Maybe a "logical" approach covers more ground than we are considering. Nokia opened the door to having the arb panel take a look at InterDigital's TDMA patents and demanded that they decide both their validity and their application, right? Well, let's think awhile about what a "logical" evaluation of those patents might look like.
Panel's question to Nokia; "I see that some of these early IDCC TDMA patents appear to be talking about "a" base station. Did you use any of those patents in any of your 2G base stations?" Mutter, sputter, as Nokia gets around to responding with a "Yes, but...". Arb panel cuts that off with their next "logical" question; "Ok, how many of your 2G base stations use any of these early IDCC TDMA patents?" Yikes! Circle the wagons, lots of spitting and shrieking from Nokia before they have to admit, "All of our 2G base stations use those "single" base station patents."
Stone faced arb panel response; "I see. Thank you." followed by cold, chilling silence as the reality of a "logical" approach sinks into the frustrated Nokia legal team. May seem like fantasy to folks expecting U.S. courtroom criteria to be used exclusively, but who knows where a "logical" approach in an ICC arbitration might lead??
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
