Good day. And welcome to the InterDigital, Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. At this time I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Patrick Van de Wille. Please go ahead sir.

Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone and welcome to InterDigital third quarter 2013 earnings conference call. With me this morning are Bill Merritt, our President and CEO and Rich Brezski, our CFO. Consistent with the last quarter’s call, we’ll offer some insights about the quarter and our outlook and then we’ll open the call up for questions. Before we begin our remarks, I need to remind you that in this call we will make forward-looking statements regarding our current beliefs plan and expectations which are not guarantee the future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from results and events contemplated by such forward-looking statements. This risks and uncertainties include those set forth in our earnings release published today. Our annual report on form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. Our quarterly report on form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2013 ran those details from time to time and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This forward-looking statements are made only as of the date hereof. And except it [ph] is required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of them, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. With that, let me turn the call over to Bill.

Thank you, Patrick, and good morning, everyone. As you saw in this morning’s release, we delivered another strong quarter with strong revenue and profitability. The meaningful portion of that revenue was driven by some recent arbitration wins and we expect those wins will help drive future quarters as well. Let me start with those arbitration decisions as well as an update on the overall ligation landscape and how that is driving licensing. Following that I’ll talk a little bit about the Signal Trust for Wireless Innovation which we launched recently. Last I will provide a brief update on our innovation successes. So first on the arbitrations, we had two significant wins. One in the third quarter involving one of our technology solution customer and the second in early October involving Apple. In the first arbitration the panel confirmed that we are entitled to the full amount of royalties specified under this technology license agreement with that customer for those products that were the subject of the arbitration. The customer haven’t [ph] been paying royalties but had done so under reservation pending the arbitration result. For that reason we differed recognizing the cash collected as revenue. With the arbitration panel now having ruled we are recognizing $52 million in past payments, this full amount we differ to the products that were involved in the arbitration. We also expect to recognize solid incremental royalties based on the customers’ future quarterly sales of the product involve in the arbitration. We also secured a positive result in our arbitration with Apple. With the panel confirmed that our patent license agreement with them was limited in scope. The arbitration war [ph] declared that Apple’s iPad and any Apple products that operated in CD-May 2000 [ph] or LTE networks are not licensed under the Apple PLI…

Thanks Bill. We are very pleased to report over $110 million of revenue in third quarter of 2013. This represents our highest level of quarterly revenue, not including patent sales in the last three years. Importantly, the third quarter results also exemplify the operating leverage of our business model. Our third quarter revenue nearly doubled the run rate for the first half of this year. Yet, third quarter operating expenses are up just 4%. If you do not include incentive compensation adjustments which are one of the few variable components of our cost structure, our operating expenses for the third quarter would actually have decreased from the first half run rate. When you consider this against the backdrop of our successful arbitrations and their impact on our existing licensee base, you can begin to understand why we are confident about our business. Later in the additional potential represented by currently unlicensed market participants and you can see why we are very excited about our future. Having said that, we remain committed to careful expense management. Last year at this time I told you we would reduce our internally funded development by $15 million to $20 million from our annualized run rate of $68 million. And add further [ph] investments in development would be funded by customer projects. While after netting out $6.1 million of funding year-to-date from our Convida joint venture, we are in lined to meet our target while continuing to generate the same quantity of innovation with even more diversity. I also told you a year ago that we would reduce administrative expenses by $3 million to $5 million from our annualized run rate of nearly $38 million. Tier two, we are in line to meet that target. Expensed management is important to us not because we are…

Thanks Rich. And now I will invite to begin the question and answer session.

Thank you, (Operator instructions) We’ll go to our first question from Charlie Anderson with Dougherty & Company. Charlie Anderson – Dougherty & Company: Yes, good morning, thanks for taking my question. So just how I understand it correctly if you’re to sign a comprehensive licensing with Apple that incorporated the LTE and tablets, would that in effect sort of cancel anything from Pegatron so you don’t get double paid?

