DD- there were 3 issues as follows:
(1) Intervention (granted)
(2) Access to sealed documents (granted for arb use only)
(3) Reinstatement of the adverse, very damaging, PSJs against IDCC (granted based on Nok's intervention and citation of Bancorp).
I agree with you that #1 and #2, which Judge Lynn allowed, were helpful to the arbitration and that seemed to be her intent i.e. to expedite the arbitration.
Perhaps now that the arbitration has concluded, the Court of Appeal will reverse Judge Lynn on #1 (the intervention issue) due to a technical foul by Nok. Let's surely hope so, since otherwise if the Court of Appeal affirms #1 and gets to #3, then LOOKOUT, since IMO Bancorp will be found applicable to IDCC (in agreement with Nok and Judge Lynn).
However, #3, which is a standalone issue, is the one that was BUNGLED by F&J. F&J could have, and should have, effected the settlement to make the vacatur PERMANTENT i.e. NOT SUBJECT to reinstatement per Bancorp.
In this case, Judge Lynn still could have permitted the Intervention and Access to sealed documents, but she COULD NOT have reinstated the adverse PSJs, which certainly would have hurt and not helped Nok's "all relevant factors" clause argument (Nok's purported non-use of IDCC's technology).
Also, if the Appeal goes against IDCC, then our entire 2G CURRENT REVENUE BASE may be at grave risk due to this SEVERE DAMAGE to our most valuable key 2G IPR assets (7 of 11 key patent claims). Incidentally, our "remaining" 2G key claims are now at risk in the UK.
So, the GRAVE RISK to IDCC caused by this STUPID LEGAL ERROR followed up by our top leadership's EXTREME MANAGEMENT ERROR in not handling Nok effectively over 2 years ago cannot be overstated.
HC must go. Vote WITHHOLD on HC.
MO,
Corp_Buyer
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
