   |
|
   |
POPULAR ARTICLES
|
BOOKMARK PAGE
|
PRINT THIS REPORT |
 SEND TO A FRIEND |
 FEEDBACK |
 SEARCH THIS SITE
|
|
Notable
Reflections of IHub posters on the August 14th Initial Determination (ID) Judge Finds Patents Valid and Enforceable but Not Infringed; InterDigital to Petition for Review by Full Commission What are the prospects now for a Nokia-InterDigital agreement on 3G licensing?
Posts here updated through August 16, 2009
What these "best posts" on Nokia 3G Licensing and Royalties These posts deal with InterDigital's progress in licensing cell phone market leader (40% share) Nokia for 3G. IThe immediate interest in the summer of 2009 is the August 14, 2009 decision of the administrative law judge for the United States ITC (International Trade Commission) as to whether to bar Nokia from importing into the United States 3G cell phones which InterDigital claims violate their patent rights. (Nokia has already paid InterDigital about $200 million to license its 2G phones) InterDigital Receives Notice of Initial Determination in ITC Patent Infringement Action Against Nokia Judge Finds Patents Valid and Enforceable but Not Infringed; InterDigital to Petition for Review by Full Commission KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa., Aug 14, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC) today announced that it has received notice indicating that the Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) overseeing the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) action brought by InterDigital Communications, LLC and InterDigital Technology Corporation against Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. (Nokia) has filed an initial determination (ID) finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. While the company has not yet received the full ID, the notice indicates that the ALJ determined that the patents, while valid and enforceable, are not infringed by Nokia's 3G WCDMA handsets. InterDigital intends to submit a petition for review of the ID to the full Commission. "We strongly disagree with the ALJ's determination with respect to infringement, and we will exercise our right to petition to the Commission for a review of the ID," said William J. Merritt, President and Chief Executive Officer of InterDigital. "As the Commission has done in a recent case involving Tessera Technologies, we would hope that the Commission will review the ID and, contrary to the ALJ's determination, find a Section 337 violation." By rule, InterDigital has 12 days after service of the full ID to submit a petition for review to the full Commission. The Commission is expected to decide whether it will review the ID within 60 days of service of the full ID. If the Commission does not grant a review of the ID, or grants a review but finds no violation, InterDigital has 60 days to file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If the Commission grants a review of the ID, the Commission's final determination is expected to be issued by December 14, 2009. The Commission can affirm, modify or reverse the ALJ's decision in developing the Commission's final determination. Should the Commission review the ID and find a violation of Section 337, the ALJ recommends the issuance of a limited exclusion order barring entry into the United States of infringing Nokia 3G WCDMA handsets and components as well as the issuance of appropriate cease and desist orders. Mr. Merritt also noted that, "While we are disappointed with the ALJ's determination, the patents asserted in this case represent a very small fraction of our total 3G portfolio. We currently hold and continue to receive patents covering inventions that we believe are essential to the 2G, 3G and emerging LTE standards. Other manufacturers, representing roughly half the 3G market, have recognized our intellectual property's strength and relevance and entered into licensing agreements with us. We, therefore, remain confident in our goal of licensing all manufacturers of 3G terminal units."
Graphics/formatting added to many posts for clarity by WirelessLedger.com WirelessLedger's current focus stock is InterDigital Communications Corp. (IDCC). Posts and threads are culled from the most useful investment message board on the Internet (it is hosted by Investors Hub). For a listing and links to other "best posts" topics click here. T See also: Links to "best posts" on these related revenue catalysts:
Reflections of IHub posters on the August 14th Initial Determination (ID)
RE GAMCO: " Judge Luckern removed from the negotiating table both VALIDITY and ENFORCEABILITY: TRUE ...Infringement is ALL that remains for the full ITU Commission to consider"
-my3sons 8/16/09
this post by revlis is the one we should key in on.
