Replies to post #370568 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[the trading doctor]

Seems to me that the issue in this case is it says that LSI did not make a licensing offer to realteks at all and as such does not have the right to demand an injunction.

I am quite certain we don't want courts deciding on Frand rates, but in the case of IDCC there has never been an argument that nokia wasn't given frand rates to pay.

am I off base here?

I don't profess to understand the nuisances of the licensing or its laws, but reading what Whyte seems we are arguing apples and oranges

[olddog967]

my3sons: Although there were three points in the Judge's order, only the first two could apply to IDCC:

"IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the court: (1) GRANTS Realtek's partial motion for summary judgment that defendants breached their RAND licensing obligations to Realtek by failing to offer a license to the declared standard essential '958 and '867 patents before filing a Section 337 action at the ITC seeking an exclusion order and injunctive relief; (2) GRANTS Realtek's request for a preliminary injunction barring defendants from enforcing any exclusion order or injunctive relief by the ITC, which shall remain in effect until this court has determined defendants' RAND obligations and defendants have complied therewith; and (3) DENIES defendants' motion for a stay."


For item (1) which was considered a breach of contract, the key element in the decision appears to be the fact that LSI filed their ITC action before offering a license to Realtek. As noted in the decision, this was fact specific to this particular case, and therefore shouldn't necessarily apply to IDCC's cases. From the decision:

"Accordingly, the court holds that defendants breached their contractual obligations to IEEE and to Realtek as a third-party beneficiary of that contract by seeking injunctive relief against Realtek before offering Realtek a license. The court's breach of contract holding is limited to the situation here, where defendants did not even attempt to offer a license, on "RAND" terms or otherwise, until after seeking injunctive relief. This conduct is a clear attempt to gain leverage in future licensing negotiations and is improper. The court denies defendants' motion for a Rule 56(d) stay or continuance because the additional discovery defendants seek is only pertinent to this court's later determination of an appropriate RAND rate, and does not affect the court's decision on the limited issue here of whether the initiation of the ITC action before offering any license was a breach of defendants' RAND obligations."


In regard to item (2), the preliminary injunction regarding enforcement of an exclusion order, this could affect IDCC; however, it does not affect the issuance of an ITC exclusion order and how this will play out in the ITC and appeals court decisions on the subject which are sure to come. It has been stated that changes in this area could require Congressional action.