InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Ghors]

Revlis: I'm not sure we disagree. When I made the post, I was really responding to a post which was talking about NOK trying to shift the burden of proof.

I agree that what we are trying to do is force NOK to come forward as to their evidence on damages without getting into the essentiality of the patents and the need to retain experts on this issue. If there is no damage then it doesn't matter if we puffed our claims. In theory, IDCC could say to the judge, "O.K. we did it, so what? Where is the damage? What company is going to come forward and testify they failed to buy NOK products for fear of IDCC patents? I believe this is IDCC's point and they want to limit discovery to this issue and then go forward with MSJ on damages.

IMO Ghors

P.S. Flight was great. Glad to be home.