Replies to post #215752 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[whizzeresq]

LOOP--The other interesting thing is that IDCC did not raise the argument that the Del. Dist. court should have had jurisdiction over the arbitration claim. Arbitration is an affirmative defense that must be plead by a Defendant that believes it has that defense. Thus, Nokia should have raised that defense in IDCC's patent infringement suit against Nokia in Del. That case was stayed pending the ITC investigation before Nokia filed its answer. However, if Nokia wanted to seek arbitration, it should have gone to the Del. judge and asked him to lift the stay to allow Nokia to plead the affirmative defense of arbitration and bring its arbitration claim there. I really believe that this defense would have required Judge Batts to dismiss Nokia's complaint. IMHO

[olddog967]

whizzeresq: Maybe IDCC did not want to reference the Tessera case, because, while the arguments were based on different circumstances, in the end the Fed Circuit ruled that Texas Instruments apparently had a good chance of getting their injunction against Tessera participating in the ITC case. In addition, since that case was decided, apparently the Fed Circuits jurisdiction has been limited (see my post 213035). Just my humble non legal opinion

1
In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI) sought to enjoin Tessera, Inc. (Tessera) from continued participation in an International Trade Commission (ITC) infringement action that Tessera had initiated. The district court denied TI's motion. Because the license agreement between TI and Tessera requires any litigation, including ITC proceedings under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, to occur in the State of California, this court vacates and remands to the district court to re-entertain TI's preliminary injunction motion.1

SNIP

29
More important, TI's preliminary injunction motion will not and cannot enjoin the ITC action. TI has not sought to enjoin the ITC directly, but only to enjoin Tessera from participating in the ITC proceedings against TI. The ITC, intervening in this appeal, advised that the action will continue, even without Tessera's participation with respect to TI. The ITC's investigation of Tessera's complaint includes Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation as respondents in addition to TI. Tessera, therefore, will still participate in the overall ITC proceeding, even if TI's preliminary injunction request is ultimately granted. Any potential injunction would simply implement the governing law clause and any litigation between Tessera and TI will occur in a California district court.
CONCLUSION
30
This court reverses the district court's judgment that TI would not be likely to succeed in proving that Tessera's action before the ITC is covered by the governing law clause. This court, therefore, vacates the district court's denial of TI's preliminary injunction motion and remands to the district court to reconsider the preliminary injunction motion on the remaining preliminary injunction factors.


http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/231/231.F3d.1325.00-1381.html


After reading the filings at the Fed. Cir. by IDCC and Nokia and the Court's ruling (all courtesy of Revlis), I did not see any reference to the Tessera case. I am frankly baffled as to why IDCC didn't reference that case in support of its position that the Fed. Cir. had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. IMHO

[plumear]

whizzer, I second the thought of the others that it would be nice if IDCC's council had opportunities to consider some of the points and arguments you and others that offer legal thought here. I've always figured that someone was monitoring the site for them but perhaps not. I have no doubt that IDCC has top notch representation but it's true that you and the others have a perspective that could yield some nuggets that could be helpful. Has anyone considered taking the best posts of each day and forwarding them on to IDCC?