Replies to post #142159 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[alalud]

I fully agree Loop. But once Nokia filed the appeal, what would you have suggested they do on the answer due tomorrow? I also agree with the payment to the officers and when you are talking millions rather than thousands it really sticks in my craw! If the job is completed, a bonus is due (probably). If it is not, their salaries and prior bonus seemed more than adequate. Results then bonus and NOT vice versa.

[Learning2vest]

Just finished reading IDCC's Answer in Delaware and feel like it will be enough to push Nokia's hiney off the NY appeal pot before too long. Notes below are what caused me to think that way. It's a copy/paste of some of the reasons given to support IDCC's request for "complex case" designation with my comments added. Any comments and/or corrections appreciated;


4. Plaintiff Nokia Corporation is a Finish Corporation, which gives rise to the inevitable need for foreign discovery.
(I take that mean IDCC intends to conduct discovery on all of Nokia's cross-licensing documents and take depositions from the licensing principals involved not only at Nokia HQ, but also at all of the co-respondent firms. Did IDCC's claims, comments and actions do harm to any of these business transactions?)

5. Nokia's allegations gives rise to the need for substantial third party discovery, including potential discovery from all United States cellular service providers and cellular service providers located throughout the world.
(Brilliant stroke IMO! No question how the thought of IDCC's lawyers conducting court ordered discovery operations at all of Nokia's biggest CUSTOMERS is playing in Espoo right now.)

6. The requirements of 3G Standards and the application of patents to such 3G Standards present technically complex questions, which will necessitate expert testimony.
(IDCC is going to ask the court to appoint a highly qualified, and objective, "special master" to do the patent scrub. That eliminates any chance for Nokia's lawyers to baffle a lay jury with fancy footwork.)

7. Nokia is challenging patent portfolios that contain over 1600 issued patents.(and each of those has multiple claims!)

8. The challenged patent portfolios includes patents issued throughout the world and, if Nokia's claims are read literally, requires an analysis and determination that none of the patents are "essential." (just one "essential" claim in any one of those 1600 patents will bust Nokia's bubble!)

For these reasons, certification of this case as a complex case and the provisions for efficiently handling same as set forth in Local Rule 16.1(b) is appropriate. A focused
discovery schedule that addresses dispositive issues such as the specific bases for Nokia's claim and its alleged harm will inevitably result in summary disposition of this case, thereby saving judicial resources and avoiding unnecessary costs and expenses by the parties.

(No need to do any discovery on anything other than the specific question of harm done to Nokia. IDCC admits to doing and saying everything that Nokia claims caused them to suffer harm. Let us go conduct discovery focused specifically on finding if any harm was done by our actions, and then come back with what we find. We expect those findings will support a motion for summary judgment.)

That leaves me thinking that Nokia is looking at a rough ride to a dismissal. Do they want to do things the easy way and settle, or do they want to take that ride down the hard road to the same result plus interest and legal expenses for both sides?