It is a beautiful Sunday so I don't plan to post much today. I know a lot of folks who I consider to be kindred spirits (from over a decade ago) are probably not feeling too well today. One thing to think about is that all we have to do is win on one of 16 claims before the full Commission to obtain a ban on Nokia's products. Although Nokia may be enjoying the ALJ ruling, it ultimately comes down to the Commission as far as a ban. And this is not just on a couple of claims, there are 16 of them to review. Also, the ALJ found "In the event a violation of section 337 is found, the evidence shows that the appropriate remedy barring entry of infringing 3G mobile handsets and components thereof are a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders." Thus, there is the clear risk of a ban to Nokia in the event IDCC wins on just one of the claims. -whizzeresq 8/16/09
whizzer, -revlis 08/16/09 Nicmar the fact that the ALJ recommended a ban if the Commission were to find in favor of IDCC does mean something. It means that he didn't buy any arguments that a ban should not issue even if Nokia infringed. Given the way things have gone in the past with strange decisions (like Lynne and Batts) at least we have a recommendation by him for a ban if the Commission finds for IDCC on at least one claim. IMHO -whizzeresq 8/16/09
dndodd, You're kidding yourself, Revlis. Rationalizing.Don't blame Judge Luckern for your mistaken "belief" that IDCC couldn't/wouldn't lose. Since you're not an expert in patents, nor in litigating patent claims, and the pithy parts of the evidence were hidden from public scrutiny, how can you say what a neutral and detached ALJ would conclude, based upon the record? IDCC lost a bench trial. While not the end of the case or the world, unless they can sign Nokia in a hurry, future licensing and revenues are uncertain. The market hates uncertainty, as tomorrow will make painfully clear. But don't cry corruption, ulterior motives, nor ineptitude. One party loses in every trial, and this time it was InterDigital.That is what's meant by "litigation risk". -JeffreyHF 8/16/09
Statistics on Commission and/or Federal Circuit reversals of ALJ decisions
O D: great post! I was particularly interested in the 2005-2007 43% altered claim constructions in ITC commision reviews. This almost puts us back to square 1. -ziploc 1 8/15/09 o say that Nokia did not infringe on a patent does not mean that it is not essential or even that Nokia does not use the patent. You are confusing technology with law. For example, if the patent was developed under the TDD contract, it could valid and essential but Nokia does not infringe because they already have a license to use it. So......if the Commission indeed reverses the ALJ decision, will Nok then appeal that reversal, and then this whole issue goes to the Fed Circuit Court? If so, we're well into the year 2010 for final resolution? -ciciagt 8/15/09
Ciciagt: We were going to have to wait anyway, even if Idcc won on the preliminary determination. --ziploc 1` 8/15/09
Nokia's press release
Interesting release from Nokia. Note that they do not say that IDCC's 3G patent portfolio is worthless, they simply say that "We believe this initial determination by the ITC combined with earlier UK court decisions provide a strong indication that the asserted value of InterDigital's 3G patent portfolio may have been over-estimated." -infinite q 8/14/09 Infinite, Ziploc, you may be onto something here.
What are the prospects for a Nokia-InterDigital agreement on 3G licensing?
