L2
Nok knew that maintaining a Lanham Act action will cause IDCC to depose its officers and employees and personnel of any company that Nok alleges refused to purchase their products because IDCC somehow scared them off with a claim of essential patents.
IDCC should have stressed that it was Nok who contacted them concerning a joint developement of essential 3g technology. It was also Nok that freely executed a license for the patent portfolio, both 2 and 3g, of IDCC in conjunction with the Master Agreement representing a "strategic partnership" between the two companies. It was Nok that had the bargaining power during the negotiations of the aforementioned documents. All litigation filings made by Nok have occurred as threat to gain an advantage over IDCC in arbitration proceedings arising out of their agreements including the 3g patent challenge filed in this very action that the court has recently removed.
This case is horsecrap. Nok is not going to be able to show that IDCC contacted operators seeking a boycott of their products because they have essential patents in wireless technology. The facts will point to Nok engaging the OEM's to boycott IDCC and other small companies holding patents in the wireless sector. Nok has been the top producer in the world and cannot demonstrate any alleged damages as a result of IDCC stating that they believe they own essential patents in 2 and 3g. Nok is attempting an end run much like they executed in Dallas. They are challenging the patents in the status of licensee under Lanham when they could not do so conventionally. If Nok cannot prove damages, it cannot maintain its cause of action. The allegations that IDCC threatened lawsuits is pure poppycock because Nok is a licensee. IDCC had no reason to bother Nok as a licensee and certainly would not contact the phone service companies that Nok supplies. All of the bothering and intellectually dishonest arguments have originated out of Nok in a concerted effort to not perform the duties and obligations contained in the written agreements with its strategic partner.
Factual pleading regarding discovery will not phase Nok in the least. IDCC already has a right to its records under the written agreements signed by Nok. They are in the dispute resolution phase covering these issues right now. Nok continues a pattern of bad faith dealings without being challenged by IDCC. Nok stonewalled IDCC with respect to additional royalties until IDCC finally received a favorable ICC arbitration award which has now been confirmed by the SDNY. Suddenly they want to negotiate just the award, but are not willing to dismiss their 3 patent challenge actions. This is pure nonsense, but it is not going to go away unless someone opens a can of spinach in KOP.
MO
loop
AI
