InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Corp_Buyer]

"what would stop licensees from constantly invoking an MFL clause for portions of contracts without taking the entire contract into consideration?" - you may have hit on the final answer and Samsung's claim i.e. since MFLs are PROspective, they had to either adopt or reject Nok's entire contract, and since the Nok 2/3G license is all apparently contained in ONE contract, then Samsung seems to be claiming that under the MFL they HAD to accept or reject ALL the terms of the Nok contract, including Nok's 3G terms. It seems to me that Samsung might prevail on this point.

While I am glad IDCC is arguing for a separate higher, non-MFL, 3G rate for Samsung, it seems to me that when Samsung exercised their 2G MFL, Samsung may have actually upgraded to a 3G license since they necessarily accepted all the terms of the Nok contract.

IDCC apparently argues that Samsung's MFL is limited to 2G by virtue of Samsung's original license for 2G only. This is a very interesting legal point, but as I understand MFLs, Samsung either had to accept or reject ALL the terms of the Nok contract, and since the integrated Nok contact included 3G terms, it seems there is some reason to think Samsung may be entitled to Nok's 3G terms as well?

MO,
Corp_Buyer