MORE ON NOKIA MOTION--After reading Nokia's Motion and Memorandum, it appears clear to me that one of Nokia's goals was to punish IDCC's share price and management. Nokia clearly states that they want access to the Court's rulings on IDCC's patents to use in Nokia's dispute with IDCC. However, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, those rulings on IDCC's patents have no legal effect because the case was dismissed.
"Rule 54 (b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties.
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action. . . the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however desgnated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties."
In the IDCC/Ericy case, no final judgment entered on the summary judgment motion because it did not resolve the entire case. Therefore, that ruling could have been changed at at any time. By filing their stipulation of dismissal of the entire case with prejudice upon settlement, IDCC rendered those previous rulings a nullity. Also, it appears that IDCC and Ericy filed an agreed-upon motion to vacate all of those decisions. The docket does not show whether the judge agreed, but I do not think that the judge even had to because of Rule 54(b).
Moreover, in a federal case, a partial summary judgment ruling on a patent claim that was never entered as a final judgment cannot be used by a third party to later challenge that patent. That is because there was no final judgment entered by the court on the patent that the losing party could have appealed to the Federal Circuit. A problem is that arbitration is different than the federal court and there effectively is no appeal if a party believes that the arbitrators applied the wrong law. Therefore, Nokia may want access to the court's earlier rulings in an effort to convince the arbitrators that some of the patents are invalid because of the summary judgment rulings--even though that would not be a valid legal argument to raise if the Nokia/IDCC dispute were in federal court instead of arbitration. However, since those early rulings are now null, I hope the judge sees through Nokia's intentions and does not release the summary judgment decision.
It seems that Nokia clearly punished IDCC's stock in two ways. First, Nokia's reference to the insider sales after IDCC's management publically emphasized Nokia's substantial financial obligation as a result of the Ericy settlement, clearly gives the impression that IDCC's management pumped the stock and sold into the rally. Second, Nokia's reference to the summary judgment decision that went against IDCC with the suggestion that Nokia would now use it to try to challenge IDCC's patents, created uncertainty in investor's minds. I'm sure the legacy of Motorola, then the lengthy Ericy case and now Nokia made many think "Here we go again" and sold out.
Whether IDCC's management acted professionally and responsibly by immediately stressing in public IDCC's view of Nokia's obligations that resulted from the Ericy settlement instead of first providing Nokia with an opportunity to review the implications of the Ericy settlement will be a subject for debate. Perhaps, if IDCC's management had first sent a letter to Nokia, notifying Nokia of the Ericy settlement, had provided Nokia with the amount that IDCC believed Nokia owed, and then had entered into negotiations with Nokia before going public, we might have had a different result. The result would be no worse than where the stock is currently priced. Clearly, the initial reaction to the Ericy settlement without the projected Nokia payments would not have pushed the stock to 27. But relations, perhaps, would be better with Nokia, and management would not have given Nokia the opportunity to file a motion in federal court which clearly paints the impression that IDCC management pumped the stock and then sold into the rally.
AI