Right, typically with that we don’t seek to get double payments. You can get the payment at different levels and you can mix and match the payment at different levels but ultimately you’re getting a seal of payment on each device. So with [ph] comprehensive relationship with Apple, covering all the products based on [indiscernible] sort of royalties from their suppliers. Charlie Anderson – Dougherty & Company: So I’m curious, Bill, how you think this is going to pay out. I mean, do you think Apple will resist in any way because they’ll say, look some of our suppliers have this and just go to the rest of our suppliers, just any thoughts on that.

Yes, you know, I don’t believe their selection of suppliers depends upon our licensing status but again, it’s more – they have much more important things to think about in terms of quality production and other things. I think it does – there are two things, they’re on one end. We have – because we’re now collecting significant royalties, we have a level of patients in terms of getting the right deal done because we’re already being paid on a good portion of the production. I do think it creates an opportunity to – and the comprehensive relationship which – in that type of relationship you wouldn’t have the uncertainty, only shifts in the supply mix, right, that we would give credit for that in terms of how we would price that out. So, I think we’re in good shape here. Obviously we – our desire is to put in place a fair agreement with Apple, hoping to do that and it’s good – it’s an open channel communication system [ph] and we’ll work to get that done. Charlie Anderson – Dougherty & Company: And what would be some of the – excluding the on-high, other ODMs that’s out there where you could capture some volume that we should pay attention to?

I think the one, I saw reported was Wistron. That’s being reported as a potentialized supplier [indiscernible] and Wistron is one of our ODM suppliers. So I think we have our list of licensees on the side [ph] until you can – and Apple has been and this is a lot of analyst discussion around the diversification of Apple supply chain, it’s pretty easy [ph] to match up potential suppliers with what our relationship with those suppliers might be. Charlie Anderson – Dougherty & Company: Perfect and then just a couple of housekeeping questions, Rich I wondered of you have the percent of revenue contributed by the Japanese per units that you guys have given the past?

I don’t have that offhand Charlie, we do have – we just put out our 10-Q this morning and I think both in the 10-Q and the press release we have our 10% licensees. As for the Japanese licensees I don’t have that percentage offhand. Charlie Anderson – Dougherty & Company: Got it and then on the [indiscernible] administration licensing if I exclude out legal, looks like that is sort of taking upward on year-over-year or in a just [ph] quarterly basis. I’m just kind of curious what’s going on there.

A part of that I think we mentioned there were some incentive compensation adjustments driven by the successful arbitrations. So that would be at least the component of that uptick. Charlie Anderson – Dougherty & Company: Got you, thanks so much.

Thanks, Charlie.

We’ll go to our next question from Anil Doralda with William Blair. Anil Doralda – William Blair: Hey guys, a couple of questions. Bill, is it fair to say that over the next couples of ears, you guys are going to rely on the Chinese Courts systems? In others words are you going to rely more on them or are you going to try to rely less on them? [indiscernible] given the whole ecosystem from the manufacturing to delivery, is there – and we’re seeing kind of better branded handset audience coming out of China. So how do you look at yourself in addition, this will be the Chinese Court system?

So a lot of production has moved into China and Taiwan but obviously sales are still dominant in other places around the world. And so, while we, I’ll say first, we don’t principally rely on a legal system. We rely on negotiations with folks, and typically pretty successful there. So look at our list of licensees, the vast majority didn’t come from any litigation. We’ve historically relied on U.S. Court only because they’re more convenient that we’re here. And our legal strategies could change depending upon a number of factors. So there’s other places as well. I mean the European Courts and other place that we could cover [ph] again, we try to do things without litigations. So there are – obviously the experience we had to date from China has been frustrating because we think that the decision is completely wrong and completely at odds [ph] with what’s very, very well accepted licensing practice. So, I wouldn’t say that our experience with China to date would say we want to spend more time in those courts. But we’ve got more opportunity with respect to those cases too and we have an opportunity to go up in the Supreme Court in China. The profits in China is one where you could think you’ll have to see in [ph] the Supreme Court level and I think as we move down the path in terms of the Chinese court, we do believe we have a good opportunity to refine what our currently pretty flawed decisions. Anil Doralda – William Blair: Okay. So when I look at you per unit royalty business, obviously the key players in that have some structural issues, one more than the other. But, do you think 2014 would be a growth year for your per unit royalty business based on obviously your existing licensees, but potentially some new ones that could pop in? So is that a growing segment or a declining for 2014, you think?

