InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

techinvestor/ellis: Thanks for you effort. Nokia’s expert witness, Lanning, was the same expert that testified for Samsung. I’d assume that his basic testimony was the same given during the Samsung hearing, but with the questions and the cross being revised based on the lawyers perception of how things went during the Samsung hearing. For those interested in the technical details, Lanning’s previous testimony and cross are contained in the following three transcripts .

5th day - Mon 7/14
http://edisweb.usitc.gov/edismirror/337-601/Violation/305260/373728/126b/9cc79b.pdf

http://edisweb.usitc.gov/edismirror/337-601/Violation/305260/373729/1268/9cc798.pdf

http://edisweb.usitc.gov/edismirror/337-601/Violation/305260/373730/126c/9cc79c.pdf

As I previously posted, from what I remembered, prior references to the Lucas papers being made public were about some German university library, and that IDCC’s concern was about the date it was made public. I finally found the reference that I was referring to. As part of Lanning’s previous testmony, Samsung requested that a Declaration of Angelika Hagemann, of the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB), University of Hamburg, be entered into evidence (RX-2813). This document (a letter) apparently discussed when the Lucas document was received and entered into the library’s system. IDCC's lawyer considered this point to be very pertinent regarding prior art and strongly objected to the inclusion of the document into evidence, but the ALJ overruled the objection. The discussion regarding the document is at pages 2302-2318 of the last transcript noted above.
Was any reference to this document made during the hearing?