If I was a betting man, and I am, I would bet Nokia is able to prove that they do not have an extension to the SULA, therefore they are either infringing on unlicensed patents, or they have a license.
Nokia's view is that they have a license, through ETSI, for each and every patent that they actually need, but for no others, subject to some uncertainty in the amount that Qualcomm desires that they pay for these patents and no others.
Qualcomm's brief indicates that the '01 SULA represents the offer, accepted by Nokia, that stood in place of Qualcomm's obligations to ETSI, thereby satisfied. This is not an insubstantial argument, IMO.
FWIW, I pretty much agree with all of the above. I dont find Q's arguments about an implied extension to be at all convincing. OTOH, I think they are on much more solid ground with their position that the '01 SULA satisfies a FRAND offer.
They win, in that Nokia may indeed be found to be without a license on some of their patents. However, their next step needs to be demonstrated proof of infringement, against which Nokia still has all of the available defenses. If Nokia wants a prolonged and potentially expensive fight, this is exactly the kind of victory Qualcomm shareholders do not need.
One complicating factor in analysing the situation is the continued existence of the extension. As long as that is in place, Nokia has almost all of the leverage in their demands for a lower rate. OTOH, once the extension expires, it does open up the possibility of a higher rate. It would involve years of litigation, but Nokia will no longer have a virtual no risk position (as they have had for the past 3 years).
Slacker |
