Dave re Lucent litigation and conversation with Janet
I think you meant to provide a quote from your conversation with Janet, or the link to that conversation. I did previously read your recap of the conversation and appreciated your sharing thereof. Is the following the part of the conversation that you are referring to:
..."Janet confirmed for me that ITC DOES have essential IP in CDMA2000. (Yes. Janet used the "E" word.) The seven patents in the Tantivy lawsuit were selected for strategic reasons, and the CDMA2000 IP from ITC could conceivably be added to a settlement, if any, between Tantivy and Lucent."
One reason for my question on this matter is to get IDCC to reaffirm in a public CC to others that IDCC does have essential patents in CDMA2000, outside of the Tantivy patents. However, I am still confused over the strategy of just using the Tantivy patents in the litigation suit.
It seems to me that if IDCC is going to all of the trouble of initiating a lawsuit against Lucent, then shouldn't they bring in most all of the heavy artillery that they can muster, which would include some of IDCC's own essential CDMA2000 patents. Go all out for the win, or exert maximum pressure for a settlement, by making your case against the infringer as strong as possible. Why hold back if you might be going to court?
Also I don't understand the strategy of not including WCDMA patents in the Lucent lawsuit. Lucent is making WCDMA infrastructure and should be infringing those essential patents too. To get WCDMA infrastructure resolved is more important than CDMA2000 infrastructure IMO, since NEC is the only one paying for WCDMA infra currently. This might keep us from having to take someone else to court over WCDMA infrastructure. Finally if Lucent is an automatic trigger for the Nokia infrastructure rate and Nokia does far more in WCDMA infrastructure than in CDMA2000, then why omit WCDMA from the Lucent suit when we can get Nokia's rate set for WCDMA infrastructure also?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
