InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[loophole73]

Jim and JK

Thanks for the documents. A very good motion and supporting brief pointing out the history between the parties. Keep your eye on the points previously discussed on this board.

1. Unless Nok includes the entire IDCC 3g patent portfolio, it cannot prove it has been damaged by any representations of IDCC.
2. Nok is speculating and as yet has not placed any of its 3g products in commerce in the USA making it a legal impossibility to determine the design and ingredients of its phantom product at this time.
3. Nok should not be allowed to take cheap shots at the IDCC IPR as a licensee because it does not have the risk of intentional infringement in case it is wrong about the invalidity or the alleged non-infringement.
4. It is far to early to allow anticipatory actions in 2007.

I refuse to make a guess with respect to the outcome after the ruling by Judge Lynn. She showed us first hand the art of going around the law in order to justify a ruling.

While the motion to dismiss is strong, the real strength will be the answer and cross-actions filed by IDCC in case the judge denies the motion to dismiss. This will be the true determination of how hard IDCC is willing to play in this case.

As a practical matter, this motion buys both parties more time to reach a resolution of their differences for all "G"s. The UK matter is set in July, the arb has a drop dead point at the end of May, and the Judge in DE has a lot of time to dwell on the motion to dismiss. I do not believe that all of these matters have been extended out due to coincidence. I believe the negotiating scheme is going on big time. Neither Nok or IDCC has requested expedited status in any of their legal proceedings.

As I have stated before, Nok has a consistent pattern of scorched earth tactics with IPR shops only to fold to the ones who call their bluff.

MO
loop