InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[loophole73]

IDoCare

IDCC and Ericy appealed the decision of Judge Lynn for the following reasons:

1. Both parties knew that the decision was clearly based on reasoning that fell outside the existing law at that time.

2. It was the desire of both parties that the rulings regarding the patents and claims construction previously made by Judge Sanders be vacated and sealed. This is why the parties filed the motion to vacate and had same granted before they moved to dismiss all claims and cross-claims with prejudice.

3. Most, if not all, of the licenses granted by IDCC contain a reporting clause with respect to adverse rulings regarding the patented technology covered therein. IDCC desired to have the psj's concerning seven of its patent claims vacated and forever sealed because they believed the rulings were without merit and they wished to avoid any decisions with respect to the reporting requirements contained in their licenses.

4. IDCC had hoped that the appeal would be finished prior to the final arbitration award in order to mitigate the damage it was incurring concerning it most valuable asset, the patent portfolio. While Nok withdrew its patent challenge from the terms of reference in the arbitration, they still offered evidence and argued that the royalty value of the IDCC patent portfolio was significantly effected by an inability to defend same. They were able to make this argument under the "all relevant factors" clause contained in the Master Agreement and the PLA. Although I cannot prove it, I suspect that the use of the Sanders rulings by Nok at the evidentiary hearing made it much easier for the Tribunal members to engage in some form of babysplitting.

5. Nok is now on notice of the decision and they must stop the pattern of business disparagement it has been engaging in as a result of the first decision by Judge Lynn. While this is good for IDCC, the damage that they have suffered to the reputation of their patent portfolio in the interim must unfortunately fade away without any recourse whatsoever. The judge bestowed the intervenor status on Nok and allowed them to act accordingly by making motions and seeking rulings. The actions of the judge were the catalyst for the behavior of Nok. Nok took what it could get and used same in the arbitration process. The use outside of the arbitration process may be questionable, but it will be up to the lawyers of IDCC as to how they will address that issue.

MO
loop