Yes, if you exclude the past sales that we recognized this year in 2013, I would expect that 2014 would be a growth year for per unit. And again, that is a result of somebody’s arbitrations that we expect, some of the ODM royalties to increase more than you’d expect decreases in any of the other existing per unit licensees. And of course, there’s always the opportunity to add additional licenses as we move forward in time. Anil Doralda – William Blair: If I strip out in 2013 the past licenses and there are no past licensing in 2014, you’re saying that organically per unit royalty business will grow in 2014?

Yes, that’s what I would expect based on the recent developments. Anil Doralda – William Blair: Okay, great. And then coming back to Apple, obviously, to Pegatron, there is a lot of commentary around Apple but I get the impression that there’s more activity on that front when I compared it for like nine months or a year ago. Now, Apple gets over some time towards the end of 2015, are you – do you believe that you guys will come to some kind of negotiation before the expiration of that licensing deal? And it won’t turn out to be like a Samsung or something like that? Now I know it’s a tough question to ask but I get the impression that there seems to be more active with Apple, is that a fair way to characterized it?

I think we’ve been very active on the variety of fronts sorry, [ph] with respect to not only Apple but it’s supply chains in terms of agent’s [ph] Pegatron, didn’t agree what we had with a key supplier. So some of it wasn’t always visible for the outside but now more of it is. So there is a very, very – a lot of activity within the company on that. Second, the agreement expires in June of 2014 but unlike the Samsung agreement, when the Apple agreement expires it’s actually – since as an example, we’re collecting royalties from any – from Pegatron with respect to any unlicensed sales and link back [ph] continued beyond June of 2014. If you don’t have that click [ph] event that you had in Samsung, in fact, you know, it – given the modest amounts we get paid by or not paid by Apple, if given, what happen to their sales, the royalty agreement really [indiscernible]. It actually creates simply more opportunity now that any remaining product that are licensed under there, we have an opportunity to talk about as well. So, I think it’s very different than the Samsung situation. I think we’ve done a – frankly a very good job in terms of positioning ourselves to get appropriately compensated here. Again, the companies that we open to creative deals that fairly compensate us and so we would hope to do that with Apple.

The only thing I’ll add to that is as we kind of discussed here, we get compensated from the ODMs now to the extent that they produce product that is unlicensed and currently, you know, Apple does have certain products under license. When those – at the end of June, all of their products would be unlicensed as to Apple. So therefore any product that is produced by one of our other licensed ODM would now be – will be rolling that time. Anil Doralda – William Blair: Okay, great. Thanks a lot and best of luck guys.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions) We’ll take our next question from Eugene Fox with Cardinal Capital Management. Eugene Fox – Cardinal Capital Management: Thanks so much. Any further thoughts Bill on the situation with Nokia and their handset business?

I think obviously, as we talked about before, the sale of that business the Microsoft increase, we think some opportunities since Nokia was running the business in a certain way and some constraints, either made for marketable [ph] environment with them, Microsoft, for once, I have a stronger balance sheet. So we think that there’s opportunities with them. We think that it doesn’t – the transfer should not affect the – like the ITC cases that we have since surviving [ph] the entire business. So, just like other folks, we’re open to getting things resolved with those folks and maybe the change in the player there will be positive, with getting something, get it from you [ph]. Eugene Fox – Cardinal Capital Management: Thanks Bill.

Thank you.

There are no other questions in the queue at this time.

Well, thank you very much Tiffany and thanks to everybody for joining us today. We look forward to our next conference call. Have a good day.

And that concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for your participation.