Replies to post #97150 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[WayHaw]

Great work, Clarence...my favorite lines...

Judge - Why should we help you when you could have intervened earlier?

NOK - We trusted IDCC.

Ya gotta love this stuff!

WayHaw

[ams13sag]

Thank you Clarence. Now what does it all mean, including Corp's posts. good, bad or so so for IDCC.

ams

[Corp_Buyer]

Clarence- outstanding report. It is just the type of report I was hoping for to give some flavor to the briefs.

So far, I have provided the outlines of 2/3 briefs. There is a lot of valuable insight reflected in your notes.

Thank you for attending and reporting!

Corp_Buyer

[Ghors]

Clarence and all: This hearing was typical of oral argument. They had read the briefs and wanted to hear answers to their questions. Unfortunately, you can't tell by the questions what they are really thinking. Sometimes I wonder if they just enjoy playing with the attorneys.

I recently had a judge call a rule, "draconian" and just lambast the Attorney General for the rule. However, he still ruled against us. LOL

IMO
Ghors

BTY: I didn;t read anything to change my mind on how I would have ruled.

[sinnet14]

Can anyone explain a little bit about the following:

NOK - There is still a case or controversy. IDCC relies heavily on the Non-Commissioned Officers case from the 5th Circuit. That case is distinguishable. The motion to intervene was made 4 years after dismissal. Other cases they rely on are distinguishable because they all had jurisdictional defects.


what is nokia's arguement here all about? TIA

[whizzeresq]

Clarence--Thanks for your summary, it brings back memories of being a law clerk. A very interesting question that was put to Nokia and could resolve much of the case perhaps without dealing with Bancorp is why Nokia waited so long to intervene. The answer that Nokia trusted IDCC made no sense. The panel seemed to clearly understand that Nokia had signed an agreement with IDCC that could utilize Ericy as a trigger. Why should Nokia then trust IDCC. If anything, Nokia was put on notice that they had an interest in the IDCC-Ericy litigation which could impact their 2G rate with IDCC and Nokia acted unreasonably in waiting until after the case was dismissed to intervene. I think the panel may seriously be considering this issue. If Nokia should not have been permitted to intervene, then the rest of the case could go away and Judge Lynn had no authority on her own to reinstate the earlier rulings. Of course, this is all quick conjecture without having read the briefs.

[TFWG]

What point is Nokia making here please? Are they seeking precident from any case that may fit their arguement?

Judge - Why should we help you when you could have intervened earlier?

NOK - We trusted IDCC.

Judge Rader - OK, they didn’t protect you; but they had no obligation to protect you.

NOK - There is still a case or controversy. IDCC relies heavily on the Non-Commissioned Officers case from the 5th Circuit. That case is distinguishable. The motion to intervene was made 4 years after dismissal. Other cases they rely on are distinguishable because they all had jurisdictional defects.


Thank you Clarence!!!!

[Dave Davis]

Clarence: Many,many thanks. Is this a great Board, or what?

[lastchoice]

many thanks for your efforts...and to all the others that continue to critique

[redhot]

Thx Clarence/Ghors et al.eom

[Bill Dalglish]

Please clarify what's at stake here for IDCC?

It would be very helpful if folks here would spell out in a layman's terms why this legal question before the appeals court important one way or the other for IDCC.

Great work, Clarence, and others who have commented so far.

I'm looking for the overall context of this to put with these great posts on WirelessLedger.com.

Thanks!

Bill

[texb]

Clarence, I was struck by the arbitration reference...

IDCC - THE VACATED ORDERS WERE GIVEN TO THE ARBITRATION PANEL, but it didn’t matter because the issues that the vacated orders dealt with were not involved in the arbitration.

Does this imply that the IDCC attorney was indirectly stating that to his knowledge the arbitration panel rejected all of NOK's arguments regarding invalidity? If so, this sure seems to support our consensus belief that the arb tribunal limited its consideration to interpretation of the IDCC/NOK contract - which should mean a relative slam dunk for IDCC.

Could you elaborate on what Davison said about the arbitration panel's reaction to NOK's invalidity claims?

texb

[ST1640]

Clarence: Thank you for all the effort and time you gave in order to report to the board on the hearing. ST1640