Loop, agree 100%. There is no question in my mind that the NOK/IDCC agreement had specific, named triggers. This has been confirmed by IDCC. The title of the section of the contract may have been "Major Competitors", but there were specific named triggers. IDCC has made it clear that ERICY was a named trigger. NOK has stated in their court filings (motions to intervene and to compel) that the language used in the contract incoporated the term "successors and assigns". The entire legal question as to whether SONY/ERICY is a trigger boils down to whether this entity qualifies as a successor or assign. You stated in very clear terms why they should qualify.
Even SAM seems to concede this point. Their arbitration arguments read differently from NOK's and seem to revolve more around the calculation of the applicable royalty rate, and the consideration of the multiple facets of consideration involved.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
