InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[loophole73]

To All

I received the books promulgated by the ICC yesterday. They are fairly informative and present redacted examples of how and when interest is awarded. From the reading, it appears that the interest would have been set in accordance with the laws of New York and probably began sometime during the demand stage by IDCC requesting royalty from Nok.

Another very interesting discussion involved the dissent sections delivered by the tribunals. Many want to do away with dissenting opinions totally because they believe that the bulk are written by the chosen arbiters and the exercise does not foster cooperation by the parties post award. However, the ICC uses the opinions to insure that that the parties were able to present their entire case and that deliberations were thorough and inclusive of all arbiters. Further, the opinions can be used to detect refusal of some panel members to consider all of the evidence or to cooperate fully with the other panel members allowing the ICC to return the proposed draft with instructions to cure matters that could be challenged as misconduct later down the road and resubmit.

I am very confident that the ICC provided a thorough arbitration process in the IDCC/Nok matter and should be bullet proof if Nok continues its efforts to vacate or appeal the final award.

It also appears that the parties sign off on documents initiating the arbitration process that place them in the back of the line at the appeals level. Neither party can make statements that they did not know the ramifications of the ICC arbitration process or deny that they placed their fate directly into the hands of the ICC with respect to their disputes as defined by the terms of reference. Apparently, the formation of the terms of reference is fairly complicated and complete because a large number of cases are withdrawn each year after the TOR process is accomplished.

I could not find anything in the two books that would work against IDCC at this stage of the arbitration process.

The less redacted document filed by IDCC appears to be very well presented in an argumentative style. It also appears that IDCC has pointed out the documents signed by both parties that establishes the authority of the ICC to conduct the arbitration under its rules and terms and that its purpose is to settle all disputes identified by the parties. The case law appears to be very strong in favor of the ICC and this does not bode well for Nok.

MO
loop