Replies to post #310445 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[infinite_q]

And to be quite frank, I am not expecting a settlement prior to the CAFC ruling. I think, as JMS has postulated, that a framework exists for deteriming the rate. I think the parties are awaiting this ruling to determine the rate that will be paid by NOK. I think both parties know there will be a license after this, and they both want IDCC to come away with a strong portfolio so other parties have to "pay to play". The only thing left to determine is the rate, based on the CAFC claims construction. NOK will end up with a preferred rate, but the actual rate will be based on the new claims construction from the CAFC, IMO. Every nuance of the ruling will play into the rate, IMO. So I eagerly await the ruling.

[my3sons87]

As I recall Nokia presented the Lucas documents that they had in a vault somewhere in Germany for years as proof of prior art during the ITC case. Well that Nokia Lucas material didn't stand the test to invalidate IDCC's patents as being VALID. So what would Nokia use know since they laid all the cards on the table during the ITC case.

In addition, the patents in suit at the ITC were even revalidated by the USPTO inspite of Nokia's Lucas documents. And following the conclusion of the ITC case IDCC's patents had improvement extensions granted by the USPTO.

For those who think patent validity will be challenged again, at the ITC if the CAFC remands the case, I say you better go find something better than that Lucas crap. Maybe bring some Hail Mary documents this time.