Replies to post #174503 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[whizzeresq]

Sjratty--I would not call this an "early amended complaint." The scheduling order set January 15, 2007, as the deadline for the filing of any amended complaints. This deadline was approximately 2 years after Nokia filed the lawsuit. Thus, Nokia waited until the very deadline to file the amended complaint. I have no idea as to whether the parties are close to settlement or not. However, I do find it interesting that Nokia did not file claims to declare the 3G patents invalid in Nokia's amended complaint. Given the upcoming Jan. 15 deadline, I doubt that Nokia will now file a seconded amended complaint in the next 8 days. I believe that it is clear that, for whatever reason, Nokia chose not to escalate the conflict by alleging invalidity of the 3G patents, which would have enabled IDCC to countersue for infringement.

[Desert dweller]

sjratty, what is your opinion about Nokia's chances of being able to amend the complaint? From IDCC's request for summary judgement, it appears to me that IDCC has a chance to get summary judgement granted (and obviously I am not an attorney and could be very wrong). Now with these amended complaint's, is it likely that the judge would throw out the entire case if he was willing to grant summary judgement on the original Lanham act or will Nokia's tactics work in continuing this case even if he grants summary judgement with regards to Lanham? What is your opinion?

It is obvious that the only thing Nokia wants from this case is to delay, stall, continue so it creates obstacles to IDCC in getting additional licensees to sign on. It is obvious to this investor, will it be obvious to the judge?