Replies to post #242061 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[nessco]

you found a different whip but it's still the same dead horse. give it a rest there is no agreement with nok as we speak.

[my3sons87]

Mickey, my one big question is how close did Nokia and Samsung remain after Nokia was removed from the combined case. How much behind the scenes talking was really going on between Nok and Sam if any.

[rmarchma]

Mickey re possible Nokia contingency agreement

What you have opined about a contingency agreement with Nokia, based upon subsequently licensing Samsung, does have some logic to it. However, I am of the opinion that there is no contingency agreement with Nokia. What I think is that Nokia did put a 3G agreement offer in writing to IDCC before the infamous 8K release. Nokia's offer would be considered "substantial progress", in that it would be the first time Nokia even made an offer to IDCC for a 3G agreement since the 3G litigation began. Previously Nokia was contending in the UK and other litigations that IDCC had no essential 3G patents, and were guilty of false and misleading statements concerning the essentiality of their 3G IPR.

Therefore by Nokia making an offer, implies Nokia's acceptance that IDCC has essential 3G patents and that Nokia is willing to pay something for them, ie "substantial progress". However, the offer was evidently too low as to the royalty rate. Therefore, IDCC declined Nokia's 3G agreement offer. Since the offer was probably in writing, Samsung lawyers could make vague references to a "Nokia Agreement" offer to IDCC. However remember that during the trial, Samsung's lawyers directly asked if IDCC had a 3G license with Nokia, and they said no.