Replies to post #170751 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[revlis]

mschere,

You do not expect a hearing? I will be surprised if there is not one.

mo

[loophole73]

mschere

I believe that you can expect an oral hearing to be conducted with the judge asking very narrow and specific questions to Samsung. The general rule is when a party is alleging a lack of due process, they are allowed to fully present and argue their points of error prior to the rendition of a decision. We know from the table of contents that the Tribunal received the April IDCC/Nok agreement and later held a conference call with the parties regarding the weight they were giving same in their deliberations of all of the evidence provided by the parties. If I was the judge, I would spend a lot of time going over the contents of that call during the oral hearing in order to CMA when I confirmed the arbitration award. I believe we will find that the Tribunal did not just throw the document out, but, in fact, scrutinized it thoroughly before informing Samsung and IDCC that it would have no effect on their ability to set royalty rates and determine the additional royalty liability owed by Samsung. As I posted previously, the relinquishment of 3g royalty MFL provisions was involved in the April agreement and Samsung's claim to same under its 2g MFL claim would not be allowed to extend to the covered products and technology provisions of the 1999 Nok PLA. Samsung is stuck with the 2g rates previously set in the IDCC/Nok arbitration award no matter how loud and often they squeal. In the final outcome, both parties were wrong in their interpretation of the Samsung I award. IDCC believed that they could get a rate set for Samsung without first getting a rate set with Nok and they were wrong. Samsung believed that they were entitled to all of the Nok MFL provisions and rate setting contingencies for 3g by asserting its MFL rights under its 2g license and they were wrong. The Tribunal and the ICC cleared the matters up via a final arbitration award and unless malfeasance or a lack of due process can be shown, Samsung is dead and stinkin'. A review of the process clearly shows that the Tribunal awaited the IDCC/Nok award prior to rendering its decision and that all of the relevant evidence was allowed to be submitted and considered in formulating the final award.

MO
loop

[sjratty]

Unfortunately, federal courts do not move that fast, particularly around the holidays. I would not expect a ruling until at least early next year (and only then if there is no oral argument).