InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

IDCCfan: I didn't say that Nokia/Microsoft's mobile phones weren't infringing IDCC patents; in fact, I stated they were probably infringing. The problem is, that until a court finds that there was infringement, just stating or think it doesn't count.

IDCC's option when a company refuses to sign is to file an infringement action. They took that action by filing several infringement suits against Nokia at the ITC, with companion suits filed in a District Court. As we know, the ITC suits were unsuccessful, and except for the case involving the'244 patent at the Delaware District Court, all the District court cases were dropped

As to why Nokia/Microsoft didn't license while other firms did, whether one or both parties was at fault we will probably never know unless someone writes a detailed history of all the negotiations. Here are a couple of examples where negotiations apparently broke down.

On March 24, 2008 IDCC issued an 8-K stating that: “Nokia Corporation and InterDigital are in settlement discussions and have made substantial progress towards resolution of all disputes between them. “

The next day, March 25, Nokia’s CFO, R, Simonson, said in an interview that he was “a little less optimistic than the market implied
yesterday,’' and that ``We always prefer to settle, but we will defend ourselves when
the facts are with us.’'

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=27914160&txt2find=Simonson

————-

According to Microsoft’s anti trust filing:


“In January 2013, Nokia tendered to InterDigital a check for $25 million. That payment was more than sufficient to cover Nokia’s past and future U.S. sales through January 1, 2014 at the running royalty rate that InterDigital was then demanding for past sales on a worldwide basis. Likewise, in January 2015, Microsoft tendered to InterDigital a check in the amount of $28.5 million. That payment was more than sufficient to cover Microsoft’s and Nokia’s past U.S. sales through at least the end of 2014 at the royalty rate that InterDigital had demanded for past worldwide sales.”

In both instances, InterDigital refused to accept payment, apparently because the proposed payments only covered past US sales, while IDCC wanted payments to cover world wide sales.