Replies to post #96630 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[laranger]

Keep it up, guys!

You are slowly unraveling the reasons for the actions of IDCC and Ericy.

Let's hope the clerks at the court of appeals are doing the same.

The score is now:

Oso, one.

Ghors, one.

Loop, one.

Corp Buyer is up-to-bat.

[Corp_Buyer]

Loop- I absolutely LOVE your reasoning and I certainly do hope the Court of Appeal sees it this way. My only concern is that it IDCC has made this argument and Judge Lynn (at least) saw it differently.

I do believe there is a good chance that Nok's intervention will be reversed on appeal so then the reinstatement should also be reversed, without any review on the merits of the reinstatement.

I can't explain how or why the intervention may be reversed via legal analysis since that is beyond my capabilities, but my gut feel as a business person reading the trial court briefs is that the Nok intervention may not survive the appeal (50% chance IMO).

Maybe the court of appeal will analyze this case as you suggest, or any other way that results in reversal of the intervention - I certainly hope so.

If the reinstatement is reversed by ANY logic, then IMO we will have escaped an (avoidable) mugging and dodged a serious bullet. I truly hope so.

MO,
Corp_Buyer

[redhot]

Loop-That the settlement was based on a motion to vacate, rather than actual order to vacate, might seem an unjust stretch to accomodate Nok by ignoring the parties' intent.

But how is it possible Ericy and IDCC made this apparently foolish error? Could it have been done by reason of some advantage to 1 of the parties? E.g.: Would Ericy have balked at making settlement dependant on an actual Court Order? Would such dependancy have alerted Judge Lynn to some risk in making that Order?
The unknowns are overly burdensome.