Replies to post #178377 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Ghors]

Garycoal #2.

4. Hartford v. IDCC. Hartford is asking a court for declaratory judgment that they have no duty to pay defense costs of IDCC in the Delaware Lanham case between NOK and IDCC. Like the Federal Insurace case I have no clue where this case stands. Hopefully, Olddog or someone can raid the courts docket and get us a scheduling order or some other goodies.

5. Samsum v. IDCC. As everyone here knows, IDCC won the arbitration. IDCC sued Sam for confirmation in a federal district court in NY. Sam counterclaimed to have the court void the decision. Sam has also filed a request for a third arbitration which in essence attacks the rates set by the #2 arbitration. We are waiting for the world arbitration court to determine if Sam will get the #3 arbitration and for the court to decide whether or not it wants to stay its decision pending the determination of the #3 arbitration.

Hope this helps settle some confusion as there are several cases and they do seem to run together at times.

IMO only

G Hors

[olddog967]

Ghors :In regard to the Federal Insurance Co. case, the last filing was in August 2006. Apparently there is a stay until a court appointed arbitrator comes up with a finding. Since the arbitration was apparently started sometime before the last filing, I would expect a decision pretty soon.

In regard to the Hartford Insurance case, Judge Farnan is also the Judge for this case. The following docket item summarizes the scheduling order on this one.

SCHEDULING ORDER: Case referred to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of exploring ADR. Joinder of Parties due by 2/28/2007; Amended Pleadings due by 4/30/2007; Discovery due by 1/31/2007, Expert Reports from Pltf by 11/15/2007 and from Dfts by 12/14/2007 and deposition of dft's expert by 1/15/2008; Dispositive Motions due by 2/15/2008 (See Order for Details). Signed by Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. on 1/22/2007. (lec) (Entered: 01/22/2007)

The forthcoming 10-K should have good summaries of the current status of the cases.

[whizzeresq]

Ghors--Thanks for your summary. Based on what I recall reading in the Del. lawsuit, I believe that last December, in the English lawsuit, IDCC filed and asked the court to declare that certain Nokia patents were not essential. I also recall that there are two separate proceedings brought by Nokia against IDCC in England, one pertaining to 2G and the other to 3G.