Before wrapping up for the day the judge asked both sides if they were comfortable with case completion Tuesday by noon. Nokia said yes. IDCC said there were more than the 3 ½ hours scheduled for Tuesday left in the time allotted for both sides. Nokia said they strongly objected to the case being extended in time. IDCC & Nokia basically agreed they could finish by noon Tuesday after several minutes of 3 way discussion (no IDCC/Nokia case time scheduled for Monday).
My3sons requested Ellis and me to provide our thoughts of what we heard today as if we were the jury. Unfortunately that is basically impossible. Everything we heard today was 1 sided. i.e. We heard the IDCC cross questioning but not how it was presented when Nokia asked the questions. We also heard the Nokia witness when the Nokia lawyer asked questions but not the cross questioning by IDCC.
I would say both legal staffs from my non-legally trained perspective sounded/performed well today.
I would say IDCC scored points questioning the 1st witness relative to no direct reference to the Lucas paper.
I would say IDCC scored points questioning the 2nd witness relative to no clearly defined UE ID convolution encoder design definition and the 579 patent being awarded in spite of Dr KaKaes claim of patent invalidity.
I would say Nokia had Mr Lanning clearly define base station simultaneous user operation, WLL operation and that Mr Lanning could not find a USPTO correlation of power ramp up patents and CDMA.
The only way to judge how the case is going would be to hear all of the presentations.
Thanks goes out to Jim and all that have contributed to all of Jim’s boards over the past years to help us get through all of the ups and downs by having the best group of contributors from all of the various backgrounds to provide wisdom whether positive of negative information/data is provided. I could not have hung in there the past 10 years without the help. THANKS!
techinvestor/ellis: Thanks for you effort. Nokia’s expert witness, Lanning, was the same expert that testified for Samsung. I’d assume that his basic testimony was the same given during the Samsung hearing, but with the questions and the cross being revised based on the lawyers perception of how things went during the Samsung hearing. For those interested in the technical details, Lanning’s previous testimony and cross are contained in the following three transcripts .
As I previously posted, from what I remembered, prior references to the Lucas papers being made public were about some German university library, and that IDCC’s concern was about the date it was made public. I finally found the reference that I was referring to. As part of Lanning’s previous testmony, Samsung requested that a Declaration of Angelika Hagemann, of the German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB), University of Hamburg, be entered into evidence (RX-2813). This document (a letter) apparently discussed when the Lucas document was received and entered into the library’s system. IDCC's lawyer considered this point to be very pertinent regarding prior art and strongly objected to the inclusion of the document into evidence, but the ALJ overruled the objection. The discussion regarding the document is at pages 2302-2318 of the last transcript noted above. Was any reference to this document made during the hearing?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
