Liren Chen : Yeah, so we mentioned as part of the HEVC license, we have dismissed the HEVC-related litigation. However, we do have other pending litigation with them, as we have disclosed in our 10-Q. And namely, there’s a ITC case that filed covering our implementation patterns, and there’s, frankly, cases pending in Germany that will kick in after the current cellular license expires under the UK court decision. So that’s sort of related to Lenovo. But I do want to add one more thing here. Because we have established a value for our HEVC patent portfolio, we believe that’s very useful when we negotiate with other licensees on both the CE and the mobile side. We also believe that we’ll have a beneficial effect as far as our sense on arbitration.
Rich Brezski: Okay. And Arjun, I’ll just add as a reminder that on the UK judgment that we received over the first half of this year, we are conservatively recognizing only a portion of that revenue, and have deferred the rest pending the outcome of the appeal, which is, we noted in the Q, has been scheduled for June of ‘24. So we’d expect that to be resolved sometime in the second half of ‘24.
Arjun Bhatia : Okay, got it, thanks. And just last one for me, Liren, can you just talk a little bit about how you’re thinking about the smartphone opportunity with some of the other Chinese manufacturers, Vivo, Oppo, etcetera? Is that a near-term kind of catalyst or something that you’re looking at a couple years out?
Liren Chen : Yeah. So we are continuing to make a lot of progress on those negotiations. As we have disclosed before, the largest unlicensed smartphone vendors are Oppo, Vivo, and Lenovo. We talked a lot about Lenovo on this particular call here, but we are also making progress on the litigation front with Oppo in multiple jurisdictions, and we have disclosed the details in our 10-Q filing. Regarding Vivo, we continue to negotiate with them. As we said multiple times, we always prefer bilateral negotiation. And as of now, we have not filed any lawsuits against them yet.
Arjun Bhatia : All right, thank you, guys.
Operator: All right, thank you. And we have a follow-up question coming from the line of Scott Searle. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Scott Searle : Hey, thanks. Two quick follow-ups. Rich, on the litigation front, it was a little elevated again this quarter, you got a lot going on. It seems like implied in the guidance for the fourth quarter that continues. But now with Lenovo totally resolved, do we expect that to start to come down in 2024? And Liren, on the Avanci front, now that you’re throwing your 5G intellectual property into the pool for autos, I’m wondering what your plan is for the rest of the IoT world? Will you be looking to use and license that directly or is that going to be contributed to the Avanci pool as well? Thanks.
Rich Brezski: Yeah, so Scott, I’ll start with the litigation question. Yeah, so it was elevated a little bit in the quarter as we had some activity and we moved forward on the Samsung arbitration. The good thing about the arbitration is it’s kind of ring-fenced and doesn’t kind of mushroom into other cases and jurisdictions, but – and it’s a little bit accelerated compared to other venues. But, both now and going forward into 2024, that’ll continue to be a theme. We also had, of course, some action in the Lenovo HEVC arena in the quarter as that got resolved, but have other matters with Lenovo. So, I’m not going to make a call at this point on ‘24. Just we’ll let it stand with the Q4 OpEx guidance.
Liren Chen : Yeah. Hey, Scott, regarding the IoT licensing, we frankly are pursuing both direct licensing model as well as pool model. It depends on use case because as we discussed before, IoT is really a collection of different use cases here. So for some of the more direct, higher-value, higher-dollar negotiations, we are preference generally through direct negotiation, but we are open for the pool model also in different use cases.
