Replies to post #271152 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[infinite_q]

CeeBee, we can only hope that IDCC is learning from these experiences.

I think you are referring to patent 7,536,013, which issued this year. This is the continuation of the '579 patent. Here is the first independent claim:

1. A wideband code division multiple access (WCDMA) user equipment (UE) comprising: circuitry
configured to process a high speed shared control channel (HS-SCCH); and circuitry configured to
process a high speed physical downlink shared channel (HS-PDSCH) associated with the HS-SCCH
when the HS-SCCH includes information processed with a user specific scrambling sequence associated
with the UE; wherein the user specific scrambling sequence is a result of a 1/2 rate convolutional
encoding of a UE identification (ID).

As you can see, they have made several changes to try to counter some of the attacks that were made to the '579 patent. This claim specifically refers to the UE. It refers to "circuitry" that processes the high speed shared control channel and high speed physical downlink shared channel (which refers directly to the HSDPA standard). It refers to a previously scrambled information that was scrambled using a sequence associated with the UE. And finally it refers to 1/2 rate convolutional "encoding" which is a process rather than a specific structure.

I would say that NOK would have to come up with some very creative arguments to get around this patent claim. Clearly the USPTO was willing to let IDCC alter the claims from the '579 patent to make more clear that IDCC intended this broad coverage.

It is unfortunate the courts cannot communicate with the patent examiner, or use him as a witness, when these patents are challenged. It would save a lot of time and money.