I may have been incorrect when I stated that the judgment issued yesterday did not cover infringement.
There were two parts to the judgment, the first covered counts 1, 2 and 4 of IDCC’s Amended Complaint (file D.I. 26); and the second covered count 8 of ZTE’s counterclaims in their Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (file D.I. 28). The judgment only applied to the ‘966, ‘847. and ‘244 patents, as the’151 patent is to be covered by a separate trial
Below are the counts contained in the cited filings. The counts contained in the judgment have been highlighted. For the IDCC counts, only the one pertaining to the ‘151 patents was not covered by the judgment. In contrast, only one of the many counts in ZTE’s fling was covered. This could be attributed to actions taken during the proceedings and the fact that FRAND-related affirmative defenses, and FRAND-related counterclaims, were bifurcated to be addressed at a later phase of the case.
IDCC’s Amended Complaint (D.I. 26).
Count 1 Infringement of the “966 patent
Count 2 - Infringement of the ‘847 patent
Count 3 - Infringement of the ‘151 patent
Count 4 - Infringement of the ‘244 patent
ZTE ‘s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (D.I. 28)
Affirmative Defenses
1 - Non-Infringement
2 - Invalidity
3- Prosecution Laches
4 - Prosecution History Estoppel
5 - Patent Misuse
6 - Breach of Contract
7 - Equitable and Promissory Estoppel
8 - Unclean Hands
9 - Express or Implied License
10 - Inequitable Conduct
Counterclaims
1 - Breach of Contract
2 - Breach of Contract - Third Party Beneficiary
3 - Equitable Estoppel
4 - Waiver of Right to Enjoin
5 - Declaratory Relief: Interdigital Has Not Offered Licenses on FRAND Terms
6 - Declaratory Relief: Determination of FRAND License
7 - Noninfringement of the Asserted Patents
8 - Invalidity of the Asserted Patents
9 - Unenforceability of the Asserted Patents
I think we just have to wait to see what happens as far as appeals and additional trials.
