Replies to post #91810 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

JK: From my point of view I don't think the arbitration panel will issue subpoenas for Ericsson or Sony-Ericsson to appear at the final evidentiary hearing. From what has been said in the past, the evidentiary hearing is the final summation of the involved parties (Nokia and IDCC).

Although Nokia apparently doesn't think so, IMO the panel probably has already seen enough information to make a decision. Nokia has tried to use the court system to try and get some additional information, but so far to no avail. As was previously noted, the panel chairman while agreeing to arrange a "hearing" in Texas for Ericsson to answer the subpoena stated they were not persuaded of the usefullness of the hearing.

[whizzeresq]

Jaykayjones--There are two issues involved in a NY court issuing subpoenas to Ericy or Sony-Ericy. For purposes of Federal subpoena law, are Ericy or Sony-Ericy found in the district? Remember, the power to subpoena documents from a non-party witness is limited. It could very well be that neither Ericy or Sony-Ericy would be within the subpoena power of a NY court for the documents. Also, there is a big difference between discovery and a trial. Nokia might very well not want to risk issuing a subpoena to Ericy or Sony-Ericy. Think of this as an example. You represent a driver who says he stopped at the stop sign and the other driver drove through the stop sign. There is one witness and the other driver says the direct opposite of your client. If the witness refused to talk to you, you might want to depose him, but your probably wouldn't take the risk of just serving a subpoena on him to testify at trial, since, there would be the risk of him testifying directly contrary to your client.