Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:00:28 AM
"took away a potentially valuable property right from IDCC (right to appeal the decision on PSJ)and left them with no meaningful remedy to protect themselves or their IP" - this is a truly facinating discussion tonight!
Ghors, you may be disregarding the concept of "forfeit" by IDCC of the right to appeal (i.e. not a right that was taken away from IDCC).
The Supreme Court, the Bancorp decision, Nok, and Judge Lynn all suggest that IDCC forfeited its right to appeal the PSJs by choosing to settle instead of appealing the adverse PSJs, and then IDCC proactively chose not to make the settlement directly dependent on the Court's action to vacate the PSJs.
According to Bancorp, by IDCC merely requesting the court to vacate, rather than linking the settlement to the vacatur, IDCC CHOSE to make the vacatur incidental, and not integral, to the settlement.
According to Judge Lynn et. al., IDCC proactively left the door open to reinstatement of the previsouly vacated PSJs by their own actions i.e. forfeit. That was an unfortunate and perhaps negligent error by IDCC and F&J IMO. So it seems this may not be a slam dunk reversal of the reinstatement IMO.
However, I do agree with you that the odds seem fairly good of reversing Nok's intervention, in which case the reinstatement must also be logically reversed, even without reviewing the merits of Nok's motion to reinstate in light of Bancorp.
In the worst case, Nok prevails on both key issues on appeal i.e. intervention and reinstatement, which is a realistic possibility.
I will put IDCC's odds of success on this appeal at 50/50 of having the adverse PSJs re-vacated one way or another. These odds are up significantly from the base odds of ~10% for all appeals.
Still, even with a 50% chance of success of reversing the reinstatement, I am livid at our management and F&J for giving us this costly risk to our key assets, when it could have been EASILY avoided altogether, simply by effecting the vacatur and settlement in such a way as to make the vacatur permanent and not subject to reinstatement.
And this is only one of many very significant and costly key mistakes attributable to our current management team in dealing with Nok.
MO,
Corp_Buyer
Ghors, you may be disregarding the concept of "forfeit" by IDCC of the right to appeal (i.e. not a right that was taken away from IDCC).
The Supreme Court, the Bancorp decision, Nok, and Judge Lynn all suggest that IDCC forfeited its right to appeal the PSJs by choosing to settle instead of appealing the adverse PSJs, and then IDCC proactively chose not to make the settlement directly dependent on the Court's action to vacate the PSJs.
According to Bancorp, by IDCC merely requesting the court to vacate, rather than linking the settlement to the vacatur, IDCC CHOSE to make the vacatur incidental, and not integral, to the settlement.
According to Judge Lynn et. al., IDCC proactively left the door open to reinstatement of the previsouly vacated PSJs by their own actions i.e. forfeit. That was an unfortunate and perhaps negligent error by IDCC and F&J IMO. So it seems this may not be a slam dunk reversal of the reinstatement IMO.
However, I do agree with you that the odds seem fairly good of reversing Nok's intervention, in which case the reinstatement must also be logically reversed, even without reviewing the merits of Nok's motion to reinstate in light of Bancorp.
In the worst case, Nok prevails on both key issues on appeal i.e. intervention and reinstatement, which is a realistic possibility.
I will put IDCC's odds of success on this appeal at 50/50 of having the adverse PSJs re-vacated one way or another. These odds are up significantly from the base odds of ~10% for all appeals.
Still, even with a 50% chance of success of reversing the reinstatement, I am livid at our management and F&J for giving us this costly risk to our key assets, when it could have been EASILY avoided altogether, simply by effecting the vacatur and settlement in such a way as to make the vacatur permanent and not subject to reinstatement.
And this is only one of many very significant and costly key mistakes attributable to our current management team in dealing with Nok.
MO,
Corp_Buyer
Recent IDCC News
- InterDigital Expands IoT Licensing Push With New Fintech Patent Agreement (IDCC) • IH Market News • 05/19/2026 02:46:36 PM
- InterDigital signs license agreement with fintech company • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 05/19/2026 12:30:00 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 05/06/2026 08:12:13 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 05/05/2026 08:52:23 PM
- Investor Conference Presentations Scheduled as InterDigital (IDCC) Engages Market Through June • IH Market News • 05/05/2026 02:32:32 PM
- InterDigital to Present at Four Upcoming Investor Conferences • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 05/05/2026 12:30:00 PM
- Form ARS - Annual Report to Security Holders • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/30/2026 08:19:31 PM
- Form DEFA14A - Additional definitive proxy soliciting materials and Rule 14(a)(12) material • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/30/2026 08:17:58 PM
- Form DEF 14A - Other definitive proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/30/2026 08:15:45 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/30/2026 12:34:10 PM
- InterDigital Announces Financial Results for First Quarter 2026 • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 04/30/2026 12:30:00 PM
- Form SCHEDULE 13G/A - Statement of Beneficial Ownership by Certain Investors: [Amend] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/24/2026 08:11:55 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/24/2026 11:00:56 AM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/24/2026 10:59:52 AM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/24/2026 10:59:12 AM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/24/2026 10:58:36 AM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/24/2026 10:56:57 AM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/24/2026 10:56:23 AM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/24/2026 10:55:47 AM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/24/2026 10:54:42 AM
- Form PRE 14A - Other preliminary proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/20/2026 08:30:51 PM
- InterDigital’s NAB Showcase to Spotlight HDR Innovation for Advanced and Ad-Supported Streaming • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 04/16/2026 12:00:00 PM
- AI-enabled Pixel Value Reduction curbs energy use and extends video viewing by up to 22% • GlobeNewswire Inc. • 04/15/2026 12:00:00 PM
