j70k: I would assume that since Nokia was the plaintiff it is up to them to prove their claims. The problem is I am sure that they can find "experts" to support their claim of non-essentiality. Therefore, IDCC has to come up with their own "experts" to support their declarations.
What you have to understand, is that the standards boards do not approve the essentiality of ipr. Simply stated, all the boards do when discussing a proposed standard, is to require that company personnel who are involved in the discussions state that they believe that they have essential patents that will be necessary in order to implement the proposed standard. The company is then required to put in writing that they will license the patent(s) at fair and reasonable rates. In essense, it is the company not the standards board who has determined that they have a patent that is essential. Therefore, whether this declaration is actually true or not can be subject to a later challenge
In a Lanham claim is the burden of proof on Nok to prove the patents are not essential or does IDCC have to prove they are essential? Since the Lanham claims regard 3g essentiality, I thought IDCC was a member of the board that determines the standards to be used and approves essentiality of ipr.If this isn't the case then in essence, any company can be forced to prove that their technology is essential to the standard, whether or not it is being used. Sounds like one big word game where facts become secondary-if you use it then it's essential, if you don't then it's not.
