InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Corp_Buyer]

Nok states: "In fact..F&J firm..obtained and no doubt studied a copy of the confidential Patent License Agreement between IDCC and NOK. In light of their preexisting knowledge of the importance of their settlement to NOK..." - apparently, NOK will assert that since F&J had "preexisting knowledge" of the NOK license, their was also intent (and action) on the part of IDCC (and perhaps Ericy) to unjustly harm NOK by their settlement.

Of course IDCC had knowledge of the NOK license, so why shouldn't their counsel, F&J? Also, NOK does not state that Ericy had any knowledge of the NOK license. And, Ericy has stated that they did not know and NOK did not inform them about NOK's license details (specifically any dependency on Ericy).

So, it seems to me that NOK has a very long way to go to prove any malicious intent and action by IDCC and even any knowledge (of the Nok license) by Ericy.

MO,
Corp_Buyer