InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[sjratty]

It's a little bit of leap. I assume that Nokia is considering the following argument:

1) our contract with IDCC covers patents A through D.

2) In the IDCC/ERICY case, patents A-D (or some subset thereof) were found invalid or not infringed by E.

3) Thus, any settlement with ERICY involved other patents (say E-G). Therefore, the ERICY settlement does not trigger the MFL clause because it involves other patents.

I think this argument, based on my limited knowledge of the issue due to sealed docs, is not a strong one.

As I understand it, Nokia's other (and probably stronger) arguments are (1) collusion and (2) ERICY was not a major manufacturer at the time of the agreement. The first argument I think also is not very strong. The second argument COULD be very strong, depending on what the contract says. I understand that it lists ERICY as a trigger company, but one example of how that may not mean much is if the contract says the MFL clause is tied to the license of another major manufacturer, which CURRENTLY includes ERICY, etc..... Interestingly, this second issue does NOT require any docs from the IDCC/ERICY case to resolve