mschere, I seem to remember reading on this board a post that stated that the 31 "essential" patents challenged by NOK were all of the IDCC patents that were declared "essential" in the UK. There were other "essential" patents that were filed in other countries. Anyway, that was my understanding.
We must also remember that the judge mentioned in his findings that IDCC did not pursue the second definition which is like our doctrine of equivalents. He made the comment that if they had, more essential patent claims could possibly be found. This can also be weighed by the new judge as reason for his apportionment of the legal fees issue.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
