olddog, personally, I cannot envision a scenario where NOK would continue with litigation, betting "on the come" that they could prove invalidity at this stage, if the CAFC was to rule against them in the appeal. But that is just my opinion. Unless the ruling left some room for them to argue infringement I think the game would be over, but that is my uneducated guess.
Olddog:Thanks for that clarification regarding the holding of validity and enforceability.
In any event, even if that is subject to redetermination, as we've discussed before, the issues of 'validity' and 'enforceability' of patents are more technical issues than the phrases sound like.
It is extremely unlikely that the patents will be found to be invalid or unenforceable.
Of course all of that might significantly add to the timeline but the idea that NOK would continue to refuse to settle after a CAFC loss is still hard to understand since every minute that goes by they would lose significant leverage in negotiations.
olddog, what did wizzer mean by "new claims construction"? What the hell would have changed to allow, after a win on appeal, an ITC ALJ to have a second chance to rule on the issue of infringement? And would this ruling (with commission assent) be appeal-able? I must be misunderstanding even my third reading of wizzer's stuff and the 337 FAQs -- I can't make sense of it!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
