Replies to post #95720 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[laranger]

Loop.

Once again, the air becomes a little clearer for the peons.

To put it in layman's terms, I believe you're saying that, ordinarily:

1. The panel makes its decision,

2. Transmits it to the ICC for final review.

3. Notifies the parties of the award.

In this case, it appears that:

1. BOTH PARTIES REQUESTED A DELAY from the panel, presumably for settlement purposes.

2. The panel requested approval from the ICC.

3. The ICC said "OK, but you can only delay until May 31."

If they settle, the party's over.

If they don't, an award will be made on May 31, unless the parties reach an impasse beforehand, and so notify the panel.

As usual, you've been very patient, Loop. Much appreciated.

[mschere]

Sound reasoning..I would add that while both parties agreed to the ICC Final Award date to be set in Stone as far as a FINITE date (5/31/05)..I also believe that IDCC reserved the right to UNILATERALLY permit a earlier Date at any point that they deem settlement talks have been Deadlocked for any reason..keeping the pressure on Nokia for a swifter resolution of 3G..

Item 8.01. Other Events.

On February 14, 2005, the Tribunal presiding over the arbitration proceeding
between InterDigital Communications Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary
InterDigital Technology Corporation (ITC), and Nokia Corporation (Nokia),
notified the parties that the International Court of Arbitration of the
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has set May 31, 2005 as the last date
for rendering a Final Award. The Company anticipates a decision by the ICC on or
before that date absent an earlier resolution by the parties. The arbitration
relates to Nokia's royalty obligations on its worldwide sales of 2G GSM/TDMA and
2.5G GSM/GPRS/EDGE products under its existing patent license agreement with
ITC.


The ICC informed the Tribunal. Why? What difference would it make unless the parties requested time from the Tribunal for settlement purposes? The issue has to be raised in order for there to be a response. Look closely at the "last date" wording. I do not know for sure that the parties requested that the decision and award be held in limbo for a reasonable time to settle, but it seems strange that this information would even be available for 8k purposes without initiation from the parties.

[wireless_wazoo]

Loop, very perceptive of you to note the 8K making reference to the Tribunal getting involved to give a "last date". Of course I like the whole phrase "last date for rendering a Final Award" rather than the statement I was expecting which would have been May 31, 2005 as the last date for the Tribunal to announce the decision made by the ICC. The specificity in stating Award is interesting as well as the date 5/31/05. Last year IDCC's annual meeting was the first Wednesday of June which the year falls on 6/1/05 or exactly the next day.

While you are mentioning "tea leaves", I'll throw some more out there --

1) NOK filed their 20-F in the past 2 yrs. during the first few days of February yet this year no filing has been made -- might NOK be adjusting their PROVISIONS for possible 3G payments in 2005 & 2006?
2) IDCC hasn't announced 4th qtr. earnings yet even thought the deadline is 3/15 -- could some 2G money potentially being received by NOK in the near future need to be booked for 2004?
3) And on 1/27/05 (interesting date) a press release from Nokia - Nokia Board of Directors will propose that the Annual General Meeting authorize the Board to resolve to repurchase a maximum of 443 200 000 Nokia shares. The shares may be repurchased in order to carry out the stock repurchase plan. In addition, the shares may be repurchased in order to develop the capital structure of the Company, to finance or carry out acquisitions or other arrangements, to settle the Company's equity-based incentive plans, to be transferred for other purposes, or to be cancelled. The shares may be repurchased either through a tender offer made to all shareholders on equal terms, or through public trading from the market, including also the use of certain derivative, share lending or other arrangements.

[Learning2vest]

Looking at the same tea leaves and seeing something different. The "Tribunal"(i.e., the arbitration panel) operates pretty much as a delegated "agent" of the International Court of Arbitration which is the "hitter" arm of the International Chamber of Commerce. The ICC legal authority is at the Court, and that Court "delegates" some of that authority to each Tribunal. If that is correct(?), seems like it would be standard operating procedure for the Tribunal to defer to the Court, especially when it involves application of that Court's "powers reserved".

Said another way, the "ICC" arbitration panel obtains it's authority from the International Court of Arbitration. Makes sense that they would defer to that body on any matter relating to their final rulings. The "Tribunal" is basically doing "staff work" for the ICC Court the way I'm understanding things. It will be ICC Court that delivers and enforces the "Final Award".

Cannot see reading anything special into the fact that it was the ICC Court that asserted the latest date for delivering a "Final Award"? They are the folks who will state and enforce that Final Award.

[Corp_Buyer]

"The ICC informed the Tribunal. Why?" - Loop, very interesting observation that the Tribunal needed guidance (or ruling or direction) from the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

Is there another reading or possible explanation to wit: Nok may have already elevated (or internally appealed) the panel's refusal to wait until after the UK 2G action is decided so that Nok's non-use of IDCC's technology argument could be fully considered by the panel under the "all relevant factors" clause?

In other words, NOK may already be crying foul against the panel and have elevated their arguments to the ICC "Court of Arbitration"?

Rather than a requested delay by the parties for settlement talks, perhaps Nok is already maneuvering on some of their appeal issues?

In any case, it does seem IMO to be an indicator that IDCC may have effectively prevailed on excluding the 2G non-use technical argument of Nok.

TIA,
Corp_Buyer

[quartzman0]

Dear Loop,

It is with trepidation that I dare to contradict (no sarcasm intended) the most informative poster on this site, but I fail to see all the implecations that you see in this 8K.

Parsed it says, ... "The Tribunal" meaning the three arbitors, told IDCC and Nokia that the ICC, meaning the head office, "has set May 31st as the last date", meaning a deadline, "for rendering a Final Award", meaning issuing its report.

All this tells me is that a deadline has been set to complete the next steps in the process. As I understand from other posters those steps mean that the Tribunal has received final arguements from the two companies. By May 31st they will make their decision, write up their report (which hopefully will include a calculation of moneys owed IDCC), submit the report to the head office, who will review the report by I assume some assigned staff committee, print the report, and issue it to the two companies.

Nowhere in this do I see your conclusion that the parties have requested additional time - that you also conclude is needed to finalize a settlement. The ICC informs the Tribunal of the final steps in the process simply because the ICC controls the speed of the final review and they must therefore determine the final date.

I do agree with the many posters that the long time involved implies a monetary award to IDCC, as it is very simple process to say "no trigger". It is very complicated to calculate an award based upon comparing Nokia's model mix and contract ogligations to Ericcson's model mix and contract obligations.


Great news ---- but not indications of a settlement.

Respectfully,

Q

PS: Unfortunately I believe that Nokia will not give up the fight on 3G. They have wrapped themselves in a blanket of superiority, and will continue their "crusade" against other's IPR as they see it hinders their profitability.