Constantine Cannon Wins Summary Judgment, then $14 Million Settlement for HDMI Licensing Administrator Inc. in License and Antitrust Dispute

By the Constantine Cannon Antitrust Team

Constantine Cannon successfully defended the licensor of the HDMI interface technology, HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc. (“HDMI LA”), against a challenge under U.S. antitrust law to their licensing program, and won a $14 million settlement for breach of contract against semiconductor chip manufacturer, Availink, Inc.

Victory on Summary Judgment on Three Key Issues

On December 31, 2025, Judge Eumi K. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California handed HDMI LA a sweeping victory on summary judgment[1] on three key issues:

First, Availink failed to establish any harm to competition or antitrust injury arising from HDMI LA’s licensing policies and practices.  The Court held:  “The undisputed facts demonstrate that: (1) the Adopter Agreement did not harm competition; (2) Availink did not suffer antitrust injury; and (3) [under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”)] even if Availink could demonstrate antitrust injury, its injuries do not arise from the domestic effects of the Adopter Agreement.”  The Court agreed that, in real terms, the cost of licensing the HDMI Specification and related necessary patent claims has decreased over time, while the number of licensees (and output) has dramatically increased.  Despite the high market share of devices that use the HDMI interface technology, many competitive interfaces continue to be introduced.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed Availink’s claims under the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act, and parallel state unfair competition laws.

Second, the Court agreed with HDMI LA’s interpretation that its contract with Availink required payment of back royalties, even though its semiconductor products were incorporated into products sold to end-users.

Third, the Court rejected Availink’s attempt to cancel HDMI Trademarks as generic, finding that under the posture of the case and the facts alleged, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address Availink’s trademark counterclaims and Availink lacked standing to bring them.

What Was the Significance of the Decision for Licensors?

Seven companies jointly developed the HDMI interface in 2002, to transmit high‑definition video and audio over a single connection to digital televisions, computers, monitors, and other display devices. HDMI LA serves as licensing agent for the HDMI Specification and related intellectual property through a single, non‑discriminatory licensing program.  Today, more than 2,100 companies worldwide license HDMI technology.

According to Constantine Cannon partner Seth Greenstein: “Companies that jointly develop technologies reap administrative and economic efficiencies from offering a single ‘one-stop-shop’ license through an agent.  But the fact of joint development and licensing often invites Sherman Act Section 1 antitrust challenges from disgruntled licensees.”

Joint licensing programs can be properly structured to be lawful as well as efficient.  The considerations involved bear similarities to licensing standard-essential patents through pooling arrangements, but have some significant differences that require careful design and drafting reflecting guidelines and guidance from federal antitrust authorities.

Outcome

Following the summary judgment ruling, the Court set the case for trial on the amount of damages.  A week before trial, Availink agreed to a $14 million judgment, and signed a new Adopter Agreement with HDMI LA.

The team at Constantine Cannon is Seth Greenstein, Ankur Kapoor, Patrick Kennedy, Osob Samantar, and law clerk Adrianne Wang.

The case is HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc. v. Availink, Inc., Case No. 5:22‑cv‑06947‑EKL (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025).

Constantine Cannon Has Extensive Experience Handling Antitrust Matters

Constantine Cannon, with offices in New York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, has extensive expertise in practice areas including antitrust and complex commercial litigation, whistleblower representation, government relations, securities, and e-discovery.

Constantine Cannon’s antitrust practice is internationally recognized across multiple industries including healthcare, banking, electronic payments, insurance, digital technologies and platforms, telecommunications, the Internet and government contracting. The firm’s Whistleblower Team has been responsible for many major successes over the past two decades, including several record recoveries for the government and the firm’s clients. In total, our representations have led to more than $1 billion in government and whistleblower recoveries, in addition to over $5 billion recovered for the firm’s other clients.

If you believe you have a potential case, please contact us and we will connect you with an experienced member of our firm’s Antitrust Team.

Speak Confidentially With Our Antitrust Attorneys

[1] See https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035126600377.

Tagged in: antitrust,