Posted by: loophole73 Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 Post # 266066 Mickey First and foremost I am not a patent lawyer and not qualified to opine on patent validity and claims construction. Second, I believe that IDCC is more than capable of tearing down any phone and accurately identifying the various components and the technology contained therein. Third, IDCC worked with Nok for three years coordinating FDD and developing TDD to work in the W-CDMA system which was in the process of standardization at the time. Fourth, IDCC also had Dr. Schilling and other excellent engineers developing and patenting CDMA technology. Fifth, IDCC has successfully developed design winning 3g technology at the chip level further demonstrating the ability of its engineers to identify, coordinate and provide the technology contained in a 3g system. Sixth, the USPO issued the 4 patents involved in the ITC investigation. Seventh, these patents and the claims within are presumed valid. Eighth, Nok must prove invalidity via clear and convincing evidence, a mere preponderance fails to meet its burden. Ninth, IDCC has built and demonstrated systems at the 2, 2.5, 2.75, 3 and 3.5g levels dispelling the myth that the company is some patent troll that has gained its IPR via purchase or some other means than its own creation and invention. Tenth, Nok certainly believed up until April 26, 2006, that it needed a license to avoid infringement of IDCC IPR for its products containing 2 and 3g technology. Eleventh, Nok was so impressed with the heretofore inventions of IDCC that they initiated and consumated a strategic partnership for the development of 3g TDD technology. Twelveth, IDCC has successfully prosecuted patents worldwide for three decades. Finally, thirteenth, IDCC has 50% of the production by 3g manufacturers under license with the lion's share of the remaining 50% being comprised of the original conspirators known as MEN whose purpose for the last 24 years has been to put the company out of business. Based on the above, I believe the picture has been painted for a trier of law and fact to conclude that the Nok products intersect the claims contained in the four patents involved in the investigation. Further, it is my unqualified opinion that Nok has not met its burden of proof under the clear and convincing standard to overcome the presumption of validity conferred upon the 4 patents at the time of issuance by the USPO. It is my unqualified opinion that IDCC can and should win the issuance of a ban of the Nok products identified in the investigation by the ITC. It is my unqualified opinion that the past behavior of Nok not only validates, but mandates that said ban should be issued and not be subject to stay requests by Nok should it appeal. You asked for it Mick and I have given it to you. Please remember that my opinions are unqualified because patent law is a specialty and as a result not worth much at this stage of the game. Courts and triers of fact and law have found that the challenger to validity have met the burden of proof on many occasions. Good luck to us all. MO
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:56:40 AM Post #263424 of 263432
JUDGE LUCKERN: I understand what you're saying, but we spent about ten minutes maybe an hour ago talking about what weight with respect to And we probably spent about 15, 20 minutes on that point so it would be a l l clear. Now you're t e l l i n g me, oh no, don't do it. So you're not making any sense t o me. You'd better shape up as f a r as next week. If you make these type of arguments next week, MR. BRINKMAN: Your Honor, I disagree with the position that was talked about an hour ago and I disagree now. I don't think -- JUDGE LUCKERN: Well I ' m glad you brought it t o the record now. So does that mean, are you speaking a l l of Nokia? 1'11 go back t o t h i s record. MR. BRINKMAN: Yes we did, Your Honor. JUDGE LUCKERN: I don't have real time here, I have the transcript here, I w i l l read it. But my recollection is there was some sort of an agreement as MR. BRINKMAN: Your Honor, i f I may just make our point here. And our point is simply that i f a document is used a t a deposition, that does not make JUDGE LUCKERN: T understand t h a t . I don't want t o hear anymore. You've had your t a l k . I don't want t o hear from that point anymore.
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009
IDCC and Nok have had several settlement sessions and the terms are very complicated. When lawyers make these representations to the court, the odds of reaching a final agreement are very good. Many of you are making statements about management deficiency because it has not been accomplished. You are simply wrong. Nok has entered into several agreements in the past with IDCC and they are batting a 1000in trickery and IMO bad faith in each one. Nok is big enough and bad enough to insist on MFL clauses. Further, if IDCC is trying to land Nok as its poster licensee for LTE, we must remember the 1999 joint development agreement and the rate triggers. It is tough knowing that the other party is the king wiggler in the sector. Do you agree to terms that allow for wiggle room in order to advance your business plan earlier or do you hold tight and litigate now because the wiggler's past conduct leads you to a conclusion that you will have to litigate with this company over any agreement that is reached anyway? Complicated is too nice of a term when dealing with Nok. Just be patient and let this play out. The prior art issue is frustrating, but also carries a huge burden in proving that the publication contains literally all of the claims made by the patentee. It is my belief that the declaration worries were withdrawn at the pre-trial hearing on the following Tuesday after the conference call. MO
