Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 170.90

-1.3%

Nov 7 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: slacker711 who wrote (145867)	10/24/2006 6:03:35 PM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (2) of 152472

Slacker, in the ITC Opinion, reference was made to rulings by the Arbitrator, to the effect that Nokia`s Estoppel Defense(claiming Qualcomm`s sandbagging misconduct during the 2001 license negotiations by failing to disclose it had certain GSM patents), and Qualcomm`s right to assert its GSM patents against Nokia, are both arbitrable. That means to me that unless the Federal District Court Judge in San Diego rules upon remand that Nokia`s claim that the matter is subject to arbitration is totally devoid of arguable merit, jurisdiction flips back to the Arbitrator, who already has pulled the trigger on his determination that he has jurisdiction. I don`t like the posture of this case if it returns to that Arbitrator for a decision on the merits. Perhaps an en banc decision by the Federal Circuit Court Of Appeals is possible, before and/or after remand to the trial Court?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next