judgments declaring one of the patents asserted on July 17, 2017 as infringed and issued an injunction against the infringing Apple products, which would be effective following the posting of financial guarantees. On January 3, 2019, Qualcomm served the requisite financial guarantees to enforce the injunction in the amount of 1.3 billion Euro (approximately $1.5 billion based on the exchange rate at March 31, 2019 ). Apple and its subsidiaries appealed the judgments and requested a preliminary stay of enforcement pending the appeals. On April 9, 2019, the Munich Court of Appeals stayed the enforcement proceedings. On January 15, 2019, the Mannheim District Court issued a judgment declaring one of the patents asserted on October 2, 2017 as not infringed. On January 31, 2019, the Munich District Court issued judgments declaring two further patents (belonging to the same patent family) asserted on October 2, 2017 as not infringed. We have appealed all of these judgments. On February 25, 2019, the Mannheim District Court ordered a stay of infringement proceedings of another patent asserted on October 2, 2017, pending the decision of the Federal Patent Court on validity. On April 5, 2019, the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office revoked a patent that had been asserted on July 17, 2017 before the Mannheim District Court. We intend to appeal this decision. All other patents remain pending. Dates for the pronouncements of judgment and hearings are scheduled for various dates through September 2019. On September 29, 2017, we filed three complaints against Apple and certain of its subsidiaries in the Beijing (China) Intellectual Property Court, asserting infringement of three of our patents. The complaints seek remedies including injunctive relief and costs. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. On May 10, 2018 and June 21, 2018, Apple filed invalidation requests with the Chinese Patent Review Board (PRB) for the three asserted patents. The PRB has issued orders upholding the validity of all three patents. On November 13, 2017, we filed three complaints against certain of Apple’s subsidiaries in the Beijing (China) High People’s Court, asserting infringement of three of our patents. The complaints seek remedies including injunctive relief, damages and costs. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. On December 19, 2017, Apple’s subsidiaries filed invalidation requests with the PRB for the three asserted patents. PRB hearings regarding the validity of the patents were held in April and May 2018. The PRB issued rulings upholding the validity of all three patents. On May 22, 2018, Apple’s subsidiaries filed a second invalidation request with the PRB for one of the three asserted patents. The PRB held a hearing regarding this request on October 19, 2018. The PRB issued rulings on two of the second round invalidity petitions, upholding the validity of one patent based on amended claims and upholding the validity of the second patent again. The PRB has not ruled yet on Apple’s second invalidity challenge to the third patent. On November 30, 2018 and December 5, 2018, Apple appealed all three of the original validity rulings from the PRB to the Beijing IP Court. On November 15, 2017, we filed three complaints against certain of Apple’s subsidiaries in the Fuzhou (China) Intermediate People’s Court, asserting infringement of three of our patents. The complaints seek remedies including injunctive relief and costs. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. Apple’s subsidiaries filed invalidation requests with the PRB on December 8, 2017 for one of the patents and December 11, 2017 for the other two patents. PRB hearings regarding the validity of the patents were held in April and May 2018. The PRB issued orders upholding the validity of two of the patents subject to Apple’s invalidity challenges. The PRB ruled that the third patent was invalid. We subsequently withdrew the infringement action in Fuzhou with respect to the third patent. We have appealed the adverse PRB ruling to the Beijing IP Court. Infringement hearings were held from August through October 30, 2018. On November 30, 2018, the court granted our motions for preliminary injunctions with respect to two of the patents and enjoined Apple’s subsidiaries from importing, selling and offering to sell the iPhone 6S through X. On January 12, 2018, we filed three additional complaints against Apple and certain of its subsidiaries in the Fuzhou (China) Intermediate People’s Court, asserting infringement of three additional patents. The complaints seek remedies including injunctive relief and costs. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. Also, on January 12, 2018, we filed three complaints against certain of Apple’s subsidiaries in the Jiangsu (China) High People’s Court, asserting infringement of three of our patents. The complaints seek remedies including injunctive relief, damages and costs. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. On February 5, 2018, Apple’s subsidiaries filed invalidation requests with the PRB. PRB hearings regarding the validity of the patents were held in June 2018. The PRB issued orders upholding the validity of two of the patents and an order partially upholding the validity of another patent. On February 2, 2018, we filed three complaints against certain of Apple’s subsidiaries in the Qingdao (China) Intermediate People’s Court, asserting infringement of three of our patents. The complaints seek remedies including injunctive relief and costs. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. On February 26, 2018, Apple’s subsidiaries filed invalidation requests with the PRB. PRB hearings regarding the validity of the patents were held in June 2018. The PRB issued orders upholding the validity of two of the patents and invalidating the third patent. We subsequently withdrew the infringement action in Qingdao with respect to the third patent. We filed an appeal of the adverse PRB ruling, and Apple filed an appeal of the other two. Also, on February 2, 2018, we filed three complaints against certain of Apple’s subsidiaries in the Guangzhou (China) Intermediate People’s Court, asserting infringement of three of our patents. The complaints seek remedies including injunctive relief and costs. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. On March 14, 2018, Apple’s subsidiaries filed invalidation requests with the PRB. PRB hearings regarding the validity of the patents began in July 2018. The PRB issued orders upholding the validity of two of the patents and an order invalidating the third patent. Infringement hearings for all three of the patents were held in October through December 2018. We filed a motion withdrawing the infringement action pertaining to the patent that was invalidated. We have appealed the adverse PRB decision, and Apple has appealed the other two. On June 14, 2018, we filed three complaints against certain of Apple’s subsidiaries in the Guangdong (China) High People’s Court, asserting infringement of three of our patents. The complaints seek remedies including injunctive relief and costs. The patents have not been declared as essential to any standards organization and are not subject to commitments to license on FRAND terms. On August 13, 2018, Apple’s subsidiaries filed invalidation requests with the PRB. The PRB has held hearings regarding all three of the patents. The PRB issued an order invalidating one of the patents and has not ruled yet regarding Apple’s invalidity challenges of the other two patents. On April 16, 2019, we entered into settlement agreements with Apple and its contract manufacturers to |