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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Qgent who wrote (61454)	3/26/2007 5:17:45 PM
From: Qgent	Respond to of 197271

Nokia's affirmative defenses, The list of Nokia's Affirmative Defenses, for those of you that may be interested. I believe the commission has denied #4, However Nokia has 30 days to seek review? #12 and 13 have been denied, and the review Nokia had requested has been denied as well. Defense #12 had to do with ETSI disclosures, and from what I understand the reason this was denied, is that Nokia argues the same thing in defense # 16. Disclaimer...I have no legal experience, other than fighting an occasional speeding ticket. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Invalidity) 1. The patents-in-suit are invalid because they each fail to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 0 101 et seq., including, without limitation $3 102,103 andor 112. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Noninfringement) 2. Nokia has not directly infringed, indirectly infringed, contributed to or induced infringement of any valid or enforceable claim of the patents-in-suit, and has not otherwise committed any acts in violation of 35 U.S.C. 9 271. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Unfair Act) 3. Nokia has committed no unfair acts. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Domestic Industry) 4. Qualcomm has not adequately alleged and cannot prove the existence of a domestic industry, as required by Section 337(a)(2) and defined by Section 337(a)(3), in connection with any of the patents-in-suit, or that a such domestic industry is in the process of being established. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 5. Qualcomm's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Express or Implied License) 6. Qualcomm's claims are barred in whole or in part pursuant to an actual license or under the doctrine of implied license. Nokia's assertion of this defense is made without waiving or intending to waive its right to arbitrate this issue. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unenforceability - Estoppel, Acquiescence, Waiver, and In Pari Delicto) 7. Qualcomm is barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver, and/or in pari delicto from enforcing the patents-in-suit against Nokia. Nokia's assertion of this defense is made without waiving or intending to waive its right to arbitrate this issue. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Equitable Estoppel) 8. Qualcomm is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of equitable estoppel based, among other things, on its failure to mention any of the patents-in-suit during development and approval of certain standards related to GSM, its failure to mention the patents-in-suit during negotiations and execution of the parties' Subscriber Unit and Infrastructure Equipment License Agreement, its failure to promptly declare any patents-in-suit to the relevant standard setting organizations, and its commitment to make some or all of the patents-in-suit available to Nokia and others for a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory royalty rate. Nokia's assertion of this defense is made without waiving or intending to waive its right to arbitrate this issue. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unenforceability - Patent Exhaustion/First Sale Doctrine) 9. Qualcomm is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of patent exhaustiodfirst-sale doctrine from enforcing the patents-in-suit against Nokia. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unenforceability - Prosecution Laches) 10. Qualcomm is barred in whole or in part by delay in prosecuting the patent applications resulting in the patents-in-suit. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Prosecution History Estoppel) 1 1. By reason of the prosecution before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTOI') leading to the patents-in-suit and any applications or patents related to the patents-in-suit, and by reason of admissions made by or on behalf of the applicant for these patents and related applications and patents, Qualcomm is estopped from claiming infringement by Nokia of one or more of the claims of such patents-in-suit. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 12. The patents-in-suit are void and unenforceable by reason of the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Patent Misuse) 13. Qualcomm is barred from asserting the patents-in-suit by the equitable doctrine of patent misuse. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Jurisdiction) 14. The Commission lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 5 337. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Relief Not in the Public Interest) 15. The relief sought by Qualcomm does not and would not further the public interest and there are strong public policy reasons for denying Qualcomm the relief sought. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Breach of Contract) 16. The relief sought by Qualcomm breaches Qualcomm's commitments and enforceable contracts with the relevant Standard Setting Organizations and their members, including Nokia, which license all or some of the patents-in-suit for a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty. edisweb.usitc.gov Qualcomm's objection for review of #12 and #13. edisweb.usitc.gov After the Brcm debacle # 16 looks a little scary. Qgent