InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[The Count]

An important point I missed

NOK replied that there were 3 reasons for wanting access: 1) the PSJs are needed for arbitration because it is not just “fill in the blanks”, there are issues about what a patent scope is including the “single base station” argument; 2) they might discover reasons that the court erred in vacating the PSJs and they want to find justification for the court to reverse the PSJs; and 3) there is a lot more in the sealed documents that might limit the scope of IDCC’s patents.

Somehow when I read that earlier it did not register with me. My belief was that the Phase II contract was done and once a trigger company signed the rate was set. I thought that by using selected companies the assumption was that they would reach a fair market rate based on all the information, including the relative strength of the various patents. However, Nokia is asserting that the contract includes reference to patent scope for setting the rate. If Nokia's representation is accurate, then we could be going back to square one, which would be depressing as hell. I hope that Nokia is not correct on this point, but I now understand what Shallow Mind was saying when he pointed out my earlier post may have been more hopeful than objective.

My continued thanks to JKJ, Chartex, Ghors, L2V, RMarchma and many others who share their knowledge and hard work with us.