"Bancorp case is not binding precedent unless it was a Supreme Court case" - it was a Supreme court case. I emailed Pacer 768 to Jim, which is Nok's motion for reinstating the PSJs and citing of Bancorp.
The fact that it is a Supreme Court case precedent makes F&J's negligence in disregarding it all the more upsetting.
As for "Judge Barefoot Sanders refused to apply collateral estoppel in favor of Ericy when it tried to use the Motorola precedent against IDCC in the Ericy lawsuit" - yes, that was a major due diligence concern of mine before investing in IDCC and I became comfortable with it after reading a ruling by Sanders (unfortunately, not in my records currently) that as I recall listed about 12 reasons why the Ericy case should proceed. The one that sticks in my mind was to the effect of "that was Mot equipment and this is Ericy equipment".
It seems the issues of "standard", "essential", "compliant", etc. come into play. If Ericy won a ruling of non-infringement combined with their continued assertions of non-infringement and non-uniqueness, well, that is my concern.
And, in reading the UK draft rulings, these are the issues in question over there. If Nok prevails in the US on the PSJs and in the UK, then we may see more of Nok's strategy yet to unfold.
I am not disagreeing with you that IDCC has arguments to make, I just think there is a lot more to Nok's strategy yet to unfold and these issues are pieces of the puzzle, not the entire picture.
In any case, our legal system is not perfect, and Nok is very strategic in all their actions, so we need to be careful not to underestimate the potential harm of these battles to IDCC.
And in response to Mscere's question "We should anticipate Nokia making an appearance March 7 for oral argument?" - yes, I would expect IDCC to be present in opposition to Nok (and the trial Court) and for Nok to be present arguing in favor of Nok (and the trial Court).
IDCC's arguments may go like this:
* The intervention was untimely and improper
* Bancorp does not apply
* Prejudice in reinstating the PSJs
* IDCC never lied to the court
* Nok chose to be an interested party by their option under the license
* No collusion against Nok
* Harm to IDCC
* Etc.
While Nok will argue:
* IDCC lied to the court (about no interested 3rd parties)
* The intervention was proper and the trial court ruled properly to allow it
* Bancorp applies and the trial court ruled properly in vacating the PSJs
* IDCC forfeited their right to keep the PSJs vacated per Bancorp
* Public interest in clearly and publically defining the extent and limitations of IDCC's patent monopoly
* Etc.
All MO,
Corp_Buyer
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
