InterDigital Inc (IDCC): j70k: As you say the Delaware action wa...

Reply Private New

Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Send PM Follow Ignore

Followers	81
Posts	12240
Boards Moderated	0
Alias Born	09/28/2003

olddog967

Re: j70k post# 151249

Friday, 04/07/2006 9:39:06 PM

Friday, April 07, 2006 9:39:06 PM

j70k: As you say the Delaware action was in regard to 3G. Nokia's Lanham Act part of the claim, in effect was that IDCC stated that they had essential patents for the standards and that companies that manufactured products using these standards would be infringing on these patents. Nokia then stated that IDCC's essentiality claims were false, and that these claims hurt their business. While the patents in the UK Court action that have been discussed only relate to 2 and 2.5G, a ruling that these patents are essential IMO would appear to help support the validity of IDCC's general statements that they have essential patents.

I thought the Delaware action was regarding 3g, but now the Lanham Act complaint could be regarding the two patents being decided as essential or non essential by an English Judge? I thought the 2g challenge in England was merely to influence the arbitration, and any decision made over there could only help IDCC, not hurt it. This is worse than figuring out what the definition of "is" is.