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.
Could the ITC continue if IDCC asks for an appeal?
I thought this hearing was to determine whether IDCC could continue to participate in the ITC case, not whether NOK could stay the ITC case and go to arbitration?
Thanks revlis. eom
Thanks loop! eom
revlis, the staff ruled in favor of NOK on the motion to stay?
NOK has 545 M euros in IPR provisions at the end of 2007, compared with 284 M at the beginning of 2007.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/924613/000095012308003172/u54931e20vf.htm
Intellectual property rights litigation
InterDigital
In 1999, we entered into a license agreement with InterDigital Technology Corporation and Interdigital Communications Corporation (together “IDT”) for certain technology. The license provided for a fixed royalty payment through 2001 and most favored licensee treatment from 2002 through 2006.
In April 2006, Nokia and IDT resolved their contract dispute over the patent license terms originally agreed to in 1999 and the impact on Nokia of IDT’s licenses with Ericsson and Sony-Ericsson. The agreed settlement terms resolved the legal disputes related to 2G products, with Nokia obtaining a fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide license to all of IDT’s current patent portfolio, and any patents IDT may later acquire, for purposes of making or selling 2G products, including handsets and infrastructure. The settlement terms also resolved disputes related to all our products up to the agreement date. The IDT settlement terms did not address any prospective 3G license terms, however, our sale of 3G products was fully released through the date of the settlement agreements.
Nokia and IDT currently have pending legal disputes in the United States and United Kingdom regarding IDT’s alleged 3G patents and certain Nokia patents declared essential to 3G. In July 2005, we filed a case with the UK High Court, Patents Court, to challenge an assertion by IDT that its patents were essential to work the WCDMA Standard. After trial, only one patent out of the 29 challenged was found to be essential to the WCDMA Standard. We believe that we have access to that patent through another agreement. In August 2007, IDT filed a complaint against us in the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) alleging infringement of two declared essential WCDMA patents. In October 2007, the ITC announced that it was consolidating the IDT action against us with an action IDT had brought against Samsung. IDT then amended the complaint to add two additional declared essential WCDMA patents. The consolidated action therefore now includes four patents, also asserted against us in Delaware. Through its ITC action, IDT is seeking to exclude certain of our WCDMA handsets from importation and sale in the US. In this situation, IDT has committed itself to grant a license on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms with regard to the patents in suit. The hearing on this case is scheduled to begin on April 21, 2008 with an initial determination currently scheduled for July 11, 2008 and a final determination currently scheduled for November 11, 2008.
We have also filed a motion in the Southern District of New York court to prevent IDT from proceeding with its claim in the ITC. We believe the patents at issue are also licensed to us as part of an R&D agreement signed in 1999. Although IDT disagrees, any license dispute under the R&D agreement is subject to resolution through arbitration. We are vigorously defending ourselves in these disputes.
Qualcomm
Our payment obligations under the old Qualcomm subscriber unit cross-license agreements with Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) expired on April 9, 2007. We are now in negotiations with Qualcomm about a new cross-license agreement with the intention of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on a timely basis. Our intention is to negotiate a new cross-license agreement based on today’s business realities, including the current value of Qualcomm’s newer patent portfolio and Nokia’s IPR position in relevant technology standards. The wireless industry landscape has changed significantly since the terms of our previous agreement were set, and we believe that any new agreements must reflect the realities of today including the fact that we are discussing different patent assets than in the old agreements, as the early patents—CDMA fundamentals as referred to by Qualcomm—are fully paid-up by Nokia. Although we hope for an out of court resolution to the patent disputes we have with Qualcomm, we also recognize that we may have to prove the merits of our claims and the falsity of the claims of Qualcomm, through proof in courts on a patent-by-patent basis in the relevant countries.
Nokia and Qualcomm currently have pending legal disputes in the United States, Europe and China. In November 2005, Qualcomm and its wholly-owned subsidiary Snap Track, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California. The lawsuit currently involves five patents that Qualcomm apparently contends apply to the manufacture and sale of unidentified GSM products. Nokia and Qualcomm have since agreed to stay the case pending the final outcome of an ITC investigation filed by Qualcomm against Nokia. We are vigorously defending ourselves against these claims.
In May 2006, Qualcomm additionally filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nokia in the United Kingdom. This lawsuit involved two European patents (United Kingdom) that Qualcomm apparently contended apply to the manufacture and sale of GPRS phones capable of operating in accordance with the GPRS and/or EDGE standards and not having a capability to operate with CDMA technology. On March 3, 2008, a United Kingdom High Court judge issued a ruling in favor of Nokia which determined that all of the asserted GSM patent claims of Qualcomm were invalid. This ruling is subject to potential appeals.
