Good day, everyone. Welcome to today's InterDigital’s fourth quarter 2009 and year end earnings conference call. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Janet Point. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Danny, and good morning everyone and welcome to InterDigital’s fourth quarter and full year 2009 earnings conference call. With me this morning on the call are Bill Merritt, our President and CEO; and Scott McQuilkin, our CFO. Consistent with last quarter's call, we will offer some highlights about the quarter and the company and then open up the call for questions. This quarter, we would like to provide an opportunity for members of the investment community to ask a number of questions of the management team. So we are asking you that please ask one question at a time and then hop back into the queue. Before we begin our remarks, I need to remind you that in this call we will make forward-looking statements regarding our current beliefs, plans, and expectations, which are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from the results and events contemplated by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include those set forth in our earnings release published yesterday and those detailed from time-to-time in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These forward-looking statements are made only as of the date hereof and as except as 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. So with that taken care of, I will turn the call over to Scott.

Thank you, Janet, and good morning to everyone. Our fourth quarter financial results reflect significantly higher year-over-year earnings driven by strong growth and revenue combined with the structural reduction in expenses. The combination of increased revenue and lower expenses combined with the recognition of a $16.4 million tax benefit related to foreign withholding taxes drove net income to $38.9 million, an increase of $35 million over the year ago quarter. Fully diluted EPS was $0.88 in fourth quarter 2009 up from $0.09 in fourth quarter 2008 and higher than full year 2008. Revenue were $76.4 million, an increase of 30% from fourth quarter 2008, and the fifth consecutive quarterly increase. Expenses were at $35.6 million, a 34% decrease from fourth quarter 2008. As you may note from our release, both fourth quarter 2009 and 2008 included a number of unusual items. Fourth quarter 2009 included a $16.4 million tax benefit, a $3.9 million charge to write down an investment, a $1.6 million repositioning charge and a $0.5 million reversal of a bad debt reserve. Fourth quarter 2008 included the recognition of $6.4 million of deferred revenue from a licensee that exited the handset business, a $9.4 million accrual adjustment for a long term incentive compensation plan, a $3 million accrual for a bad debt reserve and a small insurance reimbursement. Excluding these items, pro forma net income was $27.1 million in fourth quarter 2009 compared to $7.5 million in fourth quarter 2008. Pro forma fully diluted EPS was $0.61 in fourth quarter 2009 compared to $0.17 in fourth quarter 2008. The net profit margin or pro forma net income divided by revenue was 35% in fourth quarter 2009 up from 14% in fourth quarter 2008. Back in third quarter 2008, our quarterly revenue was $55.1 million and it has risen…

Thanks, Scott, and good morning to everyone. I would like to begin with a review of our performance in 2009 and our strategic objectives for 2010. Then I will talk about some of the recent changes in our Board of Directors. During this call last year I shared with you that the key objectives for the company were to one; continue to drive the licensing business, including positively resolving the Nokia licensing dispute. Two; either grow or exit the modem chip business. Three; continue to drive the creation of key new technologies. And four; make targeted M&A investments to drive our strategy. On the first item, we grew the licensing business with the addition of Samsung, Cinterion and Pantech as licensees driving an additional $30 million in quarterly revenue. The Nokia dispute of course is ongoing. However. even there we have successfully secured patents from the US Patent Office that address a number of the issues that ALJ identified in the ITC action with Nokia. So the patent portfolio today is even stronger than it was at the beginning of 2009 giving us good tools to bring to our licensing discussions. We expect continued success from our licensing program in 2010. Moreover, we will continue to press forward with Nokia including in the next couple of weeks filing what we believe will be a compelling appeal of the ITC decision to the Federal Circuit. That said we will continue to look for ways to end the dispute and believe that creative structures exist that will be beneficial to both companies. On the second item, we made the decision in March of 2009 to exit the modem chip business. That was the right decision. As a reminder, however, while we exited the chip side of that business, we continue to work…

(Operator instructions). And we will go first to Tom Carpenter with Hilliard Lyons.

One of the great things that's happened in the past five or eight years is we actually have transcripts of conference calls, we can go back and ask questions on something that was said on the last call. So on October 29, 2009 call, Bill you had referenced that we also have other license discussions ongoing where we have reached economic agreement on solid terms. And since that time I don’t think I have seen any new licenses from IDC and I was hoping you could comment or give us an update on those comments you made in October.

That continues to be true, we have deals where the economic turns are largely worked out. It’s taking a little bit longer to sort of get from that point to a final agreement that gets signed. For me, that’s a little disappointing and I pushed the patent guys to see if they can move it along but on the other hand you know the most important thing is that deals get done on the right terms and I am still confident that we'll get those things done.

