Replies to post #152372 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mschere]

Question..Do you have any thoughts regarding IDCC's attempt to trigger 2 new " Interim Awards" and have them Affirmed in the U.S.D.C., to fast track & undercut & remedy Nokia's current Appeal tactics? TIA


NEW IDCC Nokia Arbitration...

Item 8.01 Other Events.

On March 30, 2006, InterDigital Communications Corporation and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, InterDigital Technology Corporation (collectively, InterDigital),
filed a request for arbitration with the International Court of Arbitration of
the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) against Nokia Corporation (Nokia)
relating to the Award that an ICC Arbitral Tribunal rendered in June 2005 (the
Award).

InterDigital believes that by failing to pay royalties and submit royalty
reports relating to Nokia's sales of 2G and 2.5G covered products, Nokia has
violated the terms of its Patent License Agreement and Master Agreement with
InterDigital as well as violated the terms of the Award. On December 28, 2005, a
U.S. District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York confirmed the Award in its entirety. Nokia is appealing the
decision of the District Judge.

As a result of Nokia's failure to comply with the terms of the Patent License
Agreement, Master Agreement and Award, InterDigital has requested arbitration
seeking an order setting forth the precise dollar amounts payable under the
Patent License Agreement, Master Agreement, and Award, including interest, as
well as requiring Nokia to pay those amounts to InterDigital, and awarding
InterDigital reimbursement of its attorneys' fees and costs.

In addition, InterDigital's request for arbitration seeks an interim order
requiring Nokia to make partial payment based on sales information disclosed in
the prior arbitration. InterDigital also seeks an interim order requiring Nokia
to disclose all information needed to determine the precise dollar amounts owed
to InterDigital under the Patent License Agreement and the Award.

This arbitration request is a further step in the dispute resolution process
that, as previously reported in a Form 8-K filed on December 29, 2005,
InterDigital initiated in accordance with the terms of its agreements with Nokia
to accelerate the resolution of any and all unresolved issues that may impact a
determination of amounts to be paid under the Award. The Award and related
arbitration are further described in our Form 10-K filed March 14, 2006.

The parties continue to pursue a mutually agreeable resolution of this dispute.
Absent such resolution, InterDigital will continue to seek final resolution of
the dispute through the initiated arbitration and other legal processes.

whizzer and ghors

The staff counsel has made his initial review and conducted his meeting with the parties. For whatever reason, he extended the time for briefing and set the case on the oral argument docket. It appears this one will be argued.

Nok is hanging on a string arguing that the ICC award failed to resolve the disputes of the parties. IMO, this is the reason for the stonewalling concerning sales reporting, audits and times and methods of payment. We are in the dark because we have not seen the final award or the dissent with respect to enforceability, but I doubt the court is going to be moved by the Nok attempt to force every sentence in the Master Agreement and PLA to arbitration cloaked by some off the wall dispute. Habit and custom in the industry dictates that if royalty obligations are established based on a rate, then the sales of the covered products must be reported and the royalty must be paid. This refusal to come to a conclusion during the dispute resolution process set forth in the written contracts regarding the sales reporting, audits and payment schedules is clearly a smoke and mirrors effort to argue that the Tribunal failed to resolve the differences and disputes of the parties in rendering its award. It is my opinion that Nok never raised these issues in the first arbitration intentionally and the lone dissenter took advantage of same with his argument that the award lacked enforceability. Using the Nok theory, no arbitration could ever resolve the disputes of the parties if one of the parties decides to dispute the contracts one section at a time. However, it appears that somehow Nok hopped over the first hurdle by convincing the staff counsel that it has some valid justiciable issues to brief and argue. I suspect that the caseload of the staff counsel was a significant factor. He recognized that settlement chances were slim and none and he moved on to the next file on the stack.

MO
loop

[Learning2vest]

Loop, after reviewing the info we have about the actions taken by the 2nd circuit's CAMP program staff counselor Stanley Bass, this observer does not see why we would choose to eliminate ANY of the potential reasons for him to take those actions.

I'm thinking that all we know for sure is that he held his initial meeting with both parties before taking the action to move the existing appeal schedule out ~30 days.

Why did he decide to move the schedule out 30 days after meeting with the parties? My first thought was to give the parties time to settle, while your ref post speculates that he moved it out 30 days because he saw that settlement was hopeless and that Nokia has issues justifying an oral hearing.

Fully admit that my speculation is colored by wishing and hoping. At the same time, I do not see why your speculation would have caused Stanley to add another 30 days to the existing schedule. Why not just wave them through on the current schedule if he saw no hope of settlement?

[JimLur]

Loop, I read all your posts today and thanks for jumping in. I would also like to thank Ghors and Whizzer too as they have been sharing.

I liked this part about the staff counsel where you said , "He recognized that settlement chances were slim and none and he moved on to the next file on the stack."

What you said is real common sense. There is no way this thing is going to settle IMO because neither party has any real leverage.

I say let the courts decide as it's been going our way.

Can't participate as much as I would like to as my wife has major Thyroid problems and I have a bulged disc to deal with. Took me 1/2 hour to get in the house from the attached garage.

Going to see a chiropractic massage specialist Monday for help.

No way I will get cut.