loophole: In regard to point 2, IDCC has requested legal fees, The following is from their amended complaint. A similar statement was in the just released status report.
"WHEREFORE, Petitioners InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. respectfully request that the Court enter an order pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 207, (i) confirming the Award; (ii) directing that a final judgment be entered in favor of the Petitioners in the amount of the Award ($23,599,592.72) plus interest at 10% as provided therein, (iii) that InterDigital be awarded costs and reasonable legal fees associated with this action; as well as (iv) such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper."
As a matter of interest, the following is background on the arbitration as set forth in IDCC's amended complaint.
"8. InterDigital and Arima entered into the PLA referenced above, which became effective on January 1, 2005. The PLA and a side letter executed contemporaneously with the ?PLA set forth in detail the economic terms of the arrangement which included regularly scheduled payments of royalties from Arima to InterDigital and periodic reporting obligations for Arima. Early in the relationship, issues arose in connection with Arima’s compliance with the PLA’s reporting and royalty payment provisions. From the outset, Arima was not making royalty payments or reporting as required under the PLA, which prompted InterDigital to hire a third party to audit Arima’s books and records. Pursuant to Section 7.9 of the PLA, InterDigital has a right to conduct an “audit using an independent certified public accountant... The auditor shall determine on behalf of InterDigital Group the accuracy of the reports and payments required under this Agreement.” The third party auditor found that Arima had underreported significant royalties. Arima refused to pay the outstanding royalties, and InterDigital commenced a first arbitration proceeding on May 29, 2008. The parties settled that dispute at a first arbitration several months later, but the resolution proved to be temporary as Arima immediately failed to comply with the terms of the settlement or its obligations under the PLA.
9. Suspecting that Arima was still not complying with the reporting and royalty payments provisions set forth in the PLA and side letter, InterDigital again hired a third party to perform a second audit of Arima’s books and records. Arima failed to fully cooperate with the audit which nevertheless uncovered that Arima substantially underpaid royalties to InterDigital. InterDigital sent numerous letters to Arima reminding it of its obligations under the PLA, and eventually sent a notice of dispute to Arima in compliance with the PLA’s dispute resolution process. Despite a good faith attempt by InterDigital to negotiate the matter, the parties could not resolve their dispute prompting InterDigital to commence a second arbitration against Arima under Article 6.2 of the PLA in the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”) in February of 2012."