We will go now to Chris Versace with Think 20/20. Chris Versace - Think 20/20: Just one question, try to make it an A or B if I can. In just dealing with the licensing agreement, since you look out to 2010, obviously we are seeing the beginnings of LTE and I am curious as to how that’s going to impact your conversations, your rates and things like that and when we should expect it to really pick up momentum first half second half of the year? And then also buried in that, as we start to see some of your existing customers come out with new classes of devices, how should we be thinking about either them showing through the agreements, if you will, or perhaps what does it mean? An example would be Apple's iPad versus just the iPhone or something like that.

On the first question on LTE, LTE is becoming of more standard there in licensing discussion. It will depend to some extent on the perspective licensee and whether LTE is something that they intend to pursue over the period of the license that is being discussed, but typically the license periods are at least five years if not longer and any of the plans out there for LTE roll out would show that there is at least some meaningful roll out within that period. So it is part of the discussions, we are very well positioned on LTE from a patent perspective. Because it represents another layer of technology in the device, we are trying to see if we can move the rate up a little bit like we did when we went from 2G to 3G with the LTE, we'll see how we do doing that but it makes sense given the larger contribution of IP [ph] that we have on the device. In terms of new devices, that a licensee may ship, typically the license, it depends a little bit on whether it’s running royalties or fixed plan; on a running royalty deal, you try to capture all devices that will come out so that you capture all that revenue. On a fixed price deal, it depends on how you are calculating what that fixed price should be, whether future products were in there, and there was some flexibility to capture them or not. So, it’s highly dependent upon the particular deal.

Next is Michael Ciarmoli, Boenning & Scattergood Michael Ciarmoli - Boenning & Scattergood: If we can, how do we think thinking longer term about LG, that deal is going to conclude at the end of this year, that will be roughly I guess $57 million revenue gap, can you talk us through you may be the renegotiation process? Will there be a gap in early 2011? Do you think you can kind of re-up up their license or just renegotiate terms to continue that license so we will not see kind of revenue gap when we enter 2011?

Certainly the plan is to get the agreement renewed before the current one expires and we are already engaged in discussions with them as we should because these are process that can take some time. I think that the patent position is pretty strong going into the discussion, so I think that’s a very positive things for us. I also think that technology offerings that we are working on some of those could be very relevant to LG, so that’s another tool we will bring to those negotiations. So I think we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we have a smooth transition from the current agreement over to a new agreement.

We will go now to Charlie Anderson, Dougherty & Company. Charlie Anderson, Dougherty & Company: Bill, I wonder if you could address M2M specifically, wireless M2M. You have a certain percentage of the 3G market that you are covering, but I wonder what percentage of sort of current wireless M2M you have and what your expectations are this year in terms of ramping that up?

You know we have two meaningful M2M suppliers currently under license. We have Cinterion which is one of the market leaders, but we also have Sierra Wireless which acquired one of the M2M providers. And we are also in discussion with a number of other folks in that space because as Scott mentioned we definitely view it as a growth area for us. And I think machine-to-machine has been a little slow to ramp over the years. It has been one of those things where that uptick has been always predicted and doesn’t quite come in as advertised. But there are some strong initiatives now to push machine-to-machine, there is a standardization process going on within ETSI in Europe to standardize machine-to-machine technology, we think that is very important in terms of driving significant volumes. And there are some other efforts going on worldwide to push machine-to-machine, I think there is a big effort in China on machine-to-machine. So, we view it as a area of growth for us, both in terms of licensing the current patent portfolio, because it’s very relevant to those devices. But also with respect to some of the new technologies we are creating, we did demo a machine-to-machine technology in Barcelona that allowed very low cost, low power sensor like a Bluetooth sensor to opportunistically use a passing by cellular terminal unit to move its data back to whoever the recipient be, whether it’s a FedEx or something like that, and I think that those technologies are important for us to develop because we want to drive that market to the extent we could make it work even better, that ultimately works to our advantage.

(Operator instructions). We'll go again to Tom Carpenter, Hilliard Lyons.

I wanted to follow up with your comments about the bigger pipes, more pipes and better pipes. Historically 99% of the licenses have been with handset manufactures, you have got 2 M2Ms, is the bigger push going forward going to be with handset manufacturers, infrastructure or the carriers or some combination of the above, may be kind of give us some more insight into how you see that business model, specifically the revenue stream changing over the next couple of years?

Sure, the idea is to actually create top technologies that would map across all of those markets or at least more than one of those markets right, so we get reuse of technology. Certainly that occurs with respect to the basic wireless technology, because not only does that appear in terminal units but it appears in infrastructure that is utilized by operators and it’s also now appearing in consumer electronics and other such devices. So that’s a core part of the program that will continue and have applicability across all those markets. But we are looking at other technologies as well. An example would the compression technology. Compression technology is very important in the wireless space, because there’s a need to create the smallest packet carrying the most amount of data across that network, but compression technologies also pop up in many other devices, as you know, some of the non-wireless. So again the idea is to try to create technologies that has very significant volume flow in the market. As far as how we would go to market with these additional technologies, that is still -- I think we have a number of opportunities there, certainly with respect to some of the technologies that can be a direct licensing strategy for example with the infrastructure side of the business. I think there is other opportunities though with respect to some software solutions like MIH and other things where the better play may be directly up to the operator, because you are providing substantial either cost reduction or operational efficiency to them, and you know a lot of times, the person who delivered value too is going to pay with the highest value back, and so we have to think about where that technology is creating the best of the highest level benefit, and so that’s being worked at the current time. The idea at the end of the day of course is to move from participation in this $150 billion market into a market that is five or seven times bigger than that. And if we can do that successfully, I think it becomes very, very significant growth story for the company.

