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.
Happy Vets Day to all my fellow veterans out there. Especially to the families of those that are currently protecting our way of life. Take a moment to remember those that have fallen in the persuit of freedom
If I'm not mistakin' this could be good for IDCC. Isn't Infinion a licencee? 2004 is our year. Wasn't that what we were told? ggg
Among the top players will be Infineon, which IC Insights expects will grow 39 percent in 2003. In mid-2002, the Munich-based company purchased Ericsson’s IC business for about $400 million. Its incorporation, coupled with the 19 percent increase in the value of the euro, ranks Infineon as the seventh largest wireless supplier in 2003 with the highest growth rate, IC Insights said.
I have the full blown Acrobat. I am not sure if the reader has that capability but there is a "select text" tool you can look for in acrobat help to see if it exists. It is possible for a pdf to be locked from selecting text at the time it was made also.
The text of the PDF JK has provided - IDCC vs Federal
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS :
CORPORATION : Civil Action No._______
781 Third Avenue :
King of Prussia, PA 19406-1409 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
:
and :
:
INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY :
CORPORATION :
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 527 :
Wilmington, DE 19081, :
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. ::
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY :
15 Mountain View Road :
P.O. Box 1615 :
Warren, NJ 07059 :
:
Defendant. :
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, InterDigital Communications Corporation and InterDigital
Technology Corporation by way of complaint, set forth the following allegations against
defendant Federal Insurance Company ("Federal"):
1. This is an action for declaratory relief, and for breach of contract
arising out of, inter alia, 1) Federal's refusal to reimburse its insured fully, as required by
Federal's insurance policy, for attorneys' fees in the defense of litigation between
Ericsson Radio Systems, Inc. and Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc., now
known as Ericsson Inc. ("Ericsson") and InterDigital Communications Corporation and
2
InterDigital Technology Corporation ("the Ericsson litigation") and 2) a purported
agreement between Federal and InterDigital Communications Corporation and
InterDigital Technology Corporation, drastically reducing the defense obligation of
Federal under its insurance policy, an agreement which plaintiffs believe as a matter of
law is void for lack of consideration.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff InterDigital Communications Corporation is a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business located at 781 Third Avenue in King of
Prussia, Pennsylvania.
3. Plaintiff InterDigital Technology Corporation is a Delaware
Corporation with its principal place of business located at 300 Delaware Avenue in
Wilmington, Delaware.
4. InterDigital Technology Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
InterDigital Communications Corporation.
5. InterDigital Technology Corporation and InterDigital Communications
Corporation were parties to the Ericsson litigation and to the purported agreement with
Federal which drastically reduced the defense obligation of Federal under its insurance
policy. (InterDigital Technology Corporation and InterDigital Communications
Corporation will hereinafter be collectively referred to as "InterDigital").
6. Upon information and belief, defendant Federal is a company
organized and existing under the laws of Indiana, with its place of business in Warren,
New Jersey.
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332, because (1) plaintiffs and defendant are citizens of different states and (2) the
amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
8. This action for declaratory relief is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201 and 2202. As is shown below, an actual immediate and justiciable controversy
exists between the parties regarding (1) Federal's refusal to reimburse InterDigital fully
for InterDigital's attorneys' fees in the defense of its insured in the Ericsson litigation and
(2) the validity of a purported contract denominated "Litigation Expense and
Reimbursement Agreement" between Federal and InterDigital, which InterDigital
believes is void for lack of consideration.
Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), because a substantial part
of the events and omissions giving rise to this claim, took place in this judicial district.
INSURANCE POLICY AT ISSUE
9. In consideration for the premiums paid, Federal issued to InterDigital a
Commercial General Liability Policy, insurance policy number 3529-74-28 for the policy
period from February 1, 1990 through December 22, 1990 (the "Policy"). The Policy
was renewed annually through December 22, 1993. A true and correct copy of the Policy
is attached as Exhibit A.
10. InterDigital is a named insured under the Policy.
11. The Policy affords coverage for, inter alia, "damages the insured
becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law or assumed under
4
an insured contract because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence;
or personal injury or advertising injury . . . ."
12. Pursuant to the Policy, Federal was obligated to defend InterDigital
with respect to any claim or suit against InterDigital seeking, inter alia, damages for
personal injury. Specifically the Policy provides that Federal will "pay in addition to the
applicable limit of insurance the defense expense."
13. Under the Policy the term, defense expense means, "payments
allocated to a specific claim or suit for its investigation, settlement, or defense, including:
(1) attorney fees and all other litigation expenses . . . ." (emphasis added).
14. The Policy does not provide that reasonable attorney fees incurred by
InterDigital as a covered defense expense may be arbitrarily limited by Federal.
15. InterDigital paid Federal substantial premiums with the reasonable
expectation that pursuant to the Policy, Federal would pay InterDigital's defense expenses
when a claim or suit was brought against it seeking damages for personal injury.
THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION
16. On or about September 9, 1993, Ericsson filed a six count complaint
against InterDigital in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Ericsson Radio Systems, Inc. et. al. v. InterDigital Communications Corporation, et. al.,
Civil Action No. 3:93 CV 1809-H. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit
B.
17. In its complaint Ericsson alleged that it was developing and making,
using or selling products which were in compliance with the Industry Standard known as
IS-54. Ericsson further alleged that "since at least 1990, defendant IDC has charged in
5
press releases, in Annual Reports, in filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and in face-to-face meetings with plaintiffs that all digital cellular systems
marketed in compliance with IS-54 (including those of plaintiffs and each other major
supplier of cellular systems in the United States) infringe some or all of the IDC Patents,
and has stated its clear intention to enforce the IDC Patents against plaintiffs and the
other suppliers." See Exhibit B at ¶ 16.
18. The Ericsson complaint sought declaratory and monetary relief based
upon several causes of action at least one of which alleged defamation and commercial
disparagement that constituted an advertising injury under the Policy.
19. In the Ericsson litigation InterDigital made claims against Ericsson
alleging inter alia patent infringement. The defamation and commercial disparagement
claim as well as all other claims and counterclaims in the Ericsson litigation involved the
same threshold legal issue, the validity of InterDigital's telephony patents.
FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS ITS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND
ALL COUNTS IN THE COMPLAINT AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAD
NO RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
LITIGATION EXPENSES
20. On or about September 23, 1993, InterDigital notified Federal of the
Ericsson suit and requested that, pursuant to the Policy, Federal reimburse InterDigital for
its attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
21. On or about November 23, 1993 Federal wrote a letter to InterDigital
acknowledging and accepting its obligation under the Policy to provide InterDigital with
a defense as to all Counts in the Ericsson complaint. A true and correct copy of Federal's
November 23, 1993 Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
6
22. Specifically, Federal's November 23, 1993 letter stated "after a careful
review of the policy and the allegations as set forth in the Complaint, defense coverage as
to all counts in the Complaint will be provided," because there was coverage for
Ericsson's "claim for defamation and commercial disparagement." Federal has never
denied and has never had any basis to deny coverage for Ericsson's "claim for defamation
and commercial disparagement." See Exhibit C.
23. Moreover, in a letter dated February 17, 1995 Federal explicitly
acknowledged it had no right to "reimbursement of attorneys' fees and defense expenses
paid in the event that there is no potential claim for coverage in the underlying action." A
true and correct copy of Federal's February 17, 1995 Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit
D.
WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION FEDERAL ARBITRARILY LIMITS THE
HOURLY RATE OF ATTORNEYS' FEES IT WILL REIMBURSE
24. Consistent with its acknowledged obligation under the Policy Federal
began to reimburse InterDigital for its attorneys' fees and expenses.
25. However, from commencement of coverage, without any justification,
Federal announced to InterDigital that it was limiting its reimbursement of attorneys' fees
to $240 per hour, although InterDigital's counsel regularly and reasonably charged up to
$435 per hour.
26. There is no provision in the Policy that provides for any limitation on
attorneys' fees. Nevertheless, Federal refused to reimburse InterDigital for attorneys' fees
above $240 per hour.
7
27. Fearing that Federal would cease payment for its defense, InterDigital
did not challenge Federal's unilateral and arbitrary decision that the maximum billing rate
for attorneys' fees which would be reimbursed by Federal would be $240 per hour.
28. Further, in February 2000, Federal included a term in the
Reimbursement Agreement lowering the maximum rate for attorneys' fees to be
reimbursed by Federal from $240 per hour to $200 per hour for services performed after
April 1, 1999.
29. Because Federal refused to reimburse InterDigital for attorneys' fees
above $240 before April 1, 1999 and $200 per hour after April 1,1999, InterDigital was
forced to pay out of its own pocket in excess of $5 million to defend the Ericsson
litigation, fees that should have been paid by Federal under the terms of its policy.
FEDERAL CLAIMS IT IS ENTITLED TO SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH
UNCOVERED CLAIMS DESPITE THE FACT THAT APPLICABLE LAW
CLEARLY PREVENTED FEDERAL FROM OBTAINING SUCH
REIMBURSMENTS AND THAT FEDERAL EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED
IT HAD NO RIGHT TO SUCH REIMBURSEMENTS
30. As the Ericsson litigation progressed, although there was no limit of
defense expenses in the Federal policy, Federal began to complain to InterDigital about
the amount of attorneys' fees and litigation costs it was expending in defense of the
Ericsson litigation.
31. Contrary to applicable law and contrary to its prior explicit
acknowledgement that it was not entitled to seek reimbursement of attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses from InterDigital, Federal threatened that it would seek
reimbursement of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses associated with the defense of all
8
claims in the Ericsson litigation that did not fall within InterDigital's insurance coverage
for advertising injuries.
32. Further, also contrary to applicable law, Federal threatened that it
would seek to obtain reimbursement of all attorneys' fees and litigation expenses it
incurred in defending the uncovered claims before InterDigital received any settlement
proceeds or award from the Ericsson litigation.
