Replies to post #104012 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Data_Rox]

OT: Thanks Jim / Dave (eom)

[3GDollars]

If I don't have my hard cash in this, this Nokia's response would be comical.

So far what Nokia is saying is that this little company keep threatening us, it was hitting us with a 2x4 we have to sign up an 'insurance' license in 1999. Poor us.

Unfortuntely, in a court of law, everything is possible.

[plumear]

Does anyone else find it weird or interesting that Cramer, about a week ago, talked about how he would sell IDCC because all they did was get involved in litigation? Within the last couple days someone posted an article from the Motley Fool about companies that developed and bought IPR for the purpose of suing other companies for profit by forcing them into licensing agreements. Isn't it a bit coincidental that this occurred just before Nokia response to IDCC's motion when they accuse IDCC of this very thing? Could it be possible that there is an attempt to influence this thing in the court of public perception?


Even more out in left field, could there be any connections between management bashing, attempts to remove IDCC leadership and high levels of shorting to keep a lid on a price run-up and create shareholder discontent prior to the ASM or, as other posters have suggested, to condition the shareholders to accept a lower price in the event of a buyout? (Sort of like the Navy using it's guns to soften up the beaches before the Marines are sent in) Could the Nokia action be part of the same effort?

[ubx]

I read some of Nokia's response to IDCC's motion to dismiss the case. I don't know how judges wade through all this stuff and cut to the chase. Seems like a real crap shoot to me -- extreme views on each side -- the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It seems like IDCC has a long road ahead, slogging through the courts every inch of the way.

So what is the timetable going forware for this IDCC vs. Nok case in Delaware? When will we know whether the court tells Nok to go packin' or IDCC to buck up and defend itself?

[rmarchma]

An excerpt from Nokia's response re 3G essentiality as follows:

...."and it continues to claim that its patents are essential to practice even the newest “Third Generation” mobile telephony standards. When asked to specify which of the 1600 patents are actually essential, InterDigital identified the patents for which declaratory relief is sought in this proceeding. But InterDigital contends that this list is not exhaustive and has refused to provide a more comprehensive listing of the patents it contends are necessary to practice the standards, preferring instead the in terrorem leverage of vague threats arising out of its portfolio of 1600 patents."

Evidently IDCC must have specified in some direct communication to Nokia that the 18 3G patents involved in the Delaware suit were 3G essential patents. However, IDCC must have clearly indicated that the communicated list was not an exhaustive list of all of IDCC's 3G essential patents.

An excerpt from an email that I sent IDCC's Directors on 1/21/05 as follows:

"In light of these accusations by Nokia, I would suggest that you might consider providing greater detailed information regarding what IDCC considers to be its essential 3G IPR. That information is certainly compiled and provided to potential licensees, but I think it needs to be publicly disseminated. Vague references to contributions to standards, and general claims to having essential patents in all cellular standards, are just not enough anymore since the Nokia’s lawsuits.

On a prior Conference Call, wireless analyst Bucher was surprised that IDCC was claiming essential patents for CDMA2000 and asked if IDCC might put out a "white paper" detailing its essential patents. I think the reply was that IDCC would check into possibly doing something like that. However, IDCC never put out a white paper on its essential IPR. In addition to existing 3G licenses, I think IDCC's case for 3G essentiality could be made even stronger with a detailed white paper. This white paper would be even more effective if prepared by or attested to by an expert wireless consulting agency"

IR's answer to that suggestion was as follows:

Janet said that a "white paper" might somehow inadvertently restrict a patent if too much is specifically disclosed about the patents. Instead IDCC declares what it believes to be its essential patents to the regional standards bodies.