(Operator instructions). We have another question from Tom Carpenter with Hilliard Lyons.

Bill, you had mentioned and you talked about this last fall, in the Nokia case, I guess there were four patents which all of those have been an issue in the Samsung case. You talked about filing continuation patents on those and possibly for the new patent that would buttress your position in the case. Is that going to help you with appeal or do you have to file a new case based on those new patent filings you made?

It can be both. On appeal, and I have seen this before, to the extent that the judge in a case made a certain interpretation of a patent, one of the extrinsic evidence you can bring up on appeal, because it is a matter of public record, is a follow-up action by the patent office which may be contrary to what the judge did and may evidence of the fact that maybe the judge got it wrong. So you can use success, subsequent successes at the patent office upon appeal if you think that that strategically makes the most sense. Separately of course you can use those patents -- first and foremost, you use them back in licensing discussion, and what I can tell you, I mean I went through this first hand back when we had the Motorola case, and we had an adverse decision there, but we were able to go back to the patent office and get very strong patents and subsequent license, the majority of the market also, because it took away a lot of the questions that one sometimes exists with the brand new patent because it hasn’t been tested. Here these patents have been fully tested, the odds fully in front of everybody, and now we have the patent that overcomes all that, becames a pretty powerful tool in licensing negotiations. If need be it certainly is also very a powerful tool in future litigations because a subsequent fact finder can look at what happens with the particular patents, well it went through a pretty strenuous process here, where the findings of a prior fact finder is now, those have all been addressed. I think it puts you in a pretty good position in any future litigation.

We will go again to Charlie Anderson, Dougherty & Company. Charlie Anderson - Dougherty & Company: On litigation arbitration expenses, you guys rubbed about $1.5 million Q3 to Q4, just wonder where you are seeing yourself directionally in Q1 and then if you compare 2010 to 2009 on that front?

Yes, we see that number obviously go up and down from quarter to quarter. It always depends on specific circumstances and level of activity in each quarter. So that has been a difficult one to predict on a quarter-to-quarter basis and a year-to-year basis and for that reason we don’t really give guidance on that component. I tried to put the number in perspective by giving an average over the last couple of years where I would say we have been fairly active in terms of litigation. Over the last year or so, the level of activity has probably been on the low end of the range, but it has crept up a bit. I think the average over the last couple of years is probably not an unreasonable number but as we have said in the past, in any quarter and year, it could be significantly higher or lower for that matter. It’s a difficult one to forecast and so we don’t really make a habit of doing that.

We will go again to Chris Versace, Think 20/20. Chris Versace - Think 20/20: Just looking at the balance sheet a little bit, I just kind of noticed that the aggregate deferred revenue number ticked down quarter-over-quarter. And if I remember correctly, this is the first time in a few quarters that we have seen it been sequentially down. I am just wondering if you could speak to that and at the same time talk about how we should think about the burn over the next 12 months or so for the deferred revenue line.

Sure, from Q3 to Q4, the deferred revenue balance did go down by about I think $54 million or so. What drives that up is prepayments that we get from folks or significant increases in accounts receivable that we expect to convert into cash over the next year. What makes it go down is simply the recognition of deferred revenue in each current period. So what happened in Q4 real simply is we continue to recognize deferred revenue which relates in part to some fixed payment kind of deals as well as prepayments relating to some per unit deals that was probably about $60 million or so in the quarter and we had very few small amount of prepayments that resulted in an increase in that number. So that’s kind of what happened in Q4. If you look at it, obviously, over the course of the last twelve months, a much different story, same kind of level of revenue recognition but much stronger payment receipts which drove that number up. It’s not unlike patented litigation cost, the number goes up and down quarter to quarter depending on cash receipts, which can be somewhat lumpy. I can tell you in the first quarter that we received cash from Samsung and that $100 million payment, so the cash can go up and down. In terms of cash burn I think the fourth quarter was a situation where there was cash burn again because we didn’t really receive a huge amount of cash payments from, other than the normal quarterly per unit licensees that changes quarter to quarter and depends on the timing of payments as well as new licensees that we add. So it is a little bit difficult to predict, but certainly if you look at the past couple of years it has been very strong and we have got $200 million of cash coming in, obviously $100 million received in January, another $100 million from Samsung due at the middle of the year.

And at this time, we have no further questions.

All right, thank you, Danny, and thanks everyone for dialing in on the call. And as always I will be available afterwards if you have any follow up questions. Thank you.