33. Federal made these threats despite the fact that the law in
Pennsylvania, where InterDigital's insurance policy was negotiated and issued, does not
give an insurer the right to claim reimbursement of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses
incurred in defending uncovered claims which are joined to at least one insured claim in a
single integrated litigation.
34. Moreover, prior to its claim for reimbursement, Federal was a party to
a Middle District of Pennsylvania case involving another insured, which explicitly stated
that Federal was not entitled to reimbursement of defense costs for uncovered claims
which were joined to covered claims in a single action. Thus, Federal’s threats to
InterDigital concerning reimbursement of defense costs for uncovered claims were made
with the knowledge that such threats were contrary to Pennsylvania law.
35. Additionally the law in Texas, where the Ericsson litigation was
pending, also clearly prohibits an insurer from obtaining reimbursement of attorneys' fees
and litigation expenses incurred in defending uncovered claims which are joined to at
least one insured claim a single litigation.
36. Fearing that Federal would cease payment for its defense and based
on Federal's misrepresentation respecting its ability to obtain reimbursement of attorneys'
9
fees and expenses, on or about February 9, 2000, InterDigital entered into the
Reimbursement Agreement with Federal. A true and correct copy of which is attached as
Exhibit E.
THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
37. Pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement Federal stated that it
would: "continue to reimburse the Insureds for Attorney time in the same manner as
Federal has been doing consistent with the terms of this Agreement. The maximum rate
for attorney time to be reimbursed by Federal will be at the actual hourly rate up to a
maximum of $200 per hour for services performed April 1, 1999 and thereafter." Federal
also stated that it would "continue to reimburse the Insureds for non-attorney litigation
related expenses . . . in the same manner as Federal has been doing to date." See
Reimbursement Agreement at ¶¶ 2,3 (emphasis added).
38. The Reimbursement Agreement states that "the consideration for this
Agreement is the reciprocal trade off, and/or compromise, of their [InterDigital and
Federal's] respective rights which have been reserved and/or asserted with regard to
funding, allocation, apportionment and reimbursement of litigation expenses with regard
to the Combined Lawsuits [the Ericsson litigation] and, further, the certainty that is
derived from such agreement."
39. However, under the Reimbursement Agreement Federal did not give
up or compromise any of its rights with regard to funding, allocation, apportionment and
reimbursement of litigation expenses, and InterDigital did not receive any benefit in this
regard. Rather, under the Reimbursement Agreement Federal only promised to do a part
of what it had a pre-existing legal duty to do pursuant to the Policy: continue to provide
10
InterDigital with a defense in the Ericsson litigation. As a matter of law, Federal's
promise to continue to fulfill part of that duty does not constitute legal consideration.
40. Moreover, as a matter of law, Federal's relinquishment of a claim to
reimbursement of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses associated with the uncovered
claims in the Ericsson litigation does not constitute legal consideration because such a
claim is invalid under applicable law.
41. Pursuant to the Reimbursement Agreement, in exchange for Federal's
continuing to honor part of its pre-existing obligations under the Policy by paying only a
portion of InterDigital's defense expenses in the Ericsson litigation, InterDigital was
required to reimburse Federal's defense costs (even defense costs paid by Federal before
the Reimbursement Agreement) by paying Federal 9% of the first $50 million of the
"agreed-upon settlement" and 10% of everything above $50 million of the "agreed-upon
settlement for the patent claims" if Ericsson made any settlement payment to InterDigital.
See Exhibit E at ¶ 6(a).
42. Moreover, Paragraph 6(c)(ii) of the Reimbursement Agreement
provides that if Federal does not believe it will be fully reimbursed within four years
from the date of the settlement, in exchange for continuing to honor part of its preexisting
obligation under the policy, it can seek additional reimbursement from
InterDigital based upon "the additional value to the Insured [InterDigital] and its affiliates
of the settlement (beyond the cash payments related to the Patents and Claims in Suit and
for engineering services).” See Exhibit E at ¶6(c)(ii).
11
FEDERAL DEMANDS FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF THE DEFENSE
EXPENSES
43. After the Ericsson litigation settled, Federal, in a letter dated May 21,
2003, invoked section 6(c)(ii) of the Reimbursement Agreement and demanded full
reimbursement of the $27,886,576.64 it claims it paid as partial reimbursement to
InterDigital for its litigation expenses to defend the Ericsson litigation.
44. InterDigital denies that it is obligated to reimburse Federal because,
among other reasons, it believes that as a matter of law the Reimbursement Agreement is
unenforceable for lack of consideration.
45. On October 30, 2003 solely pursuant to a provision of the
Reimbursement Agreement, Federal formally demanded arbitration of its claim for
reimbursement of the $27,886,576.64 it claims it paid for litigation expenses to defend
the Ericsson litigation.
COUNT I
DECLARATORY RELIEF
46. InterDigital incorporates the averments set forth in paragraphs 1
through 45 herein by this reference.
