Replies to post #216994 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[revlis]

loophole,

Another great post.

mo

[paheka]

loop..does it bother you as to why the 2ndCCA pased the ball to the 2nd Southern District Court[at least thats what i think happened]..The two courts seem to have a big difference in being able to understand our case?

The CCA judges have bios all seemingly versed in technological expertise while at the SDNYC they seem to be Batt clones?

Just my observation and was wondering WHY the CCA seemed to pass it to them?

[hacitra]

would it be proper legalese if the ALJ incorporates in his response to Nokia's briefs a quote from Gen McAuliffe "aw nuts."

[gio]

Loop,
I loved the last paragraph. Quick follow up question. "rendering the IDCC patents as valid and infringed"...is Nokia's argument that these patents are covered under their TDD license concession that they are valid and infringed? Why would they argue that they are licensed if they felt they were not using them or that they were invalid.

[revlis]

Separating the cases
will avoid any possibility that actions against Samsung could be interpreted as actions against
Nokia, and will prevent Nokia from attempting to terrorize InterDigital into abandoning its
claims against Samsung.


The above was written by IDCC lawyers in support of its motion. - revlis

[revlis]

loophole,

The CCA-2nd circuit agreed with Nokia argument. I know it is unbelievable but true.

mo

"Most importantly, InterDigital has failed to articulate any irreparable harm it would suffer if denied a stay of the Preliminary Injunction. InterDigital argues simply that there will be a modest delay of the ITC trial should InterDigital prevail in arbitration. Although perhaps inconvenient for InterDigital, such delay does not rise to the level of irreparable harm, and misses the mark with respect to the issue presently before the Court.The burden for InterDigital here is to show the harm that will be suffered if a stay of the preliminary injunction does not issue. Whether InterDigital would ultimately prevail in the arbitratin itself is not relevant to this appeal."