InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[walldiver]

<<Hope you can explain to me! I always thought that an essential patent was one that was embedded in the technology and was used in every 3G phone manufactured. Pretty sure it has been stated here before that neither of those 2 patents(1 conceded,1 found by English courts to be essential) are involved in the Samsung case, why not.>>

I thought that NOK had cherry-picked IDCC's declared essential patent portfolio and used what NOK believed were the legally weakest 30 or so of those patents, then filed suit in the UK to declare those patents non-essential (or maybe even invalid).

In the USA Intl Trade Commission cases against Sammy and NOK, wasn't it IDCC that chose the particular essential patents (some of the strongest patents legally) to include in the ITC cases? To me, that would be the biggest difference between the UK and the USA-ITC cases. Not only that, but I thought that IDCC tried to include in the USA-ITC Sammy case the one patent in the UK case that Judge Pumfrey ruled essential. Not sure if IDCC succeeded.