Regarding the one day delay by IDCC in announcing the decision, maybe the court system was the cause rather than IDCC. Apparently there was some administrative error in processing the paperwork, and the signing date was changed to December 4. IDCC was probably made aware of the error and had to wait until the new document was signed.
12/05/2007 57 ORDER: The Court hereby advises the parties to this action that, due to technical error in converting the document to the appropriate format for electronic docketing purposes, the copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated December 3, 2007 that appears in the original, hard-copy version of the Memorandum & Order. Specifically, the final sentence of page twenty has been omitted from the docketed version dated December 3, 2007. In order to correct this omission, the Court has signed and docketed another copy of the Memorandum & Order, dated December 4, 2007, which contains the entirety of the Court's original decision. The Court notes that, other than changing the dates on pages one and twenty-one to accurately reflect the signing date, it has not made any substantive changes to the text of the Memorandum & Order since December 3, 2007, but has only reformatted the document in order to include the entirety of the decision on the electronic docket sheet. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 12/4/07) (tro) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
12/05/2007 58 (DUPLICATE) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, re: 57 - Interdigital's petition to confirm the Award is GRANTED. Samsung's cross-petition to vacate the Award is DENIED. Samsung's motion to stay enforcement of the Award pending resolution of the Samsung III Arbitration is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 12/4/07) (tro) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
