Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (145867)	10/24/2006 6:03:35 PM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to 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?

To: slacker711 who wrote (145867)	10/24/2006 6:18:09 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Very interesting ruling. It relates something I don't think was public knowledge, namely, that the arbitrator had already found the dispute was subject to arbitration. How the case is in the hands of an arbitrator, I don't know. But this judge's ruling is very interesting as he says that the arbitrability of the estoppel defense is not based on any evidence, but merely on attorney argument. Because it is a limitation on a right to use the courts, the intention to arbitrate has to be made very clear and has to be proven by "clear and convincing evidence," a standard Nokia didn't meet. Well, this is very good news. We may have the ITC issuing a judgment of interference. I'll be very surprised if Q wins an injunction, but you never know. It is also going to be influential in Judge Rudi's [SD case] analysis of arbitrability. I suspect that the UK court will be ruling on arbitrability soon. We may have four findings on arbitrability before it is all said and done--those by the SD Federal court, the UK court, the arbitrator, and this one by the ITC. Lawyers are making a bloody fortune.