Replies to post #267733 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[nessco]

That's not his job. He ruled no violation because that's how he ruled based on the testimonies presented in his court. The phones either infringe or they don't. I understand everyone wanting to put a good spin on this. But we got beat by NOK and now if we are going to license them it's going to be at a lesser rate than we were asking.IMO
Ness

[M6]

Learning

Good post...I think you have it nailed IMO...the story is the same as always...a license will get done....it's ONLY a function of rate/structure.

[mickeybritt]

Learning2vest

I think you are reading it right, but it takes 2 to settle. Nokia is blowing smoke, and thats it, as they now have way more problems than they had prior to Friday, as the patents were all ruled valid, which was the crux of the Nokia argument. Now that they lost the validity argument they must try to defend against these 16 claims as well as other patents that IDCC later can claim in a courtroom. I think having chaired the standards committees approval of a IDCC patent to be standard compliant if I am not mistaken, and then not infringe, and say you are standard compliant is a far fetch to me. I go back to why argue validity if you didn't infringe, and why say IDCC is asking to much, when I bet its less than what their experts asserted a patent was worth. They will talk a lot but they will pay, in my opinon and hopefully more than IDCC was asking for prior to the ruling.

JMO
Mickey

[whizzeresq]

Learning2vest--Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but I think you are absolutely wrong that the ALJ somehow rendered a ruling of non-infringement because he thought Nokia had made a reasonable settlement offer or because he thought that this was a commercial dispute. Judge Lukhern is a well respected ALJ in a federal administrative agency that has a job to do and that is rule on whether products are being imported that violate US patents, and, if so, whether a ban should issue. Judge Lukhern knows that it is quite likely in a case of this magnitude that his decision will be scrutinized by the full commission on appeal and then by the Federal Circuit. Based on his reputation, the last thing that he would want to do is write a half-assed opinion that would be criticized by the full commission or Federal Circuit. I think everyone has to accept the fact that after hearing all of the evidence in this case, the ALJ made a ruling that the 4 patents in issue were valid but no infringed, pure and simple. It was not a punt, it was not based on the alignment of the stars, it was not based on anything remotely having to do with settlement. It was based on his view of the law and facts as presented to him. IMHO

[intime]

If people think patent protection is black and white, it isn't. IDCC knows that and is taking the proper steps. They are prosecuting patents based on feedback from the litigation. That is the only way to develop a strong portfolio. These cases are still active and taking the feedback from the ITC to prosecute additional claims to address differences in interpretation between the judge and IDCC will only strengthen its portfolio.

They recently received patent 7,536,013 on May 19, 2009 which is a Continuation of ‘579. They amended claims on that patent after the Samsung ITC process was completed and included in their informational disclosure statement the Kakaes testimony of invalidity among other items.

They subsequently have continued the prosecution of continuations for the '004, '966, and '847 cases and have included IDS for the Lanning report of invalidity as references among others. They have delayed an allowed patent in this family from issuance to further include references and keep the case active to tailor claims based on ITC feedback.

They will be able to rewrite claims of pending applications to clarify the desired claim interpretation. Nokia knows this and will sign a license agreement. IDCC knows this and will only be able to strengthen. This is a setback but IMO a short-term one.