Replies to post #208180 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[badgerkid]

Whizzer, great summation. Much appreciated.

Badger

[pisrat]

Whizz, thanks for explaining why March 24th is an important date.

israt

[dndodd]

Thanks. Great information.

[paheka]

whiz...THANKS i needed that.Usually i've remained very positive believing since last CC that we'd be pretty clear by the end of Feb.After the CC Thursday and realizing we had yet another filing by Nokia it got to me.The fact mgt would not personally buy and that we were sitting on buyback monies over $70M, PLUS we had gotten paid another 95M from LG!!YET, here we were at a closing price of 17.39..near a five year low..and MGT isn't agressively buying!WHAT the hell is going on!Where are the promised additional licenses?Where is supposed creation of shareholder value?....So again, THANKS for your overview to March 24Th..I hope the staff throws the kitchen sink back at them and tells them they will take into account the EURO difference!!!

[JimLur]

GREAT JOB WHIZZER, Thanks from the lurkers and the active members on the thread.

[mschere]

Great summary on March 14..
IMO: T-Mobile who has expended Billions of Dollars to build its UMTS Infrastructure and AT&T are not oblivious to the Financial impact merely a THREAT of an Embargo of "custom" Nokia and Samsung UMTS Subscriber devices will have on their Financial bottom line..I believe they are currently pressuring the parties to settle.

[gio]

Whizz...thanks for the great explanation. If you wouldn't mind I'd like to throw out a follow up question.

What is the motivation for Nok, Sam or others not to go the distance and then accept IDCC proposed rate following a loss but prior to an injunction?

Other than the legal fees I can't see a downside to their strategy. Maybe they will even get lucky and somehow prevail.

It would seem that their should be a cost to doing what they are doing. If IDCC is going to let them take the same offer pre or post ruling than there does not seem to be one.

[olddog967]

whizzeresq: March 24. Everyone is looking forward to The staff’s submission of their pre-hearing statement on March 24. While that is the scheduled submission date, it is likely that the submission will be confidential. Based on a review of some recent cases, in most instances, a public version of the filing was made from 7 - 19 days after the confidential submission, so it looks like there will be a little delay before we have any idea what’s the staff’s position.

What surprised me was that out of the 15 recent cases that I looked at, 8 were terminated or were in the process of termination before the staff statement was required, 6 were still in process, and 1 had a final decision. So it looks like the odds for a settlement before a final decision aren’t too bad.

The following should also be of interest. In one of the cases looked at, the staff attorney requested a time extension to prepare his pre-hearing statement. In justifying the request, the following describes his responsibilities in preparing his statement

“In support of this request, the Staff submits that there is good cause for an extension of
the deadline for filing of its prehearing statement, and that denial of this request will compromise
the Staff’s ability to submit a prehearing statement that is as complete as those that are normally
submitted by the Staff in Section 337 investigations. Although the Staff participates in pre-trial discovery and motions practice, the positions of the private parties on many critical issues in an
investigation, including the particular theories they will advance at the hearing, are often unclear
until the complainant and the respondents submit their respective prehearing statements. Thus,
before the Staff can finalize its positions on the issues and complete its own prehearing statement
in a given investigation, the Staff has to read the prehearing statements of each of the private
parties and critically assess their positions on the various issues that remain for hearing. The
Staff takes positions on an issue-by-issue basis such that it may agree with one party on certain
issues and with another party on other issues, and often the Staff formulates positions on some
issues, such as claim construction, that differ from those of each of the private parties. Unlike
private parties, who routinely assign large numbers of attorneys to a Section 337 investigation,
the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) normally can assign only one Investigative
Attorney to each investigation, as is the case in this investigation. Thus, a single OUII staff
attorney normally has to review and digest each of the private parties’ prehearing briefs before
he or she (in consultation with a Supervisory Attorney and/or OUII’s Director) can formulate the
Staff’s positions on the issues and finalize the Staff’s prehearing statement. Often, as in this
investigation, this OUII attorney is also responsible for completing other prehearing submissions
that are due within a few days of the filing of the private parties’ prehearing briefs.


In this investigation, which currently involves 58 claims of six patents asserted against at
least 33 products of five different respondents, the Staff has no reason to doubt at this time that the private parties’ prehearing statements will be comprehensive and lengthy.1 The requested
extension of the due date for the Staff’s prehearing statement is necessary to permit the Staff to
review and consider the final positions of the private parties set forth in their prehearing
statements, adequately respond to the private parties’ arguments, and finalize its own positions in
light of the assertions made and theories advanced by the private parties in their pre-trial
submissions”.


http://edisweb.usitc.gov/edismirror/337-602/Violation/283022/331465/61d/8c197d.pdf