Thanksformusic--I have no idea of what the settlement strategies of IDCC/Samsung may be. They could have drawn a line in the sand or maybe they will have further discussions right before the ruling is due. If the ALJ wanted to try to resolve it, he could ask for oral arguments and during them, make probing questions about certain issues and convey his view at the time, without actually ruling. For example, if during argument he said something like the following to Samsung's attorney, I am really having a problem following your argument that the ETSI documents impose a 5% cap or that the ETSI documents prevent the ITC from entering an injunction where there is no license, but I'll give you one more time to argue it.
Once they are found in violation, an embargo will issue after presidential review absent a stay from the Fed. Cir. Ordinarily, at that point, to settle, they would have to agree to whatever rate IDCC wanted or the embargo would issue. Unless there is something in the actual ALJ or ITC findings about FRAND, then I do not think IDCC would be bound by their prior settlement offers. Perhaps that is Sasmung's thinking. Right now, let's say IDCC is demanding 2%. Maybe Samsung believes that if they lose at the ITC, then they can just accept that 2% at the end so they might as well roll the dice and hope IDCC settles for less now because IDCC does not want to risk its patents. I trust that IDCC has stated to Samsung in negotiations that the 2% goes off the table if IDCC wins, otherwise there would be no incentive for Samsung to settle. IMHO
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