47. InterDigital paid Federal substantial premiums to secure insurance
coverage under the Policy.
48. Pursuant to the Policy, Federal was obligated to pay all attorneys' fees
and defense expenses with respect to any claim or suit against InterDigital seeking, inter
alia, damages for personal injury.
49. Ericsson brought a suit against InterDigital seeking damages for
personal injury by way of a claim for defamation and commercial disparagement.
12
50. In a letter dated November 23, 1993 Federal acknowledged and
accepted its obligation to provide InterDigital with a defense as to all Counts of the
Ericsson complaint.
51. As a matter of law, Federal's obligation to provide InterDigital with a
defense as to all Counts in the Ericsson litigation does not cease until there is no
possibility for recovery on any covered claims.
52. Under the Reimbursement Agreement, Federal only promised to do a
part of what it had a pre-existing legal duty to do pursuant to the Policy: continue to
provide InterDigital with a defense in the Ericsson litigation through appeal to final
conclusion. As a matter of law, Federal's promise to continue to fulfill part of that duty
does not constitute legal consideration.
53. Moreover, as a matter of law, Federal's relinquishment of a claim to
reimbursement of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses associated with uncovered
claims does not constitute legal consideration because such a claim is invalid under
applicable law.
54. Nonetheless, Federal has demanded full reimbursement of the
$27,886,576.64 it paid in litigation expenses to defend the Ericsson litigation.
55. InterDigital has already reimbursed Federal approximately $157,000.
In fact the amount of money reimbursed to Federal under the Reimbursement Agreement
should have been significantly less due to limitations within the Reimbursement
Agreement. Therefore, even if the Reimbursement Agreement was a valid, enforceable
agreement, which it is not, InterDigital is entitled to a refund from Federal.
13
56. An actual, immediate and justiciable controversy exists between
Federal and InterDigital concerning whether InterDigital is obligated to reimburse
Federal for the monies Federal paid to defend the Ericsson litigation.
57. InterDigital is in need of the Court's assistance in resolving the parties'
differences concerning whether the Reimbursement Agreement is an enforceable
contract.
58. InterDigital now seeks an affirmative declaration that InterDigital is
not obligated to reimburse Federal for the monies Federal paid to defend the Ericsson
litigation because the Reimbursement Agreement lacks consideration. In the alternative,
if this Court finds that the Reimbursement Agreement is valid and enforceable,
InterDigital seeks a declaration that: (1) Federal is entitled to reimbursement based only
on those portions of the amounts received by InterDigital under the settlement of the
Ericsson litigation relating to patents at issue in the Ericsson litigation and excluding any
royalty payments made to InterDigital by Ericsson LM or any other entities that were not
parties to the Ericsson litigation; and (2) InterDigital is entitled to a refund of its over
payments to Federal.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff InterDigital demands that judgment be entered in
its favor and against Federal declaring that InterDigital is not obligated to reimburse
Federal for any of the attorneys' fees or defense expenses it paid to defend the Ericsson
litigation, together with such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. In the
alternative, if this Court finds that the Reimbursement Agreement is valid and
enforceable, InterDigital seeks a declaration that: (1) Federal is entitled to
reimbursement based only on those portions of the amounts received by InterDigital
14
under the settlement of the Ericsson litigation relating to patents at issue in the Ericsson
litigation and excluding any royalty payments made to IDC by Ericsson LM or any other
entities that were not parties to the Ericsson litigation; and (2) InterDigital is entitled to a
refund of its over payments to Federal.
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT
59. InterDigital incorporates the averments set forth in paragraphs 1
through 58 herein by this reference.
60. Under the terms of the Policy, Federal's obligation to pay
InterDigital's defense expenses is clear.
61. The Policy does not provide that attorney fees and other litigation
expenses may be limited in any manner by the insurer.
62. Federal's unjustified refusal to reimburse InterDigital for attorneys'
fees above $240 during one period and above $200 per hour during another period is a
breach of contract.
63. As a result of Federal's breach of contract InterDigital was forced to
pay a large portion of its total defense costs in the Ericsson litigation.
64. InterDigital has paid Federal, under the Reimbursement Agreement,
approximately $157,000, an amount which should be refunded to InterDigital in its
entirety.
65. InterDigital paid Federal substantial premiums with the reasonable
expectation that pursuant to the Policy, Federal would pay InterDigital's defense
15
expenses, without limitation, when a claim or suit was brought against it seeking
damages for personal injury.
66. Federal's breach of contract has caused InterDigital damages in excess
of $75,000.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff InterDigital demands that judgment be entered in its
favor and against Federal for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $75,000
plus interest and attorneys' fees, together with such other relief as the Court deems just
and appropriate.
COUNT III
BAD FAITH PURSUANT TO 42 PA. C.S.A. §8371
67. InterDigital incorporates the averments set forth in paragraphs 1
through 65 herein by this reference.
68. The bad faith claim against Federal as set forth herein subjects Federal
to special damages as provided under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371.
