Huawei 2015 Annual Report Download - page 94

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 94 of the 2015 Huawei annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 145

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145

92
On March 11, 2013, IDC filed appeals to the
Guangdong Higher People's Court in respect of the
rulings made by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's
Court. On October 25, 2013, the Guangdong Higher
People's Court upheld the Shenzhen Intermediate
People's Court's ruling which is the final ruling.
On June 28, 2013 and December 19, 2013, the
USITC ruled in favor of Huawei Tech, Futurewei and
USA Device in respect of the first complaint in the
initial determination and the final determination,
respectively.
On December 23, 2013, Huawei Tech, Futurewei and
USA Device reached a settlement agreement with
IDC to withdraw or dismiss all the ongoing legal
actions against each other. Under the settlement
agreement, the parties will solve their dispute
through arbitration.
On January 12, 2015, the arbitration hearing was
held in the United States to solve the dispute
between the Group and IDC. The arbitration award
was issued on May 22, 2015. The Group consider this
was being made erroneously and is not accordance
with relevant law. As such, the Group filed a legal
action with the Paris Appeal Court to annul the
award on June 9, 2015. So far the proceeding before
the Paris Court is still pending.
At this stage, the Group is unable to predict the
outcome of the annulment action, or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss, if any, given the
current pending status of the annulment action.
(ii) On July 24, 2012, Technology Properties Limited LLC
(TPL) filed a complaint with the USITC, requesting
the Commission to commence an investigation
under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 into
certain wireless consumer electronics devices and
components manufactured by thirteen companies
and their affiliates by reason of alleged patent
infringement and requested for issuance of an
exclusion order and cease and desist order in relation
to the electronic products concerned. Huawei Tech
was named as one of the thirteen companies. On
August 21, 2012, the USITC decided to institute
Section 337 investigation in relation to the electronic
products concerned. TPL also filed another complaint
before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California for the same reason.
On September 6, 2013, the Administrative Law
Judge of the USITC issued an initial determination
that the Group did not infringe the asserted patent.
On February 19, 2014, the USITC issued a final
determination that the Group did not infringe
the asserted patent. TPL did not appeal the final
determination within the statutory period, as a
result, the USITC investigation formally terminated.
With the termination of the investigation, the suit
before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California was reopened. Given
the fact that the suit in the district court remains in
an early stage, the Group is unable to predict the
outcome of the suit, or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss if any.