The ALJ set our gasoline soaked paper suit on fire. So now Merritt can clarify these comments from the last conference call better. Valid patents but not infringed. We better check the folks who did the reverse engineering.
"It is also important to understand, that an unfavorable decision in the Nokia case, while certainly not expected, would not change our goal of licensing the entire 3G market or represent a significant impediment in reaching that goal. Let me tell you why, in simple terms.
First the patents in this case again represent just a small portion of our 3G portfolio. In discussions with prospective licensees, we use many more patents that are relevant to 3G products. So even if there was an adverse decision, we have ample patents to rely on reaching acceptable resolutions with unlicensed companies including Nokia. These other patents include new 3G patents issued since the ITC proceeding was commenced.
Second, the judicial process is very useful in understanding how to evolve our licensing programs and our approach to protecting our intellectual property. And in fact, it helps us understand any vulnerabilities of the patent in terms of Prior R ambiguous terms among others. The patent system also allows for the refinement of patent claims in response to Prior R and claim construction issues. Therefore, we as innovators have the opportunity to secure new patents that overcome any issues that maybe raised in the ITC action. While not guaranteed, my experience has been, that patents secured with the benefit of a judicial decision are stronger and more compelling in a licensing context.
So in sum, I believe we will win the ITC case against Nokia. However, whether we do or not, we’ll have no impact on our company, our business, or our bright future; we have the resources, financial strength, patents and creative energies to secure licenses with all manufacturers of 3G products, and we intend to do so; all that bodes very well for the company.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
