I have previously performed my analysis on these briefs. Since I'm on a business trip I won't have time to add much, if anything, over the next few days. Now that these briefs are posted I encourage everyone to print them out and lay the IDCC response brief next to the ITC and the Nokia briefs and go through them point by point and see how IDCC responded to each point made in the opposition briefs. That's basically what I did at the CAFC back in October.
You might wish to remember that these issues have been considered by the USPTO in the prosecution of several continuation patents that were granted in late 2009 and early 2010...and in every case they sided with IDCC.
This is a de novo review of the claims construction, so the CAFC starts from scratch (ie, they give no deference to the claims construction of ALJ Luckern...they start fresh). Once the claims are construed using the normal definitions, the infringement analysis of Judge Luckern falls apart. FWIW, I went through this exercise several months ago, and I came to the conclusion that IDCC wins hands down. My analysis is posted here.
FWIW, I still believe that Nokia will likely settle before oral arguments. I base this on my study of the briefs and the public comments by Bill Merritt that the IP is no longer in question (just the rate). Here are all the reasons I believe we will see a settlement before oral arguments.
1. The words in the parties joint Rule 33A filing (acknowledging settlement talks were taking place) were not antagonistic (as I often see in these filings).
2. The strength of the IDCC briefs.
3. The fact that the USPTO sided with IDCC (and against the ITC claims construction) in the granting of the IDCC continuation patents.
4. The new CEO of Nokia wants to turn things around ASAP in the US market, and the possibility of an exclusion order and a C&D order virtually kills Nokia.
5. The comments made by Bill Merritt in the last conference call that IDCC preffered a "business solution".
6. The comments from Bill Merritt in the NASDAQ OMX presentation saying the patents are no longer in question....just the rate.
7. The fact that Nokia has visably alienated the CAFC with their delay tactics. It's possible on Nokia's delay request in November (that got the oral arguments moved from December to January) that they told the Federal Circuit there was a good possibility they could get a settlement worked out if given the time. That's one possible explanation of why the court gave the parties another month after they denied the request and scheduled oral arguments for Dec. 9th.
Each of these above "clues" lead me to believe that a settlement is in the works (plus the parties have indicated as much). Also, IDCC past history has always seemed to encourage business settlements and not force litigation to a conclusion. Plus, I think maybe Cramer is aware of something...and that's why he did this piece on Mad Money.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
