InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

loophole: You commented that:

"He did say that if IDCC properly pleads and proves that Nok and the rest of the sector routinely over declare, then he would have to consider denying relief requested by Nok. Some variation of the "clean hands" doctrine would be invoked. However, it is not enough to allege habit and custom of the industry. They will have to identify the patents Nok declared that are not essential under an identified standard."


The recent 10-K had the following summary of the UK court cases. Would the Dec 2006 action initiated by IDCC be a step in having the case thrown out?

In July 2005, Nokia filed a claim in the English High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court against ITC seeking a Declaration that thirty-one of ITC’s UMTS European Patents registered in the UK are not essential IPR for the 3GPP Standard. Trial in this action is scheduled for fourth quarter 2007. In December 2006, ITC filed a claim in the same court against Nokia seeking a Declaration that thirty-five of Nokia’s UMTS European/UK Patents registered in the UK are not essential IPR for the 3GPP Standard. Nokia has issued an application to strike out (i.e. dismiss), or alternatively to stay, this action. This application will be vigorously opposed by ITC.