mickey: Although you may "keep saying Nokia has to prove they are not infringing. Just like IDCC will have to prove their patents are valid", you have the burden of proof in patent cases backwards.
In regard to infringement, the patent holder (IDCC) bears the burden of proof to show that the defendant (Nokia) infringed the patent. The plaintiff must prove infringement by a “preponderance of the evidence”. A “preponderance of evidence” has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true.
In regard to proving validity, since the patent is presumed to be valid, it is up to Nokia to prove that it is invalid. The standard of proof being “clear and convincing evidence”. To prove something by “clear and convincing evidence”, the party must prove that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This is a stricter requirement than proof by "preponderance of the evidence," which merely requires that the matter asserted seem more likely true than not.
As described, it was harder for Nokia to prove invalidity, but what was surprising was that IDCC, under the lower standard, could not prove infringement.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