In June 2006, Qualcomm filed a complaint against Nokia in the ITC seeking an order forbidding the importation of our GSM handsets into the United States. The ITC instituted an investigation in July 2006. The trial was held in September 2007. On December 12, 2007, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination finding all three patents not infringed, and finding one patent invalid. On February 27, 2008, the ITC decided not to review the Initial Determination of Judge Luckern issued on December 12, 2007. The decision means that the ITC investigation has now been terminated. This ruling is subject to potential appeals. A final determination is expected April 14, 2008.
In August 2006, Qualcomm filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nokia in Germany. This lawsuit involves two European patents (DE) that Qualcomm apparently contends apply to the manufacture and sale of certain GPRS phones. Based on a request from Qualcomm to stay the proceedings, the court stayed the lawsuit on September 11, 2007 until further notice. The German Revocation Court will consider our claim that the two patents are invalid in April and June 2008.
In August 2006, Nokia initiated an action in Delaware Chancery Court seeking a declaration that Qualcomm had breached its contractual obligations concerning patents declared essential to ETSI, a standard setting organization, by seeking injunctions and exclusions notwithstanding Qualcomm’s voluntary and contractually binding commitments to license such patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, or FRAND. In April and June 2007, Qualcomm filed counterclaims seeking a declaration that, among other things, an agreement between the parties fulfilled and/or superseded any obligations it owed to ETSI or to Nokia as a result of its ETSI undertakings.
In April 2007, Qualcomm filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) requesting a ruling that, among other things, our use of Qualcomm’s patents after April 9, 2007 constitutes an election by us to extend its license under the parties’ existing agreement. In July 2007, Qualcomm filed an amended demand for arbitration alleging that our institution of certain patent infringement proceedings against Qualcomm was a material breach of the license agreement between the parties. We are vigorously defending ourselves against these claims.
By consent order of the Delaware Chancery Court, dated February 22, 2008, the parties consolidated the AAA arbitration with the Delaware action. The parties are filing amended pleadings with the Court, the last of which is to be filed by March 28, 2008. The parties’ claims relate to their disputes concerning ETSI/FRAND and the subscriber unit license agreements. The court will be considering the parties’ claims in a phased evidentiary process. The trial based on the evidence which can be considered in the first phase is currently scheduled to begin on July 23, 2008. We continue to vigorously defend our rights in this action.
As part of the consent order, the parties agreed to a “stand down”—for the duration of the first phase of the Delaware action—of all patent infringement litigation where they will seek to stay all such litigation with the exception of the ITC action, and the UK action. The patent stand down shall not preclude reexaminations, nullity or invalidity actions or patent oppositions—so long as they are separate from any infringement proceeding. Nor shall the stand down preclude the parties’ right to pursue or initiate antitrust or competition claims.
In October 2006, Qualcomm filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nokia in France. This lawsuit involves two European patents (France) that Qualcomm apparently contends apply to the manufacture and sale of certain GPRS phones. This case is covered by the stand down. In addition, in October 2006, Qualcomm filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nokia in Italy. This lawsuit involves two European patents (Italy) that Qualcomm apparently contends apply to the manufacture and sale of certain GPRS phones. Our defense and counterclaims were filed in December 2006. This case is covered by the stand down.
In February 2007, Qualcomm filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nokia in China, in the Beijing Higher People’s Court. This lawsuit involves one Chinese patent that Qualcomm apparently contends applies to the manufacture and sale of certain specified GSM handsets. This case is covered by the stand down. In March 2007, we petitioned the Chinese patent office to invalidate the patent. This case will proceed.
In February 2007, Qualcomm filed two patent infringement lawsuits against Nokia in China, in the No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai. These lawsuits involves two Chinese patents that Qualcomm apparently contends applies to the manufacture and sale of certain specified GSM handsets. These cases are covered by the stand down. In March 2007, Nokia petitioned the Chinese patent office to invalidate the patents. The case will proceed.
In March 2007, we filed separate complaints against Qualcomm in Germany and The Netherlands requesting a declaration that Qualcomm’s European patents are exhausted in respect of products placed on the EU market. In October 2007 and November 2007, the German and Dutch courts dismissed the claims on procedural grounds, respectively.
