InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[sjratty]

Legal thoughts:

For what its worth, here are my views on the publicly available briefs - mainly, Nokia's opposition to IDCC's Motion to Enforce.

Most importantly, based on the public information, it looks like Nokia is trying to force the "exceeded authority" rationale into arguments that really boil down to contract interpretation (which are not subject to review). For example, whether S/E is a trigger is a question of contract interpretation (i.e, whether the contract contemplated or called for S/E to be a trigger). Whether the panel properly interpreted the contract is not reviewable except under the manifest disregard of the law, which I dont believe this falls under. Nokia is attempting to avoid that by saying that the panel "exceeded its authority" in making that finding - it didn't. The panel's authority was to do precisely what it did - interpret the contract.

I think this rationale applies to all of Nokia's arguments. That is, the Tribunal made interpretations that Nokia didn't agree with. That is vastly different from making interpretations it did not have the authority to make. Perhaps a clearer example would be if if the tribunal ruled that IDCC's patents were invalid. That would be outside the tribunal's authority because the question of patent validity was not before the tribunal.

That's the good news. The bad news is two-fold. One, courts are inherently uncertain, so what we think is the right result might not be the result we get (not to mention I am working off limited information since much of what I'd want to see is sealed). Two, and more disturbing, Nokia may be lining up for a protracted process. Even if the district court agrees with IDCC, Nokia has an absolute right to appeal the ruling to the 2nd circuit. Even if that appeal is ruled on quickly, it will likely take at least a year. The only hope we have to prevent this is if Nokia doesn't want to risk a year of interest at 9%.