12 unchanged sentences
The Korea High Court had indicated that a final decision was originally expected on May 28, 2021, but instead, decided to hold a fourth hearing on July 9, 2021.
−Removed: The Court indicated that it expects to render a decision on this matter on October 1, 2021.
+Added: On October 1, 2021, the Korea High Court issued its ruling in which it ruled that withholding taxes and penalties totaling approximately KRW 6,186,218,586 (approximately $5.2 million) in national-level withholding tax and local withholding taxes imposed by the Korean tax authorities on Samsung for royalties paid to Immersion during the period of 2012 – 2014 be cancelled on the basis that the Korea tax authorities wrongfully engaged in a duplicative audit with respect to such time period.
+Added: The Korea High Court also ruled that approximately KRW 1,655,105,584 (approximately $1.4 million) of national-level withholding tax and local withholding taxes imposed by the Korean tax authorities on Samsung for royalties paid to Immersion during 2015 and 2016 be upheld in part on the basis that Immersion Software Ireland Limited did not have sufficient economic substance to be considered the beneficial owner of the royalties paid by Samsung to Immersion Software Ireland Limited.
+Added: On or about October 22, 2021, the Korean tax authorities filed an appeal with the Korea Supreme Court with respect to certain portions of the Korea High Court decision and we filed an appeal with the Korea Supreme Court with respect to certain portions of the Korea High Court decision.
On September 29, 2017, Samsung filed an arbitration demand with the International Chamber of Commerce against us demanding that we reimburse Samsung for the imposed tax and penalties that Samsung paid to the Korean tax authorities.
44 unchanged sentences
ZL201310253562.2 on November 14, 2018, and against Chinese Patent No.
−Removed: ZL201210005785.2 on November 15, 2018, declaring all three Chinese
−Removed: patents invalid.
+Added: ZL201210005785.2 on November 15, 2018, declaring all three Chinese patents invalid.
We filed an application to withdraw our complaint from the Fuzhou Intermediate Court on December 10, 2018 and received the ruling that allows Immersion to withdraw the case from the Fuzhou Intermediate Court on December 29, 2018.
3 unchanged sentences
A hearing occurred on March 11, 2021.
−Removed: We currently anticipate no additional hearings.
−Removed: The Court indicated that a judgment may be issued by September 30, 2021.
+Added: On October 18, 2021, we became aware that the Court issued a judgment, which we received on November 2, 2021.
+Added: The Court upheld the invalidation decisions issued by the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO.
+Added: We have the right to appeal the decisions to the IP Court of the Supreme People’s Court before December 1, 2021.
LGE Korean Withholding Tax Matter
16 unchanged sentences
A ninth hearing occurred on June 24, 2021.
−Removed: A tenth hearing is scheduled for October 14, 2021.
+Added: A tenth hearing occurred on September 13, 2021.
+Added: An eleventh hearing is scheduled for November 15, 2021.
+Added: An eleventh hearing is scheduled for November 15, 2021.
The Court has indicated that it expects to render a decision on this matter by the end of February 2022.
7 unchanged sentences
Marquardt GMBH
−Removed: On August 3, 2021, we filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against Marquardt, one of our licensees in the automotive market.
−Removed: The arbitration demand arises out of the Marquardt License, effective as of January 1, 2018, between us as licensor and Marquardt, as licensee.
+Added: On August 3, 2021, we filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) against Marquardt GmbH (“Marquardt”), one of our licensees in the automotive market.
+Added: The arbitration demand arises out of that certain Amended and Restated Patent License Agreement (the “Marquardt License”), effective as of January 1, 2018, between us as licensor and Marquardt, as licensee.
Pursuant to the arbitration demand, we are demanding that Marquardt cure its breach of the Marquardt License and pay all royalties currently owed under the Marquardt License.
−Removed: The last royalty report we have received from Marquardt was for the third quarter of calendar year 2020 in which Marquardt reported approximately $539,000 in royalties but did not pay such royalties.
+Added: The last royalty report we have received from Marquardt was for the third quarter of calendar year 2020 in which Marquardt reported approximately $0.5 million in royalties but did not pay such royalties.
Further, since that date, we have not received any other royalty reports or royalty payments from Marquardt.
1 unchanged sentence
As a result of Marquardt’s breach of the Marquardt License, per unit royalties and applicable interest fees, in the amount of a definite sum to be determined, are currently past due.
−Removed: Pursuant to the terms of the Marquardt License, we are requesting arbitration by a single arbitrator in Madison County, New York.
+Added: Pursuant to the terms of the Marquardt License, we requested arbitration by a single arbitrator in Madison County, New York.
+Added: On August 9, 2021, the AAA confirmed receipt of our arbitration demand dated August 3, 2021.
+Added: On August 13, 2021, the AAA conducted an administrative conference call to discuss communications, mediation, tribunal appointment, place of arbitration, and other administrative topics.
+Added: On September 15, 2021, Marquardt filed an answer to our arbitration demand with the AAA, in which Marquardt provided general denials of our claims and asserted a counterclaim for approximately $138,000 in royalties previously paid to us under the Marquardt License.
+Added: On September 30, 2021, we filed an answer to Marquardt’s counterclaim in which we denied the allegations set forth in Marquardt’s counterclaim.
+Added: An arbitrator has been chosen to arbitrate this matter.
+Added: We anticipate that the arbitrator will conduct the arbitration proceedings in New York City or White Plains, New York, with the consent of the parties.
+Added: The arbitrator has not yet set a preliminary hearing date.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.