You said, "Nok in its filing said they were penalized. I think what IDCC is arguing that even if that is true, the arbitrators had the authority to do so citing Mastrobuono."
Nokia may be talking about the "additional interest", and the loss of cash discount during 2002/2004, which was mentioned on August 20:
"O'Dog.
Yeah. Nokia always seems to want it both ways, depending on which way the wind is blowing, and whether its attorneys got a good night's sleep.
Although not earthshaking on the surface, the "additional interest" question may be significant, for what it implies.
Nokia argues that it was merely following the PLA in demanding the arb., and shouldn't be punished for doing so. However, additional interest appears to be a slap in the face, for deliberately causing a two year delay in resolving the trigger issue. Otherwise, why start a fight by deviating from the PLA?
And the decision to disallow cash discount appears to be a second slap in the snout.
I remember Loop saying, in effect, Nokia was not delinquent in paying 2002/2004 royalties, until the panel ruled that a trigger was pulled. That made total sense. But the panel apparently had enough evidence to rule otherwise.
If the court confirms, these two amounts could dwarf the legal fees Nokia is paying."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
