InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[techinvester]

IDCC/Nokia ITC Friday session part 2

A Nokia witness was sworn in so that IDCC could question the witness. I am assuming the witness presented yesterday but IDCC did not get a chance to question the witness. Sorry, I could barely hear the name of the witness but it sounded something like Dr. Motahli. IDCC stated to the judge that the witness was a late addition to the witness list and they had objected to the addition of the witness. IDCC requested to use an “adverse direct” of the witness. Legal eagles please chime in on exactly what this means. The IDCC lawyer (Coyne) then asked multiple specific questions (my opinion – seemed to be leading the witness to get specific points across) The witness said he worked on RACE research in advance communication in Europe starting in 1989 and joined Nokia in 1992 working in Helsinki. He said he attended 6-7 RACE work shops and presented at 4 of the work shops. (I assumed the work shops were conferences) The discussion next focused on the May 14th 1994 work shop. The witness wrote a paper for the workshop. He also said that he and other colleagues when they wrote the papers were careful to keep confidential information out of the papers. The IDCC lawyer asked if any Americans attended the work shop. The witness said he was only aware of Professor Goodman as the only American attending the conference. Based on the interaction between the witness and the lawyer apparently the professor worked with Nokia. The witness said he received a book at the conference (I assumed this was a collection of papers presented at the conference). He said the book was added to the Nokia library. A Nokia catalog item was displayed for the book added to the Nokia library. The catalog item did not make any reference to the Lucas paper. A point was also made that the Nokia library did not have a catalog item for the Lucas paper. The witness was asked if he ever read the Lucas paper. He said he did not believe he had read the Lucas paper. The IDCC lawyer then asked if the Nokia library was open to the public. Response was no. Summary of the rest of the discussion was that you had to be a Nokia employee to get into the library and the library/building was protected by a Nokia guard. Ellis and I were then sent out of the court room.

My opinion of the above questioning was to make the point that there “appeared” to be no direct reference to the Lucas paper based on the Nokia cataloging of the work shop document, no catalog entry of the Lucas paper in the Nokia library and that the workshop was only attended by Professor Goodman who performed some work for Nokia. i.e If the Lucas paper was/is prior art it was not readily available. I have no idea what was said on the previous days relative to the Lucas paper or during the confidential times when we were kicked out but I thought Coyne did a nice job of pointing out that the paper was not easily identified and if discussed at the work shop that only 1 American attended the conference. He also made the point that even the witness had not believed he had read the Lucas paper.