69. InterDigital has been injured by Federal's refusal to reimburse
InterDigital fully, as required by Federal's insurance policy, for InterDigital's attorneys'
fees in the defense of the Ericsson litigation and Federal's improper suggestions that it
might stop payment unilaterally of attorneys' fees and expenses to defend the Ericsson
litigation and would seek reimbursement of attorneys' fees and expenses associated with
its defense of the uncovered claims in the Ericsson litigation, all without any good faith
basis for doing so.
16
70. Federal's bad faith constitutes a violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, and
otherwise entitles InterDigital to recover special damages, including punitive damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff InterDigital demands that judgment be entered in
its favor and against Federal for compensatory damages together with punitive and
exemplary damages in an amount in excess of $75,000 plus interest and attorneys' fees,
together with such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
______________________
Stephen J. Mathes
Tammi Markowitz
HOYLE, FICKLER, HERSCHEL
& MATHES LLP
One South Broad Street - Suite 1500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 981-5700
Attorneys for InterDigital
Dated: November 4, 2003 Communications Corporation
and InterDigital Technology Corporation
http://www.stroudhall.com/shpages/nationalpartynomore.html
A National Party No More
The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat
by Senator Zell Miller
Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said, “I see one third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.” Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, “I see one third of a nation and it can go to hell.”
(from A National Party No More)
With the growl of the Marine sergeant he was, Senator Zell Miller leaves no doubt that he believes his own Democratic Party is badly out of step with most of the country and needs to shape up or ship out.
As part of a stinging critique of the Democratic Party, Miller outlines key positions on important issues that can again make the party relevant for the entire nation. From abortion to welfare, gun control to the environment, the arts to education, immigration to terrorism, Miller identifies values that make sense to a growing majority of Americans.
Miller’s candid analysis of the campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton further underscores his concern that the Democratic Party can no longer field a serious presidential challenge.
Many party loyalists will not like what Senator Miller writes; yet his credentials are beyond question, for few Democrats have worked longer or stronger for the party and its candidates. Driven by conscience and common sense, Senator Miller names the self-destructive direction of his party and stubbornly pulls the Democratic family toward reform.
ZELL MILLER began his career in public service in 1959 with a term as mayor of Young Harris, Georgia. In 1960, he was elected to the Georgia Senate at the age of 28. In 1974, he won the first of four consecutive terms as Georgia’s lieutenant governor. Then in 1990, Miller ran for governor and won the first of two terms he would serve as the state’s top leader.
Miller’s HOPE Scholarship program was dubbed by the Los Angeles Times as “the most far-reaching scholarship program in the nation.’’ His pre-kindergarten program won an award for innovation from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
After leaving the governor’s office in 1999, Miller taught at Emory University and at his alma maters, the University of Georgia and Young Harris College. Five books have been written by Miller, including Corps Values: Everything You Need To Know I Learned in the Marines. He also served on several corporate boards before joining the Senate, where he now serves.
Jim & family
My family will keep yours in our prayers.
looks like our engineering staff has been busy
full Layer 1 modem and Layer 2/3 implementation
for narrowband TDD to accelerate time-to-market
for TD-SCDMA products
OT Habu haha, are u kidding, that fan probably started another curse, if i was a cubs fan right now i would be on suicide watch, pathetic organization, you have nothing to be proud of, the cubs blew it, up 3-1 and blew it, your one consolation is you probably would have lost to the yankees anyway
Spree... nice to see your sense of humor has not changed since your last stint on the board.
I'm glad to see IDCC state publicly that China is a play for us. Guess those meetings in China last year might turn some fruit into a fine wine for us!
Regarding my Cubbies. I think we will have some good years ahead. The Marlins played some darn good ball. So did the Cubs for as young a team as they are. As I have been saying for many years "There's always next year". This time we really have a good chance for that to be true.
I think we wounded the goat!
If this has been posted before then I apologize
http://www.totaltele.com/vprint.asp?txtID=101116
InterDigital sees its first TDD opportunity in China
By Anne Morris, TOTAL TELECOM, in Geneva
15 October 2003
Wireless technology firm hopes to benefit from TD-SCDMA deployments in China.
Wireless technology firm InterDigital said it believes the first opportunity for the deployment of its time division duplex standard will likely be in China as the company hopes to benefit from the rollout of TD-SCDMA-based 3G networks in the country.
According to Charles Rip Tilden, chief operating officer of InterDigital, the company now has its own development team working on TD-SCDMA, which is China's homemade 3G standard.
"If it's deployed in China, it could come before TDD in Europe," Tilden told TOTAL TELECOM during Telecom World in Geneva.
The Chinese government has yet to award its 3G licences but it is largely believed that licences will be awarded for TD-SCDMA as well as for wideband CDMA and cdma2000.
In Europe, Tilden says TDD – which utilises the unpaired spectrum in the UMTS frequency band – will come after FDD deployments. European operators are using FDD or paired spectrum for their 3G rollouts, but InterDigital is banking on TDD being deployed alongside FDD to improve data service offerings.