IDCC has provided a list of its essential patents to ETSI, the most prominent regional standards body. IDCC declared a total of 257 US issued patents, by specific patent number, as what they believe to be essential to the 3G standards. Not just 18 3G patents, but 257 3G patents. A couple of reposts on this issue as follows:

Posted by: rmarchma
In reply to: intime who wrote msg# 90828
Date:1/14/2005 10:44:26 AM
Post #of 91017

Intime re IDCC's essential 2G and 3G patents declared to ETSI. Not all of IDCC's essential 2G patents will be expiring in 2006, only the early ones. IDCC has recently delared many more essential patents for both 2G and 3G, bringing the total issued US deemed essential patents to 114 for 2G and 257 for 3G. This is only the US totals, and not worldwide totals. From a repost as follows:

Posted by: rmarchma
In reply to: Data_Rox who wrote msg# 83945
Date:11/12/2004 11:43:56 AM
Post #of 90830

Rox re US essential patents declared to ETSI

Thanks for the update and I stand corrected. IDCC did update its declarations to ETSI in April 2004, which I was not aware of until today. Now there are two ETSI declaration dates associated with the IDCC patents, 4/10/2001 and 4/8/2004. IDCC initially declared 69 essential US issued patents on 4/10/2001 to ETSI, comprised of 16 GSM/TDMA patents and 53 UMTS/CDMA patents. These patents are still listed under those same classifications.

IDCC then declared 98 more essential US GSM issued patents to ETSI on 4/8/2004, which are classified under GSM only, not GSM/TDMA. Also IDCC declared 204 more 3G UMTS issued essential patents to ETSI on 4/8/2004 classified under UMTS only, not UMTS/CDMA. Thus the updated total is now 371 nonduplicated declared US (not worldwide) issued essential patents for IDCC, and 1 declared essential patent for Tantivy, as you so indicated.

I am not so surprised by the large increase in 3G UMTS issued patents declared as essential to ETSI in April 2004. I figured these 3G patents would be forthcoming as they were subsequently issued by the US Patent Office. However, I am surprised by the large increase in the 2G GSM issued patents declared as essential to ETSI in April 2004. I thought it had been ages since IDCC worked on 2G.

[rmarchma]

Nokia court filing and scope of 1999 license. From the main filing document on page 10 (or page 16 of the PDF file) as follows:

"In addition, InterDigital has told different stories to different courts at different times about the scope of the 1999 License on which it bases its pending motion. In this proceeding, InterDigital representative William Merritt represented to this Court, under oath, that the 1999 License covers all 3G technologies (at least until it expires):

In January 1999, InterDigital and Nokia Corporation entered into a negotiated patent license agreement. Under that agreement, InterDigital granted to Nokia Corporation a worldwide non-exclusive license under essentially all of
InterDigital's 1,609 active issued patents and 5,077 active pending patent applications. Those patents include InterDigital’s TDMA and CDMA patents, which apply to 2G products such as GSM and US-TDMA, as well as 3G products
such as WCDMA and cdma2000 products.”

(Merritt Decl. 12 (emphasis added).) In patent litigation pending between the parties in England, however, in describing “[w]hat is covered by the Patent License Agreement,”InterDigital claimed that “as regards 3G CDMA equipment per se, the license does not extend to such technology” (Exh. M at 3). Both of the 3G standards referenced by Mr. Merritt are “3G CDMA standards.”10 InterDigital’s UK position directly contradicted its position in this case. And InterDigital has recently adopted yet another position in the UK proceedings, contending that its previous statement should be amended to read, “as regards 3G CDMA equipment per se, the paid-up license does not extend to such technology” (Exh. N at 4, 6 (emphasis in original)). But InterDigital offers no explanation for this substantial change in its understanding of the 1999 License, characterizing its flip-flopping as “clarification” (id. at 4), rather than conceding that its stance changes to suit its negotiating position."

Jim and Dave thanks for the additional court documents. My question refers to the alleged comment by Goldberg in Exh. M. However, Schedule M of the additional documents is only about a Nokia 3G handset. It has no comment at all about the 3G scope of the agreement supposedly made in error by Goldberg. It is clear from IDCC's licensing page that Nokia's 1999 contract covers 3G products. Can anyone find the supporting documents referencing this alleged conflicting statement by Goldberg?