It depends on what the Nok license says as to how the covered royalty bearing products are defined. If Nok the license states that the covered i.e. royalty bearing products are based on cerain patents (e.g. single station) then the court's rulings on those patents may be relevant to defining the covered products and therefore the royalties due to IDCC.
On the other hand, if the license reads something like "all 2G products" are covered by the license and royalty bearing to IDCC (i.e. the scope is not based on specific patents), then the patent rulings seem irrelevant. Since this is apparently IDCC's postion, I infer that the license probably reads according to the 2G standard, not specific patents.
So, the arbitration seems to depend on the outcomes of the "trigger" issue, and the definition of covered products in determining the royalty amounts due to IDCC.
Apparently, the Arbitration panel has already rejected Nok's arguments about patent validity and infringement, so we seem to have an indication on this issue in favor of IDCC.
Another indication in favor of IDCC is the court's mention in its ruling today that the arbitration panel to date has NOT requested any sealed documents. However, we can be sure that if there is another shoe to drop then Nok will pursue it.
Still, I am very disappointed in and surprised by the Court's ruling. I expect an appeal by IDCC and Ericy for the same reasons that they requestted the vacatur in the first place.
I also think that the Court may have erred in many respects in reinstating the vacated rulings, but that is my business oriented logic, not a legal opinion.
I am looking forward to more legal analysis of the Court's ruling by our board attornies.
All JMHO,
Corp_Buyer
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