While in Geneva, InterDigital is showcasing a 2-megabit-per-second, over-the-air TDD service. The company is also demonstrating its FDD stack, which is now being implemented by Infineon for its 3G chipset, smart-antenna technology for mobile phones and wireless LANs, and digital radio technology.
InterDigital, which currently makes most of its revenue from licensing technology for TDMA and CDMA interfaces, said it believes that WLAN and TDD will be complementary technologies.
Tilden thinks there is a bigger opportunity for WLAN in the enterprise and home markets than in the public hotspot market. But he did not want to rule out the hotspot market as a viable business opportunity.
"We'd be nuts to question how operators evaluate their own market opportunities," he said.
But it's clear that InterDigital believes WLAN is more suited for stationery wireless access, with TDD taking over for mobile connectivity.
"We will look at how WLAN and TDD could interoperate," added Tilden. "This will be addressed in the future."
While InterDigital has put most of its energies in the development of TDD and FDD technology, it believes it makes good sense to have a diversified portfolio.
"We did not have to diversify away from UMTS," said Tilden, "but we saw great opportunities in other areas."
InterDigital began to develop TDD technology in 1999 after being requested to do so by Nokia, which was interested in the technology but was focused on FDD.
Tilden said Nokia has invested around US$58 million in the TDD project. However, while InterDigital has delivered the technology to Nokia it still retains ownership.
Tilden added that it is also not yet clear what Nokia plans to do with TDD.
InterDigital can be found in Hall 2 of the Palexpo Centre in Geneva.
maybe the SEC filing was to make sure the judge got the news that Samsung is not playing nice. F&J may have suggested the SEC filing as a way of legally documenting SAMSUNG messing around, maybe to try and draw a connection between SAM and NOK collusion?
today we follow the pack green line is the NASDAQ red line is Q
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1d&s=IDCC&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=qcom&c=%5EIXIC
you need to read it closer. He execised and is holding..... For now anyway
presenting at the conference in your reference post
A Compelling Business Case for Using TDD
Technology to provide Advanced Data Services
Jack Indekeu
Director – Strategic Marketing
InterDigital Communications Corporation
L2v You may as well save your breath. He has made it clear some time ago he cares only about his pocket book. If he truly is a teacher then I am glad he doesn't teach my kids.
my3sons87 Maybe the mandate to settle had to do with Nok and others desire to limit IPR rates to 5%. Nok anounced to the world that they were going after that goal. By IDCC settling with ERICY and then anouncing the NOK trigger, it put IDCC at the front of wireless news as a player that got ERICY to verify that IDCC is a major player. (that is a long sentence and I hope it makes sense) they might have forced NOK into a corner they did not expect or want to be in.
This is what I have of the original
InterDigital and Nokia announce multi-year development project for third generation technology
February 01, 1999
Nokia and InterDigital Communications Corporation (ASE: IDC) today announced a long-term co-operation agreement involving the development of new technology for third generation wireless telecommunications products designed for high data rate applications, such as Internet access.
Under the multi-year agreement, InterDigital will deliver technology building blocks for Nokia to use in third generation wireless products. The agreement, which includes paid up TDMA and CDMA patent licenses which generally extend through the project period, has an estimated value to InterDigital of approximately USD 70 million, including an initial payment of approximately USD 30 million. The companies have defined a framework for establishing licensing terms after the initial licensing period.
"Nokia is committed to furthering the development of third generation technologies, which will herald the era of a true Wireless Information Society. In addition to Nokia's own core development of third generation, we place great emphasis on additional R&D, including co-operation with key industry players," said Ahti Väisänen, Vice President, Third Generation Technology, Nokia Mobile Phones. "Nokia believes that its work with InterDigital over the next several years will complement its own development of third generation products," he said.
Harry Campagna, Chairman of InterDigital, said: "Nokia has selected us to develop an important component of third generation wireless technology. In doing so, this global telecommunications leader recognizes our expertise in developing air interface technologies. This is an important relationship for us. The telecommunications industry is moving aggressively to address the demand for high-speed data capability and we are pleased to be participating in that technology arena. Our work with Nokia will broaden our position as a developer of leading-edge technologies and enable us to grow as third generation technologies are commercialized.
"In working for Nokia, we will use our technical expertise to design advanced technology and we will retain ownership rights over the technology we develop. This will enable InterDigital to produce and sell products utilizing the new technology, as well as license other companies under the technology," he said.
InterDigital develops and markets wireless telecommunications systems and components using both proprietary and standards compliant technologies for voice and data communications. In the past twelve months, InterDigital has developed relationships with a leading wireless access provider, and now, the number one mobile phone supplier in the industry, Nokia.
As InterDigital begins its work for Nokia, it will also remain committed to B-CDMATM technology for the wireless local loop and will continue to work in close cooperation with the B-CDMA AllianceTM.