Posted by: nicmar Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:40:10 AM Good posts ghors and whiz. "You're using my patents and you got to pay. Slam dunk." A good reminder before going off to celebrate that nothings is as simple as it seems and there is always a risk if idcc and nok goes to decision. Hopefully, neither nokia or idcc will take the risk. imo. .. nic Posted by: Ghors Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:24:14 PM Post #263400 of Whiz: Exactly. Everyone on the board must understand that just because NOK dropped the FRAND defense does not mean they can't pursue inequitable conduct as a defense. It's a separate defense same as validity or infringement. A loss on inequitable conduct is a loss of the case. I also follow RMBS and they have been in litigation for 10 years in multiple courts trying to defend their alleged failure to advise an ETSI type standards body (JEDEC) that they might have essential patents to the standard RMBS was pushing. I understand they have spent 300 million on attorneys' fees and it's still not over yet. IMO ghors
Posted by: whizzeresq Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Post #263346 of Revlis--I believe that Nokia "borrowed" that defense from the Qcom/Broadcom litigation. The defense is essentially an estoppel defense. The gist of it goes that a patent holder that participates in a standards group has an obligation to timely declare all essential patents to the group before the standard is adopted. If such a patent holder fails to disclose such patents until after the standard is adopted (or perhaps too late in the game), the patent holder should be estopped from relying on the patent. The theory goes along the lines that the patent holder engaged in inequitable conduct by not alerting the members of the standards bodies as to the applicable essential patents as soon as possible, presumably so that the members could not have the opportunity to design the standard around the patents so that the patents would no longer be essential. IMHO
Posted by: nicmar Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:43:21 PM Post #263330 moonlanding.. I'm guessing no one wants to answer you because you're brand new with only 1 post and if you've been following this board for awhile you already know it's a pretty close knit group with suspicions as to the other guy's agenda and intent. That being the case, no one's sure about you. Anyway, opinions, I think are all over the board with what's going to happen with the share price and one opinion is about as worthless as the next, so with that in mind here's my very unprofessional opinion that some may agree with and many others will not.I personally don't feel 1 cent of the nokia settlement is factored in the share price, primarilly because idcc has been fighting nokia for years and to date have settled on 2G, but have never a dime received from 3G since nokia has fought tooth and toenail for years. However, most feel a settlement is imminent before August 14th of which I concur. Finally. I'm figuring idcc up 4 bucks on the earnings release in only a few days to hopefully around 31 to 32. Depending on the settlement, if it's a sammy type settlement, I'm figuring close to 40. After an agreement, I believe idcc has the ability to grow on earnings the following 12 months with the additional earnings from nokia to 50 or 60 as each quarters earnings are announced. If Idcc gets nokia and other companies follow, then I feel I'm low on my estimates. Keep this in mind. I've been way off on my expectations of idcc for years as I remember we were at this price before the baby qualcom run. Guess its your bet if you think idcc will finally come in. I'm never surprised with this one. mo. .. nic
Posted by: dndodd Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:27:50 PM Post #263330 of ZERO What is the likely range the share will trade if the settlement is similar to the Samsung settlement? 35 and up.
Posted by: moonlanding Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Post #263307 of 263396
What is the likely range the share will trade if the settlement is similar to the Samsung settlement. Posted by: badgerkid Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Post #263302 Judge Luckern wants a tentative decision by the parties on or before August 7th, we may still be in the dark for a few additional days.I'm guessing that it will be an absolute pressure cooker around here for a few days in August. Good luck to the longs. IMO Posted by: sjratty Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Post #263285