In addition, in April 2007, Qualcomm filed a patent infringement action against Nokia in the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit involves three patents that Qualcomm apparently contends apply to the manufacture and sale of unidentified GSM, GPRS and/or EDGE phones. Our defenses and counterclaims were filed in August 2007. This case is covered by the stand down. In August 2007, we filed reexamination requests with the US Patent and Trademark Office requesting the three patents be reexamined. The US Patent and Trademark office has ordered reexamination for the three patents.
In April 2007, Qualcomm filed a patent infringement action against Nokia in Wisconsin. The lawsuit involves two alleged speech codec related patents and Qualcomm has already voluntarily withdrawn one of these two patents from the case. Our defenses and counterclaims were filed in May 2007. The case was transferred to San Diego and has now been consolidated with a patent infringement case filed by Qualcomm against us in November 2005 described above in the Federal Court for the Southern District of California and the case is covered by the stand down. We are vigorously defending ourselves against these claims.
IPCom
In December 2006, we filed an action in Mannheim, Germany for a declaration that Robert Bosch GmbH was obligated to honor its agreement to grant Nokia a license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Bosch’s patent portfolio was sold to IPCom, and IPCom was joined to the action. Bosch and IPCom counterclaimed against us demanding payment of royalties. We are further seeking a declaration that Bosch is liable for damages caused by the sale of the portfolio in breach of the agreement. Argument was heard in December 2007 and judgment is expected in April 2008.
In December 2007, IPCom filed an action against Nokia in Mannheim, Germany claiming infringement of eight patents. Five of the eight patents are alleged to be essential to standards relating to multimedia messaging services. We are vigorously defending ourselves in these actions.
On the CC, it sounded like IDCC would get the staff report pretty soon. Merritt said that it would be up to Steve Stricker to decide on whether it would be material or not to release an 8-K.
Doesn't it seem like the staff report will be game over for NOK?
NOK tends to do things at the last minute. Like in the ERICY 2G lawsuit, they didn't try to intervene until after the settlement.
Now in the last few weeks they have filed all these actions. Seems like the staff report is what they are afraid of.
What kind of a joke are the NOK lawyers trying to pull? So IDCC cannot participate in the ITC case if NOK wins on that request. But only on the NOK portion - IDCC can still participate in the SAM portion. But the ITC will still proceed with the NOK portion. And even if IDCC can't participate in the NOK portion, it won't matter because IDCC has already presented most of the evidence.
I think the judge should reject NOK's request and sanction them. What a farce.
Thanks jimmylee and enyaw. eom
What caused the sudden drop in the market?
Was that before or after the staff report? I don't think we've seen any filings on behalf of AT&T or any other carriers in the IDCC/NOK ITC case so far. Does that mean they aren't nervous yet?
It appears that Verizon did not get nervous about the QCOM chipset ban until after the ITC made their final ruling in favor of BCOM.
Do you know which handset?
This article says the K850 is available in Canada right now, but will be released in the US soon:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/03/07/s.e.k850.for.att.spotted/
This article says the Z750 might be availble in the spring:
http://crave.cnet.com/8300-1_105-1-0.html?keyword=Sony+Ericsson+Z750
Whenever they are available, IDCC will need some time to reverse engineer them to make sure they infringe on their patents.
Anyone think MOT has agreed to sign a 3G license if the staff rules in favor of IDCC? There must be some kind of agreement, otherwise IDCC might as well have added MOT to the ITC case.
S-E does not yet have any 3G handsets in the US, so that would explain why S-E wasn't added.
Not complaining, I now expect to see an 8-K on the staff ruling.
If IDCC released an 8-K for that, then wouldn't they also release an 8-K for the staff ruling? They made it sound on the CC that they might not.
Wall Street is oblivious to the news. eom
Insider buying doesn't necessarily mean anything.
The CEO of TMA bought $9.5 million worth of TMA stock a few months ago, when the stock was around 10. Now it is 71 cents.
Would the staff need to respond if they agreed with NOK's motion to extend?
Does anyone know if these extensions will affect the March 24 date? Can the staff issue their decision on Mar 24 even if the ALJ grants the extension?
Didn't QCOM wait all the way until the end in their ITC case against Broadcom, before they finally had an injunction slapped on their chipset?
It reflects on their management ability if every year they have to say "we didn't meet all of our goals."
William J. Merritt
With respect to the top five, I think that certainly what’s public is the litigation activity with Nokia and Samsung and the timetables associated with that litigation activity. And certainly, if you looked at statistics you’d say, okay, these are the type of things as they get to certain points in time in those litigations that they’re more likely than not to settle. I mean you can’t predict the outcome of any particular case.
