IMO, this action by NOK is like buying a raffle ticket that guarantees that you win something. The main prizes are:
1) The judge throws out the arbitration award
2) The judge modifies the award in NOK's favor
3) The judge returns the award back to the ICC for further consideration with NOK, at minimum, benefiting from the delay.
If NOK is unsuccessful in winning in court, they will still get the prize of having delayed the actual payment to IDCC. The will serve to weaken IDCC by also delaying other paying licensees and also put NOK in a strengthened position when arguing that royalty rates be capped at 5%. It would be somewhat difficult to do that after they are already paying IDCC their portion. In such a situation, they would be suggesting that in order to cap the rates, they would have to reduce the amount that some companies like IDCC were already getting and/or to see to it that companies that claimed to have an equivalent amount of IPR, more or less, not get the equivalent amount of royalties.
IMO, IDCC must somehow convey to the judges that NOK is engaging in practices that are not designed to achieve justice but rather are designed to destroy other companies for the benefit of NOK, through a total abuse of the judicial process.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