Thanks Posted by: Data_Rox Date: Monday, July 20, 2009 Post #263277 semi on topic regarding Nokia last minute negotiations SEC charges former Qualcomm official with insider trading The SEC filed a federal insider trading action Monday against a former director of strategic marketing analysis at San Diego-based Qualcomm Inc. (Nasdaq: QCOM). According to the SEC’s complaint, Qualcomm and Nokia were set to begin trial on July 23, 2008, in a key Delaware case to determine whether Nokia owed Qualcomm substantial royalty revenues when the companies’ licensing agreement expired in April 2007. The complaint alleges that on July 22, 2008, at approximately 7:30 a.m. (PT), the senior Qualcomm executive leading negotiations with Nokia representatives in Delaware informed Leyva that Nokia had surprised Qualcomm with a significant settlement offer. The executive conveyed the key terms of that offer to Leyva, according Approximately two hours later, the complaint alleges, Leyva purchased 80 Qualcomm call option contracts priced at 39 cents each with a strike price of $50. After the market closed on July 23, 2008, Qualcomm and Nokia announced their new licensing agreement and a global settlement of all litigation between them. On July 24, 2008, Qualcomm’s stock price increased 17 percent to $52.43, and its trading volume increased 394 percent. That same day, the complaint alleges, Leyva sold the 80 Qualcomm call option contracts for a profit of $34,739.98. The SEC’s complaint charges Leyva with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 there under. The SEC seeks a permanent injunction, disgorgement of Leyva’s illegal trading profits, and civil penalties. Posted by: badgerkid Date: Monday, July 20, 2009 Post #263247 Eric, a ban for Nokia brings a big public relations risk that the company cannot afford at this time. If Nokia's phones are banned, they lose all momentum towards growing this market. Furthermore, U.S. companies that carry their phones for global sales may cancel orders for overseas markets as well. The ban would be in the U.S., but other markets could easily be affected as well based on individual carriers thinking. Nokia wants to settle. IMO
Posted by: Eric Date: Monday, July 20, 2009 2:28:02 PM Post #263244 Nokia's US Risk Stake ... Hi Bill, << Eric: Would an ITC victory forbid imports of all 3G Nokia phones? or just smartphones? or something else? >> I wouldn't think all smartphones, although in reality, most if not all their small share of US smartphones are 3G (WCDMA WEDGE and/orHEDGE). I don't think InterDigital is alleging any IP infringement relative to characteristics peculiar to a smartphone. It is not clear to me whether or not it would be all their 3GSM UMTS (WCDMA and/or HEDGE) mobile devices, but it could be all, depending on what they are allegedly infringing. There is certainly major risk since their US CDMA share (no smartphones) is even punier than their relatively small (~8%) overall share. Make no mistake about it, Nokia's potential risk is big, given the resources Nokia has devoted to regaining share in the US. Best, - Eric - Posted by: Bill Dalglish Date: Monday, July 20, 2009 Post #263239 Eric: Would an ITC victory forbid imports of all 3G Nokia phones? or just smartphones? or something else? RE: Your response today to Mickey 2G & 3G Smartphones << If these numbers for 2008 are accurate on 3G sales or is this just for what is called smart phones? >> Just for smartphones -- both 3G and 2.5G. Most of Nokia's were 3GSM but not all. Most of RIM's were 2.5G but this year will be mostly 3G. Most of Apple's were 3G but all of the 1st half of 2008's were 2.5G. This year iPhones will be all 3G.
A mobile phones access technology (WCDMA, WCDMA with the HSPA extensions, cdma2000 1xRTT in InterDigitalspeak, CDMA2000 1xEV-DO, as well as today's WiMax, & initial LTE which are also 4G candidates) determines if a phone is 3G. << If the 60 million sales by Nokia in 2008 is indictive of total 3G sales then the amount IDCC is collecting from Samsung is a far cry It is not indicative of Nokia's total 3G sales, and neither are total smartphone sales for 2008 or H1 2009 indicative of them. In 2008 ~40% ± a few ppt. of total phone sales were 3G. Slightly higher if one counts 1xRTT as 3G which InterDigital does but the industry doesn't even though it is an ITU IMY-2000 sanctioned 3G technology (as is 2.5G EDGE which is also considered 2G by the industry). Nokia just gave their view of Q2'09 and H1 sales by access technology and that view has WCDMA/CDMA phones shipped in H1 as 37% of total sell-in in H1'09 (195 million of 523 million) ... http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39671219 All of the WCDMA phones are 3G. Most of the CDMA phones are but not all. In addition to the 1xEV-DO & 1xRTT CDMA phones in the mix there are likely a small quantity of 2G cmaOne IS-95/A-B phones in that mix. Overall, their CDMA number looks low to me, however. << What is Samsungs 3G sales in 2008? >> Dunno. << What is Samsungs current sales of 3G products in 2009. >> Dunno. << I think and I am sure I am wrong but I think the rate is more than .35 cents. >. Can't help ya on that one. - Eric - AND
By 2013, smartphone penetration is forecast to treble to just over 38 per cent, accounting for almost four in ten of all handsets sold worldwide. In 2009, smartphones are expected to account for around 13.5 percent of all new handsets sold worldwide. ### >> Juniper is slightly less bullish on smartphones, predicting that smartphones will account for 23 percent of handsets sold in 2013, driven by the proliferation of online stores selling specialised applications that will make the gadgets more useful to individual people it says in a report. Juniper predicts that 300 million smartphones will be sold in 2013, and that the segment will weather the economic downturn better than other handset segments as people think "they will be getting more for their money by buying high-end devices". Handset vendors will see the margins on handsets fall and will need to diversify into service provision with high-value content according to Juniper?something that most of them are already doing, led by Nokia. ###
Posted by: dws Date: Thursday, July 16, 2009 Post #263059 The wires are abuzz with NOK prognostications, let's have them all. We know that Forbes will not lead the charge....
