"IDCC actually appealing the PSJ ruled by Judge Sanders?" - No, IDCC cannot argue the merits of the PSJs since their right to do so was forfeit by IDCC when the original time lapsed for that appeal and they neglected to make the settlement dependent upon the Court's action to vacate the PSJs.
What is under appeal now is Nok's level of intervention granted by the Court (Judge Lynn) and the ability of the Court to reinstate the PSJs, given all of the circumstances and the law.
I have emailed Pacer 785 (filed July 19, 2004) to Jim for possible posting which states the 5 specific issues on appeal. The merits of the PSJs is not an issue on appeal.
We are hoping that the trial Judge allowed Nok too much intervention, and if that is reversed, then Nok's resulting right to move for the reinstatement, since it depended on their level of intervention, should also be logically reversed.
If Nok's level of intervention is upheld, then there is still a chance that the reinstatement of the PSJs may be reversed if the court acted in error to grant Nok's motion and reinstating the PSJs.
Having the PSJs vacated (again) is of prime importance to IDCC, since that was obviously a key objective in the settlement.
Unfortunately, the way IDCC and F&J went about the original vacation of the PSJs was, by their mistake, not permanent and this mistake may have been a negligent failure, IMO.
Anyway, their incompetent mistake (i.e. ignorance of the Bankcorp precedent) in effecting the Ericy/SE settlement is now costing IDCC dearly in terms of damage to IDCC's IPR portfolio, expenses to try to reverse this error, and possibly in other licensing initiatives and the Nok arbitration.
Of course, as I am not an attorney, the above is all my business oriented reading of the legal filings.
All JMHO,
Corp_Buyer
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
