Loop, if I may...regarding the potential drawback, in your referenced post, of which you stated...
"The only drawback is the real possibility that the UK judge will not hear the case at all because at this point IDCC does not believe it needs a license from Nok and I have not heard Nok say IDCC must license with them either."
Aware of your post and after reading the article in link below, I muse...would it not be contradictory (as in precedence) to the earlier UK case, if the judge did not hear the new case? Other than an "improper" decision, am I missing something?
"The ultimate declaration might be qualified to indicate which options were covered and which were not but this would not be a theoretical exercise. It would tell everybody exactly where they stand and which options are covered and not covered by the patents.
The Court of Appeal’s conclusion was not affected by the fact that Nokia had a licence under the patents. InterDigital had argued on that basis that there was no real dispute between the parties but the Court of Appeal was satisfied that that was not the case. The essentiality or its degree affected the value of a patent. The opinion of the Court as to “essential” or not was not merely an advisory opinion. It was a real, live, commercial question between the parties.
Appreciate your opinions as many others have expressed."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
