Jim, that is consistent with what I read (that IDCC didn't agree to a delay past December in the original delay request). But I must have been at the CAFC between the time that they puy the Nokia #2 delay request in the case file and the time they put the IDCC response in the case file, because I did not read the IDCC correspondence you referenced.
One note, I have noticed before that it sometimes takes a couple of days for the clerks to get the case files updated.
While I was scanning Nokia and the ITCs brief at the courthouse I glanced over the IDCCs response to nokia's motion which was at least 5 maybe 10 pages long. They seemed to strongly oppose a delay. They stated that 6 weeks before when the postponement to December was decided on, Nokia was indisputably already aware of the conflict for their attorney but did not object to the new date at that time. Instead that waited until soon before the dec hearing date to do so. Interdigital argued against the postponement citing that a delay could only be granted for a compelling new reason or something to that effect and this scheduling conflict was not something new.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
