InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 164
Posts 6362
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/02/2003

Re: whizzeresq post# 92026

Thursday, 01/20/2005 1:37:38 PM

Thursday, January 20, 2005 1:37:38 PM

Post# of 433225
whizzer

I believe that IDCC needs to hit Nok with all it has at its disposal. IDCC took a real gamble by not including a covenant not to challenge clause with respect to the licensed technolgy. As you know, these clauses survive the original license prohibiting the licensee from challenging even after the expiration. They now have the leading producer in the sector announcing loudly that they will not renew their license with IDCC and further are attempting to invalidate as a licensee the 18 foundational patents claimed as essential for 3g. This is an obvious ploy to keep the unlicensed at status quo and encourage the licensees not to renew in an effort to place IDCC in the same position they found themselves in the Mot trial. Nok wants IDCC to be asserting a lot of claims without any ratification by companies in the sector. Further, just in case Nok turns out to be the indemnifier, IDCC really has to unload on them. Deceptive Trade, RICO, Business Disparagement and others would be a good start on a list of counterclaims. This litigation cannot be taken lightly or as just a mere patent dispute. This is an effort to close IDCC as a technology center and IDCC needs to fight like its life depended on it.

MO
loop

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent IDCC News