laranger
when you set up a defense, you don't want to set up just one defense line. that's Nokia's legal strategy.
Nokia's position is: first they argue there is no trigger, if they lose this arguement, their second defense line is "rate to be determined and lower than Ericsson's rate". If the rate is determined to be same as E's rate, Nokia wants no money damages awarded.
similar strategy is used by IDCC vs. Federal:
On November 4, 2003 the Company filed an action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a declaratory judgment that the reimbursement agreement is void and unenforceable, seeking reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and expenses which have not been reimbursed by Federal and which were paid directly by the Company in connection with the Ericsson Inc. litigation, and seeking damages for Federal’s bad faith and breach of its obligations under the insurance policy. In the alternative, in the event the reimbursement agreement is found to be valid and enforceable, the Company is seeking a declaratory judgment that Federal is entitled to reimbursement based only on certain portions of amounts received by the Company from Ericsson Inc. pursuant to the settlement of the litigation involving Ericsson Inc.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