In conjunction with the B-CDMA Alliance TM, which consists of Siemens AG, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Alcatel Alsthom, InterDigital is commercializing its new B-CDMATM technology for use in wireless communication products. InterDigital®, Broadband Code Division Multiple AccessTM, and B-CDMATM are among the trademarks of InterDigital Communications Corporation. As used herein, where the context so requires, references to InterDigital Communications Corporation includes reference to InterDigital Technology Corporation, the holder of InterDigital patents.
Nokia's in-depth know-how of wireless systems is acknowledged world-wide, and Nokia plays a central role in taking the future-proof GSM platform further into third-generation telecommunications systems with the UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) and IMT-2000 (International Mobile Telecommunication System 2000) technology.
Nokia is the world's leading mobile phone supplier and a leading supplier of mobile and fixed telecom networks including related customer services. Nokia also supplies solutions and products for fixed and wireless datacom, as well as multimedia terminals and computer monitors. In 1998, net sales totaled FIM 79.2 billion (USD 15.7 billion, EUR 13.3 billion). Headquartered in Finland, Nokia is listed on five European Stock Exchanges and on the New York Stock Exchange (NOK.A), has sales in over 130 countries and employs more than 44,000 people worldwide.
Contact information:
Ms Arja Suominen, Vice President, Communications
Nokia Telecommunications
Tel: (Int.) + 358 9 5113 8193
Fax: (Int.) + 358 9 5113 8199
Tapio Hedman, Vice President, Communications
Nokia Mobile Phones
Tel: (Int) +358 10 505 5750
Tel: (Int) +358 10 505 5782
Susan Sutton, InterDigital Communications Corporation,
Corporate Communications
Tel: +1 610 878-5677
http://www.interdigital.com.
After looking at the PDF document I found that it is a document made from scanned pages. When a page is scanned it is saved as a TIFF type picture. Pictures are not able to be pasted to any of the boards. the only way to get an editable copy of the scanned document is to use OCR(Optical Character Recognition) software that tries to recognize words from the TIFF. It is not an exact science but it works fairly well. If anyone wants to know more about the process or software follow this link.
http://www.primerecognition.com/
Finely finished reading the IDCC response. The response references a lot of case history where recent as well as aged cases support IDCC's argument. Nokia only referenced one case and it looks to be improperly cited in regard to their case. Overall the response looks strong to me.
Parts that caught my eye:
Page 7 indent C. Nokia's Private Economics....
gives the litmus test for 3rd party intervention. If all 4 are not met then no intervention can take place. Nokia fails at least 2.
page 11 paragraph 2 it is also important to note....
part of the settlement was an order to seal forever the documents in the case. THere are 12 points supporting the sealing as part of the settlement signed by the court order dated 3/18/03. The most interesting is that there are trade secrets in the sealed documents. as reported by someone earlier, ERICY's main argument is that the un-sealing would cause damage to ERICY's business.
I think it looks good for the home team. (more than I can say for my Cubs)
I am not a lawyer and the above is my opinion. I am happier than I was yesterday because of reading this document.
Thanks to Jim for sending the document and thanks to JKJ for getting it.
Words are not enough in the way of thank you for the unselfish sharing of information by you and JK. I mean that.
thank you both.
I just found a great new web site to help the informed investor with their DD. It lists all the picnic dates of all stocks listed on the Naz and Dow. THey should be up to date with the AMX by next month. I have used it to time my trades with great success.
WWW.TheStraightPoopOnCompanyPicnics.com
Jim,
Most of us know the value of what JayKay and the other sluths have provided. We also know the value of what you provide. Without their and your un-selfish efforts many little investors in IDCC would not be able to bennifit from the rise we will see soon.
I know I speak for many when I say THANK YOU to you and JayKay and all others that share with us the various bits of information and experience that not 1 single person could hold. I could never amass this amount of DD on my own. no one could. Don't ever think you and your efforts are for not.
I will have a beer in your honor tonight while at the Jimmy Buffett concert. I think it only fitting.
THanks Jim. Please don't stop sending the information you get.
Matt,
Your choice of words reveals alot about just how personal this has become between you and Teecee.
There's nothing like a good grass roots movement
those exact words were used on the RB board earlier this afternoon by Teecee. Im not supporting Teecee or knocking you. What I am saying is that you really need to get this out of your system or it will ruin your business. Enough said.
it is easy to see that even 1 syllable is too much for you.
Here is one of two meanings of intercourse. by your response I see you already know the other.
2. communication or dealings between people or groups of people.
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?content=wotw/2001.1119/wotw_college#word2
Matt. Here is an example of your emotions getting in the way of your business. If I spoke to my customers this way I would soon have no customers. very condescending{sp}. Please get hold of your emotions before you loose more prospective customers. Please get over the bone you have for Teecee and the obvious love you have for Once. I don't expect you to give Teecee a free ride. If you did he and others would use off colored words all the time. But you really need to look at the context of Teecee's message that you booted him for. If you ask me I think Once is just as caustic but he talks so pretty and that can often be more harmful than the way Teecee talks. Did you vote for AL?
