lastchoice: That is how I read these two paragraphs, and why I thought it was important. However as has been stated it is a complicated ruling and I may be misinterpreting it. I think Justice Pumphrey is finding that the case is a lot more complicated than the previous statement that “You take the standard, you take the patents, you take the definition of "essential" and you see whether there is any way around or not. ” LOL
97. Mr. Watson has satisfied me very much against my initial impression that this result has not been achieved, mainly, I think, as a result of the use of the word "therefore" in the Nokia pleading, coupled with the failure of the order to impose any obligation to deal with the individual features of the claims; in fact, the order tried to do too much. It might be better to require Nokia to plead expressly to InterDigital's contention that such-and-such an apparatus or method was essential and require InterDigital to plead an answer to that, including the case, if any, that it wished to advance on the footing that Nokia was correct about the requirements of the standard.
98.
99. There is force in Mr. Thorley's submission that all this would be gone into in the preparation of the experts' reports, but it would be possible on these pleadings to find InterDigital with a strong submission at trial that no analysis of the patents was necessary having regard to the way in which Nokia's case had been advanced in its statement of case. In principle, it seems to me important to know whether Nokia has any case on the assumption that InterDigital's contentions in its statement of case as to the relevant contents of the standard are correct and to know what InterDigital has to say if Nokia is correct.
100.
loop, did you sense the judge shifted some emphasis to nok to specify their position and idcc to then defend, (being defendants), vs. his push to have idcc specify first?
l
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
