EDIT: Supreme Court, Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 24-25 (1994).
Incidentally, it might be illuminating if we can get to read the brief filed by IDCC in this appeal since it may reveal some of the potential harm to IDCC resulting from this ruling by the trial court to reinstate the PSJs.
Question..Do you think that the Patents and or claims at issue in the PSJ were not included in the subsequent IDCC 2G Convenience licenses with Ericy and S/E..and are also included in the existing Nokia/Samsung 2G CONVENIENCE licenses as well? And if so..What impact would a standing PSJ have with the remaining OEM's who are yet unlicensed with IDCC and represent less than 20% of the 2G GSM market? TIA
While Nok will argue: * IDCC lied to the court (about no interested 3rd parties) * The intervention was proper and the trial court ruled properly to allow it * Bancorp applies and the trial court ruled properly in vacating the PSJs * IDCC forfeited their right to keep the PSJs vacated per Bancorp * Public interest in clearly and publically defining the extent and limitations of IDCC's patent monopoly * Etc.
"...the fact that it is a Supreme Court case precedent makes F&J's negligence in disregarding it all the more upsetting."
We don't know for a fact that F&J were involved in the settlement agreement between IDCC/E/SE. F&J were fighting the court battle but not necessarily involved in the settlement drafting.
If F&J were in fact involved in the settlement agreement, then IDCC has a case for negligence and IMO we would have seen F&J booted off all IDCC's cases. JMO, JK
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
