Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Tampa Bay
Certainly, if we win on this next stage 2 in February,
that will be the end of it, but short -- once we get a
decision. Short of that, what Mr. Healey is hoping for, there
will definitely have to be proceedings later on. In fact -- I
take it back. If we prevail in part 2, there will still be a
part 3 to determine exactly how much Samsung owes us for 2006.
Because as the Court may recall in Samsung II, the panel
ordered a rate table for 2006 but didn't have their actual
sales data for 2006. So that's a matter that still needs to be determined because they obviously haven't paid us.
THE COURT: That's an issue before the Samsung III
panel.
MR. FLANAGAN: We have brought that in as being for phase 3 of the proceedings.
Didn't they immediately file when we received the Nokia judgement?
No, that was not a monetary award.
Mr. Flanagan stated during the hearing that the second phase of SAM III would be to determine how much they owe for 2006 sales.
The sanctions are for the 11th circuit. If SAM appeals, it will go to the 2nd circuit, which I do not believe has said anything about sanctions for frivolous appeals.
Wasn't there a filing that was due a couple weeks ago, and then it got extended? Could it be that same filing once again got extended? Too many cases going on...
A real settlement would get rid of Samsung 3.
As well as the ITC case.
Have we seen any comment from SAM on the confirmation? It would be interesting if we haven't. Didn't SAM immediately say they would appeal, back when the award was first announced?
The NOK arb confirmation appeared to be the catalyst to get LG signed.
Now let's hope the SAM arb confirmation can help get some more Tier 1 licenses signed soon.
I don't think management is keeping an eye on PACER. IDCC's lawyers will get the ruling when they get it, and then they need to read it over and provide an executive summary to IDCC management. Then IDCC has to put together a PR. I don't think there was any "delay" here.
The staff mentioned that the timing of the case would be impacted when NOK and SAM wanted to combine their cases. Don't you think the staff will have the same concern about this latest NOK motion?
When SAM appeals the SDNY's confirmation, will it go to the 11th Circuit?
Ghors, you are talking about B.L. Harbert v. Hercules Steel. The following article mentions sanctions, but does not say that the sanctions go beyond attorneys fees.
http://www.adrforum.com/rcontrol/documents/ArticlesByFORUMStaff/2007BrownExperience.pdf
Frivolous Arbitration Appeals Can Lead to Sanctions
Desirous to ensure that parties in arbitration
get the benefits of a faster and less
expensive procedure than litigation, the
11th Circuit issued a stern warning that
it is “ready, willing, and able to consider
imposing sanctions” on those considering
appealing arbitration decisions without
a strong justification under the
manifest disregard of law standard.
The parties in B.L. Harbert Int’l, LLC v.
Hercules Steel Co., 441 F.3d 905 (11th
Cir. 2006) became involved in litigation
over the length of time it took Hercules, a
construction subcontractor, to finish its
work for Harbert. The parties arbitrated
the dispute, and the arbitrator determined
that Hercules performed its work
in a timely manner, and awarded
Hercules monetary relief.
Harbert appealed, asserting that the
arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.
The Circuit Court provided a quick review
of the facts and found “no evidence that
the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the
law.” Clearly angered by the appeal, the
court continued, stating, “the only manifest
disregard of the law evident in this
case is Harbert’s refusal to accept the law
of this circuit which narrowly circumscribes
judicial review of arbitration
awards.”
The court continued:
If we permit parties who lose in arbitration
to freely relitigate their cases
in court, arbitration will do nothing
to reduce congestion in the judicial
system; dispute resolution will be
slower instead of faster; and reaching
a final decision will cost more
instead of less. This case is a good
example of the poor loser problem
and it provides us with an opportunity
to discuss a potential solution.
The court, expressing its frustration at
so many frivolous arbitration appeals,
particularly those relying (without justification)
on manifest disregard of the law
as the basis of appeal, also issued a
reminder that it had previously provided
clear guidance to parties on whether
they would meet that standard. Harbert’s
case, the court explained, was “not within
shouting distance of the [manifest disregard]
exception.”
The “potential solution” would sanction
parties on the losing end of arbitration
who bring baseless litigation over
arbitration awards. Harbert was spared
sanctions in the case because “it did not
have the benefit of the notice and warning
this opinion provides.”
The court’s opinion follows the proarbitration
policy contained in the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA). The opinion’s
threat of sanctions for baseless appeals is
also an explicit warning for “even the
least astute reader” to consider appeals
of arbitration decisions more carefully in
the future.
This opinion, on the other hand,
ought not to deter losing parties from
bringing a meritorious appeal.
What about this one?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7547036
Merritt once said that when the award is confirmed, they can seek sanctions if SAM does not pay.
Once the arbitration is established, the judge has no choice but to stay the ITC investigation.
Why do you say that? SAM III was established, yet the SDNY judge still confirmed the award.
There are no more license agreements between the companies, correct? What arbitration clause could they be talking about?
The only thing that will counteract that BS is a Top name license with some significant dollars.
Agreed.
How about the 100 Grand bar?
If that's true, then at that rate IDCC will be out of powder in 1 or 2 weeks.
One could certainly make the argument that WS has lost confidence in the company. After all, the company fundamentals have gotten a lot better since June, when the stock price was in the 30s. We've announced Apple and RIMM since then, yet the stock price is so much lower.
NOK actually sent QCOM a check (which QCOM rejected), but NOK hasn't sent IDCC any check for 3G.
Don't know, but people were also saying that IDCC is only allowed to buy on a downtick, so that would indicate the buyback is not fueling this runup.
Can I make picks for this week and next week? I'm out of town most of next week, so I might forget.
Week 13: St Louis
Week 14: Green Bay
I think Bill was warning us in the last CC about the UK case. He probably knew the trial didn't go well for us, and wanted us to be prepared for the ruling.
There was no transcript for the confirmation of the NOK arb award.
The employees would appreciate that vote of confidence as well.
So this means we should gain around $2.50 tomorrow, right?
We might see a lot of job postings from IDCC soon. Morale at the company must be pretty low.
IDCC out of powder, or they think it will go lower?
18.61 is the price we closed at the day before LG. Hopefully that is good support.
Because a lot of our analysts have included a payment for the SAM II arb award in our fourth quarter projections.
Thanks. eom
What's going on ???
That is a good point. But I wonder why the judge asked all of those questions about how long SAM III would take? If the judge is going to confirm, then SAM III doesn't matter.
But I do think the judge will confirm, given that the arb panel would have to be corrupt for him not to confirm.
Yeah
The MFL would have been gone at the end of 2006 anyway, because that's when the patent license would have expired.
If SAM III proceeds, then it would need to be confirmed, so we're talking sometime in 2009.
But the judge started off by saying there is a very high threshold for vacating. The arb panel was not corrupt, so SAM is screwed.
And remember when NTP was suing RIMM? The USPTO was declaring NTP's patents invalid, but the court didn't care. They told RIMM to pay up.
Dallas
Am I missing something? I'm showing 20.22 right now.