InvestorsHub Logo

NukeJohn

01/15/11 9:32 PM

#306460 RE: quilix #306459

quilix, thanks for posting this. I didn't see this when I was there in late Oct./early Nov., but I knew the Nokia lawyers knew of the conflict when I saw their filing (but they didn't tell the court because they knew the November delay from Ms. Valentine might not be granted). I must have just missed IDCC's filing by a day or two.

If you are back in the clerk's office any time soon, that would still be a good one to copy and post to the Wireless Ledger, as would all the courts responses to the delay requests. People will get a chance to read what we have read and they will have a better understanding of why I think the CAFC is really PO'd at Nokia's tactics.

NJ

JimLur

01/15/11 9:32 PM

#306461 RE: quilix #306459

quilix, Thanks for your comments on this issue. 5 to 10 pages of objections about moving the date to January is much stronger than IDCC's one liner in a 8-K.