P.S. Though nobody will comply, I would respectfully ask that anybody direct replies to me privately or to the Q&A board #board-504
I did not take this to the other board as I think this conversation does relate to this board.
Matt,
I became a lifetime member and am sorry I did. I recommend that anyone who wants to become a member here think twice. Matt has a bone for Teecee almost from day one. You let your personal feelings for one poster cloud your judgment. Teecee is taking part in social intercourse regarding IDCC and most people want to hear what he has to say. You are hurting more than you are helping. I doubt that you will change your mind on this but I wish you would. You are putty in the hands of those that would like to shut Teecee up for their own benefit. Don’t let them use you.
GE_Jim selling has not slowed yet. What do you see as a bottom?
I am aware of that but you have to put yourself in his shoes to try and make sense out of his comments. I also agree it apears to be a knee jerk reaction but it is real and we must deal with it. My thoughts were put out with MHO because it was just my opinion why he is covering his pooper. By the way, I hope NEC does re ups their credits for future royalties or it could get real ugly.
My guess is that he is not giving any leeway what so ever to IDCC now. He indicates declining revenue because we have no major 3G contracts and there is an indemnifier out there. He is just tracking the decline of 2G with his estimates. He is not happy. He recommended this stock to a lot of people with a 30$ target. People invested and lost 40%. IDCC will have to prove themselves with $$ in hand before he steps out on the limb again, if he ever does step out there
MHO
havent read it yet cause of work, but will read it tonight. I wonder who removed the page. IDCC, NOK, court?????
I thought he had more class than that as well, but his company > his reputation. Whoever penned those attacks just wasn't thinking. Took a wack outa my azz though. on vacation for the fall and was not thrilled when I got back.
Ya that big red bar last week is ugly. It was more a bit of anger or disgust on my part with the PPS since that sh1tty day. I see a lot of fear driving this for the next couple of weeks. I don't like it but I think we will go lower yet before we clean out the bombshell likely closing that gap as we go. Upside is that I bet we have alot of new institutional holdings.
I come down on the side that says he is pizzed. He is making personal attacks on IDCC management on a subject that has had a lot of airplay with investors. His judgement was clouded by anger when he starts making personal attacks.
JMHO
we are getting close to closing the gap of March 17th. We gapped up from intraday high of $14.15 on the 14th to a low of $16.67 on monday the 17th. Looks like we will unfortunatly fill that one sometime this week. Sigh............
Anyway, it is late, time to join the family.
reminds me of a song by Bad Company
runnin' with the pack
THey are a French company They do have cell phones as a product.
http://www.sagem.com/en/groupe-en/gpe-presentation-en.htm
Groupe SAGEM is an internationally-based high-technology group which enjoyed consolidated sales of EUR 2.763 billion in 2002 and an operating income of €M 130. The second largest French group in the field of telecommunications and the third largest European company in electronics for defence and security, SAGEM maintains a presence in more than twenty countries.
SAGEM SA is a limited company with an Executive Board and a Supervisory Board. The Executive Board is chaired by Grégoire OLIVIER and the Supervisory Board by Mario COLAIACOVO.
The buy-out of the firm by its personnel in 1985 consolidated an already established system of employee share-ownership by giving the workforce a majority shareholding. The shares of SAGEM SA are listed on the Paris Stock Exchange (reference 7327). SAGEM stock also forms part of the Euronext 100, the SBF 120, the IT CAC 50 and the DJ Stoxx.
The Group's businesses are divided into two activities, namely:
Communications. SAGEM is a major world player in mobile telephones. SAGEM, which has a strong position in Europe, Middle East, Africa and Asia (GSM 900/1800MHz) and also in Latin America (GSM 900/1900 MHz), is developing a flood of innovations based on the new communications technologies (built in digital camera, colour screens, multimedia messaging, WAP, GPRS, radiocommunication modules and modems, etc.).
Number 1 in fax, very innovative in digital television (satellite, cable and terrestrial Internet set-top boxes with built-in hard disk), SAGEM is also a dominant force in Internet terminals (web.fax™, multifunction Internet terminals and DECT, all equipped with the SMS function) and networks: business networks, infrastructure and fast Internet access networks using copper, optical or radio transmission technologies.
SAGEM is also active in power cables, from low voltage to very high voltage, and in telecommunications cables, copper, LAN, fibre optics.
SAGEM is also present on the market of electronic meters equipped with evolutionary software. Lastly, SAGEM offers to the industry manufacturing and development partnerships.
Defence. SAGEM is Europe's leading manufacturer in inertial systems and third in the world, European leader in optronic systems, world leader in fingerprint-based biometrics, world leader in helicopter flight control and world leader in space optics. The Defence Activity covers three fields : Defence, (guidance, navigation, guided weapons, military avionics, aeronautic systems), Avionics and Optronics (avionics and flight control systems, optronic systems, observation UAV's, optics and engineering, ciphering and surveillance) and Security (biometric identification and systems, secure terminals, smart cards and certification).
may I suggest a vacation?
Please take it to the other board.
Slap an injunction on them FTMFs