longball: Apparently the main reason Nokia is claiming that Sony-Ericsson is not a trigger is that it was not specifically named as a trigger in the license.
There appears to be no question that Ericsson was a named trigger; however Sony-Ericsson could not have been named as it was not in existence at the time the Nokia license was signed.
After the Nokia license was signed, Ericsson ran into problems with their mobile phone business. As a way to correct the situation they transferred their mobile phone business to a new company that was jointly established with Sony. The question then becomes, is the new Sony-Ericsson an appropriate trigger?
It is assumed that in naming the triggers in the license, the usual legal phrasing "and their successors and assigns" was included. According to our legal experts this would cover Sony-Ericsson as being an appropriate trigger. We will just have to see what the arbitration panel thinks