In a word, "no". Only the specifically identified patents are at issue. Compulsory joinder of claims applies only to those that arise out of the "transaction or occurence that is the subject matter of the action". Each patent is a separate "transaction or occurrence".
On the CDMA2000 implementations in the US. Is IDCC IPR stronger in other areas eg. WCDMA?
Cingular Wireless Selects Lucent Technologies for 3G UMTS Trial Network in Atlanta
Is this the first 3G UTMS network in the US?
My point being that IDCC's IPR in this implementation may be stronger than their IPR in CDMA2000 where QCOM rules.
Could IDCC strategy have been that they knew LU wanted to implement a 3G UTMS network in the US and got a jump on the patenet infringement by starting the suit off with Tantivy patents then going after them when they started to sell UTMS products.
Would you not want to initiate your first law suit in 11 years where it would be a slam dunk?
If IDCC can prove no grey area exists in this type of network when dealing with IDCC's IPR then the LU suit can be the "water shed" event for 3G licenses. LOL.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