And I can tell you that with respect to those issues, we have a good level of dialogue ongoing. I think that at least certainly in one instance, I think there’s a reasonable attempt by the parties to try to come up with a structure. As I’ve often mentioned, these are difficult negotiations involving very significant sums of money. So the resolutions don’t come easy. But I do see initiative on both sides to try to work something. So I think that that’s a positive thing.
Our activity, Bill, though, is not just limited to these folks that we’re in litigation against. We have discussions ongoing with others as well. I think that the litigation can incentivize not only the parties in the litigation but can incentivize parties outside the litigation, because certainly positive results for us in those litigations, we can use them as leverage in negotiations with the parties that are not in the litigations.
So, I think both Scott and I are pretty upfront with respect to 2008 being a year I think we can deliver some high-quality deals. I think everything and the investments we made last year certainly are positioning us for that. We have those at the end of the day, but I think our positioning really couldn’t be much better at this point.
WM: "No surprise our principle goal for 2008 is completing licensing the top five handset manufacturers."
He didn't say licensing one or two of the top five. He said licensing all of them.
No, it was on Oct 24. From the 10-K:
On October 24, 2007, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, the Administrative Law Judge overseeing the two USITC proceedings against Samsung and Nokia, respectively, issued an Order to consolidate the two pending investigations.
olddog, are there any stats on how often the ALJ makes a ruling that is contrary to the preliminary staff determination?
On February 25, 2008, Samsung filed a motion to stay their appeal, and vacate the current briefing schedule, pending the outcome of the Samsung 3rd Arbitration (described below). The Company intends to oppose Samsung’s motion.
More attempts at delay. When does the madness stop???
Thanks revlis. So the first motion to consolidate was filed on Oct 5. Merritt mentioned that the 2 licenses would be signed in the fourth quarter or early 2008 during the CC on Oct 31. At that time he would have known that the SAM ITC case might be consolidated and pushed back, so I don't think SAM is one of the 2 licenses he was talking about.
Are you saying the appeal won't be stayed? We were hoping that SAM and IDCC are in serious negotiations now.
On what date did Nokia and Samsung first file to have their ITC cases consolidated?
Never mind. eom
Your post said they want to stay the appeal. That is different from withdrawing the appeal. But let's hear from the lawyers.
Stay the appeal? That could not happen without agreement from IDCC. And IDCC would only agree if a 3G license was about to be signed.
21 THE COURT: I want to hear if he's as optimistic as
22 you as to whether May is when there could be a resolution with
23 the third arbitration.
24 MR. FLANAGAN: I'll address that first.
25 Just to clarify, the hearing in Samsung II was in
1 January 2006. The decision was issued at the end of August
2 2006. Also, just by way of clarification, perhaps, in Samsung
3 III, the schedule is such is that February there is a hearing
4 date on a threshold issue about whether Samsung is even
5 entitled to elect the Nokia settlement. If and only if they
6 win on that issue we'll go to a third stage, which dates have
7 not yet been set.
8 The other comment I'd make about timing is that
9 Mr. Healey cites the ICC rule that you're supposed to get a
10 decision within six months of the terms of reference, but we
11 have already seen extensions to the schedule. We have seen
12 extensions in all of the Samsung arbitrations. Maybe not
13 Samsung I, but Samsung II there were certainly extensions. As
14 time requires, the ICC simply extends it. So it's quite right
15 that the six months is not a hard cap. We don't even know
16 where the time will run from, when the matter is submitted.
17 Certainly, if we win on this next stage 2 in February,
18 that will be the end of it, but short -- once we get a
19 decision. Short of that, what Mr. Healey is hoping for, there
20 will definitely have to be proceedings later on. In fact -- I
21 take it back. If we prevail in part 2, there will still be a
22 part 3 to determine exactly how much Samsung owes us for 2006.
23 Because as the Court may recall in Samsung II, the panel
24 ordered a rate table for 2006 but didn't have their actual
25 sales data for 2006. So that's a matter that still needs to be
1 determined because they obviously haven't paid us.
2 THE COURT: That's an issue before the Samsung III
3 panel.
4 MR. FLANAGAN: We have brought that in as being for
5 phase 3 of the proceedings.
They should be disgusted. They are already overwhelmed with cases as it is, and now NOK is trying to keep them from doing their job with all these motions.
They have 6 more weeks to fulfill their "early next year" projection. At least one more license has to be announced. You would think that the declaration of essential patents by the UK would help move the process along.