Replies to post #151264 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Red Angus]

Ghors--And if a charge of fraud is involved we might point out that the burden of proof itself on Nokia would be higher in most cases.

One charging fraud must usually prove his case by "clear and convincing evidence", which is a higher standard than merely by a preponderence of evidence (the standard in most civil cases.).

Most people define "clear and convincing" as a standard midway between the normal civil standard of "preponderence" and the criminal standard of "beyhond reasonable doubt".

See the following as one example of a jury instruction:

*****************************************************

FRAUD. BURDEN OF PROOF - CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE


With regard to (state here the factual issue(s) to be proved) it is the obligation of (state here the party or parties upon whom the burden of proof rests) to prove those allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces in your minds a firm belief or conviction that the allegations sought to be proved by the evidence are true. It is evidence so clear, direct, weighty in terms of quality, and convincing as to cause you to come to a clear conviction of the truth of the precise facts in issue.
The clear and convincing standard of proof requires that the result shall not be reached by a mere balancing of doubts or probabilities, but rather by clear evidence which causes you to be convinced that the allegations sought to be proved are true.

Ed. note:

Clear and convincing establishes a standard of proof falling somewhere between the traditional standards of "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is an exception to the rule requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence in civil cases and proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

****************************************************

[sailfreeee]

Board Lawyers:

I think I read (on this board) that the reason IDCC wanted this case delcared a "complex case" was so NOK had to prove damages, before the case proceeded.

Am I correct?

If I am incorrect, did IDCC want this case declared "complex", and in your opinion, why?

TIA

[olddog967]

Ghors: Nokia's Delaware filing only states that IDCC made false and misleading statements. Does this equate to a claim of fraud as you defined it?


Olddog: NOK has the burden of proof to prove fraudulent statements about the essentiallity of the patents by IDCC. The various definitions of fraud include words such as willfull, intentional, intention to deceive, with knowledge of falsehood, with intent to harm, etc. It's a tough burden of proof.

[Desert dweller]

Ghors, one of the things that sickens me about our legal system is that this case can even proceed at this point. Is Nokia not a licensed company right now? How could IDCC's claims have hurt them since they are currently licensed for 3g tech? If someone refused to buy their product since IDCC claims essentiality, Nokia just has to produce the license agreement and state that we are currently licensed to use their technology. This whole Lanham act is just more legal posturing that is wasting countless months and years that are critical to IDCC's success. When the judge threw out the 3g claims, he should have thrown this out too. Another example of a poor judicial decision that went against IDCC.