Posted by: Gamco Date: Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:31:34 PM Post #263058
Nokia's product portfolio manager for the region, Ira Frimere, sat down with Computerworld recently to discuss the renewed push, admitting that the company has had to rethink some fundamental things about its products and its business model to help its cause in the States; one small example is the fact that the Surge is launching without the typical four-digit model number or Nseries / Eseries code that is found on virtually every Nokia sold worldwide, ostensibly because Americans apparently prefer names to numbers (it'll launch as the Surge 6790 internationally, it turns out). Additionally, the company has dedicated a facility in San Diego to working with its North American carrier partners -- AT&T and Verizon, most prominently. It's still early on, but the labor there seems to already be bearing fruit, considering that AT&T will be stocking three S60 devices once the Surge launches -- a record --and Verizon's rumored to have some interesting stuff in the pipeline. Frimere adds that Nokia believes services are key to winning American hearts and minds, an area the company has been putting extensive R&D into lately with its Ovi line (unfortunately, so is everyone else -- and getting to iTunes and App Store-level acceptance with Nokia Music and the Ovi Store is going to be an uphill battle, to say the least). Ultimately, the conclusion seems to be Nokia's reluctant admittance that breaking into the US market requires a willingness to give carriers far, far more respect than they deserve by bending and breaking to their somewhat odd demands -- and that's going to be an ongoing problem for consumers, whether you're a Nokia fan or not. http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/16/nokia-talks-shop-about-its-revised-us-strategy-but-is-it-enough/ Gamco
Date: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 Post #262255
Forgive me once again for pumping. IMO of course.
Posted by: my3sons87 Date: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 Post #262254
Posted by: dmiller Date: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 Post #262249 Yes they can if they set up an automatic plan to purchase the shares.
Posted by: Data_Rox Date: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 Post #262248 m3s Jiff, if IDCC is in settlement discussions with Nokia, I don't think they can be buying up the shares. But I could be wrong. Or it could be they are not buying until they get a settlement or positive decision. But to me this would also be wrong, as they would then be acting on inside information in not trading in the stock. Can a company not buy their stock if they expect negative news when they have announced a share buyback plan. The other side of that coin is, can a company buyback their shares when they anticipate imminent good news.they have been in settlement discussions for years, including substantial progress"....and have been buying back all the while. they have been in settlement discussions for years, including "substantial progress"....and have been buying back all the while. Yes, they can buy while in discussions/negotiations, as it has been made very public Posted by: rmarchma Date: Saturday, July 04, 2009 Post #261863 gatticaa re Carpenter's estimates for Nokia Carpenter is projecting a Nokia deal using the Samsung agreement as a "framework". The 3G portion of the Samsung agreement is NOT paid-up after the end of the initial four-year license term, although 2G will be paid-up. Therefore, the 3G portion will have to be renewed upon the expiration of the initial 3G license agreement. Since Carpenter mentions nothing about 3G being paid-up for Nokia, I assume he thinks the Nokia 3G license would have to be renewed at the end of the initial term, just like Samsung.Carpenter's table for Nokia royalty projections is based on different per-unit royalty assumptions ranging from 35 cents per unit to $1 per unit multiplied times the projected number of 3G handsets expected to be sold by Nokia each year. Carpenter opined that he thought the Nokia royalty rate would be between 35 cents to 50 cents per unit. BTW Carpenter expects Sony Ericy to sign a 3G agreement with IDCC once the Nokia 3G agreement is finalized as follows: ...."Given healthy dialogue (and no legal actions between the firms over the past five years), we believe InterDigital and Sony Ericsson will sign a 3G agreement soon after InterDigital and Nokia finalize an agreement."
