the form 8 follows
nothing wrong in mho
In connection with the arbitration involving Nokia Corporation's (Nokia) patentlicense agreement with InterDigital Communications Corporation (Company) andInterDigital Technology Corporation (ITC) (as most recently reported in theCompany's Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003), Nokia sought tohave reinstated certain reports, recommendations, and orders previously vacatedby the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas)in the now-settled litigation of Ericsson, Inc. v. InterDigital CommunicationsCorporation and InterDigital Technology Corporation. The Ericsson litigation wasresolved by the parties in March 2003.
On June 8, 2004, the United States District Court entered an order reinstatingcertain reports, recommendations, and orders (which remain under seal) relatingto, among other things, claim construction and non-infringement of certain ITCpatents by certain Ericsson products. As previously reported by the Company inits Form 8-K filed June 4, 2002, the Company believed that none of the rulingshad a material impact on the relief that the Company was seeking in the Ericssonlitigation.
Nokia's request to reinstate certain reports, recommendations, and orders wasbased on Nokia's assertion that such reports, recommendations, and orders arerelevant to the issues to be decided in the Nokia arbitration matter. Nokiaoriginally made claims in the Nokia arbitration requesting that the arbitrationpanel make specific findings of invalidity and/or non-infringement of ITCpatents (some of which were involved in the Ericsson litigation). Nokiasubsequently withdrew such claims. Nokia continues to maintain in the Nokiaarbitration, however, that both the validity and Nokia's infringement of the ITCpatents (including patents involved in the Ericsson litigation) are factors thearbitration panel should consider in determining Nokia's royalty liability underthe patent license agreement. The Company continues to assert in the Nokiaarbitration that issues of patent validity and infringement are not relevant tothe arbitrable royalty dispute. The Company intends to vigorously contest anyNokia position to the contrary in the arbitration.
The United States District Court's June 8, 2004 order does not have any effecton the March 2003 resolution of the litigation with Ericsson or the patentlicense agreements signed by Ericsson and Sony Ericsson in March 2003.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, theRegistrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by theundersigned hereunto duly authorized.
tight lines
malko
AI
