Replies to post #217027 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[frobinso]

Loop, once again, the reply from 2 CCA really put the blame on IDCC for denying the stay. And based on this comment how material to you feel this miss is on the part of our own legal team...when it was a key determinant in granting a stay?

I certainly feel dissappointed with the CCAs decision, but it's difficult for the dissapointment to end there when in their response they say we laid down on the job in putting forward there would be only moderate irreparable harm.

How does our legal team bounce back from something like that, and what course of actions should be going on internally at IDCC when the court comes back with findings pointing back on us as the reason for the denial?

[alalud]

Loop, tough question, but is/was this considered to be malpractice? I have had questions about the quality of the workmanship IDCC is getting, especially considering the Millions of $$$ being paid. I questioned this several years ago and was blown out of the water with the responses, but I think it is time to again consider the matter. IMO

[revlis]

loophole,

This is IDCC response to Nokia argument that IDCC is not suffering any irreparable harm if the stay is denied. Page 12 of 13.

http://wirelessledger.com/IDCC010.pdf


V. INTERDIGITAL HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WILL BE IRREPARABLY INJURED ABSENT A STAY

In arguing that the district court's preliminary injunction will not injure InterDigital because it will only delay the ITC suit, Nokia once again ignores the facts and the arguments in InterDigital's opening brief. As InterDigital explained (Opening Bried at 7), Nokia successfully moved to consolidate the Samsung and Nokia ITC investigations by arguing efficiency from consolidation and servere prejudice to Nokia without consolidation, which caused InterDigital to suffer delay in the Samsung case. If now there is a stay or termination of the Nokia investigation, InterDigital will not only have suffered the delay in the Samsung case but will not benefit from the promised efficiency. And even if InterDigital wins the first case, it may have to try the same patents again against Nokia, which would benefit from samsung's first bite at the apple. Additionally, as explained in InterDigital's opening brief at 12, InterDigital's resources that should be devoted solely to preparing for the April 21 ITC trial, proceeding against at least Samsung, have been stretched thin by the necessity of simultaneously handling this new injunction case on an emergency basis.

I like your argument better.

The IDCC attorneys should have stated that the acceptance of the investigation of IDCC's complaint against Nok by the ITC gives rise to a presumption of irreparable harm since the sole remedy is injunctive relief. It would be the burden of Nok to rebut the presumption of irreparable harm being inflicted on a daily basis by illegally placing their products into commerce in the USA.

mo