Expected IDCC reply brief to Nok motion ...
IDCC's Reply brief will probably include the following points:
* The contract with Nok has an arbitration cluase and all disputes, including discovery should be referred to arbitration;
* Nok has no standing in the Ericy/IDCC litigation and also their request is not timely, so the motion to unseal should be denied;
* IDCC insiders routinely sell portions of their stock holdings and all such stock sales are in accordance with all applicable laws;
* Nok by their own admission, were in "negotiations" (i.e. not arbitration nor litigation) with IDCC to set their royalty rates and the statement to the court that there was no other litigation dependent upon the Ericy litigation was true;
* Nok had many alternative methods to decide the rotyalty rate with IDCC and it was Nok's exclusive option to trigger their royalty rates based on the Ericy/IDCC license. Accordingly, Nok's representation that it had an absolute dependency on the Ericy/IDCC license is false;
* Since the litigation was settled, then the case file amounts to a private negotiation between Ericy and IDCC and any interlocutory rulings are now moot, irrelevant, and not enforceable. Therefore, all the sealed documents should remain private.
* The cases cited by Nok are not applicable because ...;
* The only and proper course for Nok to resolve any and all license disputes with IDCC is via arbitration.
For all these reasons, IDCC requests the court to deny Nok's motion to unseal documents.
I will be disappointed if the Reply brief does not make these and other important points in a compelling presentation to the court to deny Nok's outrageous request.
Regards,
Corp_Buyer
