InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[postyle]

It will be interesting to read NOK's arguments against apportionment in the Apple vs VHC case (NOK has filed an amicus brief in support of NOT apportioning a royalty base).

As NOK is transitioning from manufacturer to NPE, it seems it has a fine line to tiptoe across before all the dust settles.

Court of Appeals Docket #: 13-1489

10/30/2014 83 MOTION of Nokia Corporation and Nokia USA Inc. for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. Response/Opposition is due 11/13/2014 {Consent: unopposed}. Service: 10/30/2014 by email. {194151}

10/30/2014 84 Open Restricted Document TENDERED from Nokia Corporation and Nokia USA Inc. Title: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF. Service: 10/30/2014 by email. {194152}

10/30/2014 85 Open Restricted Document TENDERED from Nokia Corporation and Nokia USA Inc. Title: CORRECTED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF. Service: 10/30/2014 by email. {194154}

While the briefs above (Doc #84 and corrected brief Doc #85) are locked, the motion from NOK (Doc #83) is not locked.

Here it is: Doc 83: MOTION of Nokia Corporation and Nokia USA Inc. for leave to file an amicus curiae brief (PDF file, 10 pages)

STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici are Nokia Corporation and Nokia USA Inc. (“Nokia”). Nokia is a leading innovator in the telecommunications industry. Nokia has cumulatively invested over $64 billion in research and development relating to mobile communications, and as a result of this commitment, currently owns more than 10,000 patent families. Nokia was one of the largest manufacturers of wireless handsets for many years, and continues to invest heavily in research and development, and to license and expand its industry-leading patent portfolio. For example, Nokia’s recently formed Technologies business unit continues to develop and license innovations that are powering the next revolution in computing and mobility: the “programmable world” where intelligent connections bring millions of everyday objects online. This work includes a team of experts in areas including imaging and sensing, wireless connectivity and power management, advanced materials, and others.

Nokia has been involved in numerous patent cases in U.S. district courts, both as a plaintiff and a defendant, including cases where monetary damages in the form of a reasonable royalty were sought by or against Nokia. Nokia is a significant patent owner that might seek or defend against monetary damages, including reasonably royalties, for patent infringement in U.S. district courts, and thus the appropriate legal standards governing this remedy and their application to cases involving monetary damages may be at issue.

Nokia’s interest in this case is to advocate for the appropriate statement and application of equitable and legal standards governing the calculations, expert testimony and methodologies, and other evidence behind a reasonably royalty and/or other damages analysis, including in particular the standards and burdens of proof a patentee must meet to establish such damages. Companies such as Nokia must be assured that their past, present, and future substantial research and development efforts are properly protectable, and that upon an appropriate showing they are able to be properly compensated for unauthorized use of their patented technologies. Although Nokia does not take any ultimate position on the facts of this specific case, Nokia agrees with Appellant to the extent that Appellant argues that the Federal Circuit panel committed certain errors in its statement and application of the Court’s jurisprudence relating to reasonable royalty calculations and reliable methods of determining said damages.

DESIRABILITY AND RELEVANCY OF THE BRIEF

The Federal Circuit’s ruling requiring patentees to show evidence of apportionment in a royalty base, even if the smallest sealable unit is used, in order to obtain monetary damages has far reaching consequences that could have a negative effect on this country’s patent protection landscape. In effect, the Federal Circuit’s ruling has reduced the ability for a patentee to prove and obtain a reasonable royalty as minimum compensation for infringement, thereby devaluing patents and stifling innovation.

The accompanying amici brief explains these practical implications from the perspective of a well-recognized and long-term innovator in the wireless telecommunications industry. The brief further illustrates how the heightened requirements applied by the Federal Circuit run counter to its own precedent as well as the legislative history and intent of Congress.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, amici respectfully request that this Court grant this motion for leave to file the attached brief. A proposed order is attached.

DATED: October 30, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

By: Ryan W. Koppelman
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Nokia Corporation and Nokia USA Inc.