Replies to post #119279 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[laranger]

IDCC has an audit clause in some of its agreements.

Without the right to audit, a license agreement has little teeth.

[Corp_Buyer]

Nok certainly has the obligation under the PLA to properly report and pay past due royalties to IDCC. Accordingly, the declaration by the tribunal for past due relief, soon to be Court Order, simply makes Nok's current obligations enforceable, Nok's obligation having been interpreted by the tribunal and declaratory relief provided.

I do not think that the declaration by the tribunal and the resulting order by the Court do anything but add needed enforcement teeth to what is already in the contract. IMO, there is no need for another arbitration to require Nok to abide by the terms already agreed in the PLA and interpreted by the tribunal.

For the court to see it Nok's way and modify the Award to remove the declaratory relief for the past due amounts results in circular logic it seems to me. I see no reason why the declaratory relief should be replaced by 2 or more arbitrations that finally distill down to a purely monetary award in the end. What say Nok about the declaratory relief for FUTURE amounts owed? If declaratory relief can apply to the Future amounts, then surely declaratory relief can apply to the past due amounts as well, right?

I really do not expect the Court to have any problem confirming the Award in its entirety, including an Order for Nok to properly report and pay past due amounts, both past and future due amounts, now that the rates have been established.

MO,
Corp_Buyer

[whizzeresq]

Corp-Buyer--You said:

"So, it seems IDCC does have Nok sales reports for 2002-2003, and those amounts, although indicated as IDCC estimates, may be actual past due amounts based on Nok's sales reports?"

I guess to the extent that any sales figures are estimates and not actual reports by Nokia provided to IDCC in accordance with the ICC arbitration award, Nokia may claim that the award still is not ripe and will not be ripe until those figures are provided to IDCC and IDCC and Nokia agree on those figures and the resulting amounts owed. Of course, this is all speculation on what Nokia's defenses may be since we have not seen (and probably will never see) the arbitration award. I bet that most of the papers filed in the Federal Dist Ct action will be under seal since they will intimately be involved with and refer to the arbitration award. As a result, we may never know Nokia's arguments unless IDCC files 8Ks that briefly refer to Nokia's positions in the Federal Dist. Ct. action.