Posted by: olddog967 Date: Thursday, July 02, 2009 Post #261779 ron: The problem is that if the ALJ rules that there is a violation and Nokia waits until an actual ban is issued before agreeing to a settlement, any carrier(s) that may be involved with Nokia's phones would be hesitant to finalize a deal. With a fast changing market, and a large number of competing models available, I imagine they would be pressuring Nokia to settle.
Posted by: rmarchma Date: Thursday, July 02, 2009 Post #261774
Do you think Nokia will risk this? First I agree with you that IDCC's best venue is through the ITC, rather than the courts, to keep from getting tied up in endless appeal delays. However I still think that Nokia might go all the way to an ALJ decision, just to see the final hold card. If the ALJ decision goes against Nokia, they still can await the ITC final decision. If the final ITC ruling goes against Nokia, they can still appeal to the President. However if an ITC ruling were to go against Nokia, they could still settle at that point with IDCC to avoid an import ban. Some would say that it would cost Nokia a lot more to settle at that point than earlier, but I'm not so sure that it would cost them significantly more. I think that IDCC might be so willing to get the 3G issue with Nokia resolved, that they might acquiesce to their pre-ruling acceptable royalty amount. Remember that IDCC did acquiesce with Nokia in 2G, when they had them over a legal barrel, just to get 2G resolved. Of course, all of this speculation is just merely my opinion.
Posted by: lastchoice Date: Monday, June 15, 2009 Post #260432
Posted by: Data_Rox Date: Monday, June 15, 2009 Post #260426
Data...What do you think will be the best case and worse case scenarios ,if any. of Aug ALJ desisionsthere are many different ways this could play out. Neither company really wants a decision rendered by outsiders. My best case is settlement 1st week of August that combines an effective 3G rate of ~.50 per unit with a technology agreement that takes MIH from the IEEE and firmly places it into 3GPP with Nokia / Nokia Siemens as sponsor/adopters. Worst case is that this drags into Delaware, where a greater portion of the patent portfolio is put at risk....and delays reward to us shareholders. I'm buying with the thinking that it will be closer to the better case. R Posted by: rmarchma Date: Friday, May 29, 2009 Post #259278 JeffreyHF re no infringement or no violation you said: ....."And, it's hard to spin the staff attorney's position concluding "no infringement" as anything but negative for IDCC, even though the ALJ is free to disregard it." The staff attorney did not rule "no infringement", rather he ruled "no Violation". At one time earlier in the Samsung ITC procedings, I thought that no violation and no infringement were one and the same. However, it was pointed out to me that they are not the same. Evidently in the Samsung case, the staff agreed with Samsung's contentions of legal estoppel and frand, and therefore ruled no violation. These particular defenses had nothing to do with whether or not Samsung's 3G WCDMA handsets were infringing IDCC's patents. It appears that one of Nokia's defense ploys is to try and obtain a no violation ruling due to patent invalidity through prior art, rather than noninfringement. |
| Important Disclaimer |
We welcome your comments! All Rights Reserved. Bill Dalglish |
Direct site comments to Music City Design, LLC |
posts and threads related to 
The excellent IHub posts here offer information and insight into what may happen leading up to August 14th and thereafter. This period will be intensely interesting. Good information will significantly strengthen the hand of investors. If the sample posts here are helpful, consider regularly reading the 
