InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[NukeJohn]

When Ms. Valentine asked for a delay from November until December, in her letter to the CAFC she stated that she had checked with the parties and that Nokia didn't oppose, but that IDCC stated they would only agree to a postponement of November oral arguments as long as it didn't stretch past December. When Nokia came back a few weeks later and asked for a delay from December to January, they didn't state whether they had asked if IDCC agreed (but we already know from the comments in Ms. Valentine's letter that they didn't agree).

So, I would say, IDCC didn't agree. The court went ahead and set the date for Dec. 9th. Subsequently, Nokia came back one more time and asked for a one day delay from Dec 9th to Dec 10th, or in the alternative, if the court could not grant a 1 day dealy....they again requested a January date. Once again, there was nothing in Nokia's request that indicated whether IDCC agreed to a delay...but in this case a delay was granted. My suspicion (and it only my suspicion) is that the court would not have agreed to another month delay at this stage unless Nokia (and possibly both Nokia and IDCC), indicated there was a good chance that a settlement deal could be worked out before the January orals. But, as we all know, no settlement deal was worked out. We don't specifically know IDCC's position on the second Nokia delay request, but I think they may have been willing to give settlement negotiations one more try.

NJ