Replies to post #181211 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

lastchoice: That is how I read these two paragraphs, and why I thought it was important. However as has been stated it is a complicated ruling and I may be misinterpreting it. I think Justice Pumphrey is finding that the case is a lot more complicated than the previous statement that “You take the standard, you take the patents, you take the definition of "essential" and you see whether there is any way around or not. ” LOL


97. Mr. Watson has satisfied me very much against my initial impression that this result has not been achieved, mainly, I think, as a result of the use of the word "therefore" in the Nokia pleading, coupled with the failure of the order to impose any obligation to deal with the individual features of the claims; in fact, the order tried to do too much. It might be better to require Nokia to plead expressly to InterDigital's contention that such-and-such an apparatus or method was essential and require InterDigital to plead an answer to that, including the case, if any, that it wished to advance on the footing that Nokia was correct about the requirements of the standard.
98.
99. There is force in Mr. Thorley's submission that all this would be gone into in the preparation of the experts' reports, but it would be possible on these pleadings to find InterDigital with a strong submission at trial that no analysis of the patents was necessary having regard to the way in which Nokia's case had been advanced in its statement of case. In principle, it seems to me important to know whether Nokia has any case on the assumption that InterDigital's contentions in its statement of case as to the relevant contents of the standard are correct and to know what InterDigital has to say if Nokia is correct.
100.



loop, did you sense the judge shifted some emphasis to nok to specify their position and idcc to then defend, (being defendants), vs. his push to have idcc specify first?



l

[loophole73]

last

The judge is telling IDCC that it may use the second limb of the essentiality definition ie. more than one way to be standards compliant and all are patented equals all being essential or potentially essential, but IDCC must identify the other methods and the patents covering same and match it up with the patent number. He is also saying that IDCC may make the same accusations of over declaring by Nok, but they must plead it differently. He is also saying that once Nok states that its standards compliant products do not intersect the patent claims of IDCC, it is the burden of IDCC at trial to identify the standard and its patent claims to prove they fall under the essential definition. He did say that if IDCC properly pleads and proves that Nok and the rest of the sector routinely over declare, then he would have to consider denying relief requested by Nok. Some variation of the "clean hands" doctrine would be invoked. However, it is not enough to allege habit and custom of the industry. They will have to identify the patents Nok declared that are not essential under an identified standard. The entire case disgusts me. The judge should have sent Nok packing, let them sell their purported standards compliant products and then it would be up to IDCC to file for infringement. I do not believe it serves any purpose for a judge holding a giant eight ball and asking it if patent X is essential, turning the ball over, reading its response and making a declaratory ruling before the products are placed in commerce. The Nok engineering staff is much better equipped to analyze the declared patents of IDCC and make the decision to issue products in jurisdictions in which IDCC is claiming essentiality or commercial relevance. Companies should not be using courts to make their decision s regarding licensing.

MO
loop