Jkjones re the Harris verdict and Ericy's damages
I understand what you are saying re the Harris verdict and willful infringement. I'm just having a little trouble reconciling IDCC's press release in June with the 10K at the end of March, both of which were issued prior to the Harris verdict. Both of these were posted earlier today by Mschere. From the press release in June as follows:
"KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa., Jun 3, 2002 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- InterDigital Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:IDCC), today announced that certain pre-trial motions have been ruled upon by the presiding Federal District Court Judge in the patent infringement lawsuit involving the Company, its wholly-owned subsidiary, InterDigital Technology Corporation and Ericsson Inc.
As previously reported in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each party has filed pre-trial motions with the Court under seal seeking to limit issues at trial and to dismiss the other party's case in whole or in part. The Judge has ruled on portions of the pre-trial motions of both parties, removing certain patent claims from further consideration with regard to the infringement issues in the District Court case, the effect of which is to narrow the issues remaining for trial. The Company believes these rulings, which remain under Court seal, do not materially affect the relief sought by InterDigital Technology Corporation. Court ordered mediation continues.
From the 10K issued about two months earlier than the press release as follows:
During the fourth quarter of 2001, Ericsson and ITC commenced a Court ordered mediation, which is still in progress. InterDigital and ITC intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. If any of ITC's patents are held invalid or not infringed, however, ITC's licensing opportunities and collections of royalty revenues could be materially and adversely affected. In the lawsuit, ITC will seek damages for past infringement in a significant amount, prejudgment interest, treble damages for willful infringement, and injunctive relief. The claims for relief are based on sales by Ericsson of infringing IS/54, IS/136 and GSM products (principally infrastructure and handsets) manufactured or sold in the United States by Ericsson from January 1992 forward. ITC can give no assurance that the litigation will be decided in its favor. Further, even if ITC is successful in the litigation, the Court could grant less than the relief requested by ITC if the Court agrees with any of Ericsson's arguments. Moreover, any consensual settlement could be at lower levels than the amount to be claimed at trial. There can be no assurance that the mediation will result in a resolution of the lawsuit or that any consensual settlement of the lawsuit will be reached.
AI
