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: limtex who wrote (62663)	4/15/2007 12:49:56 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 197209

The arbitration concerns a case filed in California federal district court. The district court determined that it was not arbitrable, but the 9th Circuit reversed and said that whether it is arbitratable is to be determined by the arbitrator. As such, the California case was stayed (as well as several other proceedings). There are two two issues asserted by Nokia in the arbitration proceeding, an estoppel defense and a license defense. I couldn't do a search far enough back to last fall where these were discussed in more detail. If memory serves me, the estoppel defense is that Qcom cannot sue NOK because Qcom signed on to FRAND and Qcom cannot sue NOK because there was a license agreement. As to the latter, at least, NOK sought removal of products under a license. I don't remember the details. One of them a court refused to send to arbitration but the 9th Circuit reversed on appeal. If someone can find the discussion of that suit, it describes the affirmative defenses in more detail. The arbitrator has not issued a decision. At this point, it would seem that, since the license has expired, the affirmative defense based on the license may have become moot. The farthest back I could get was post 146786. Someone who can go back further under an "advanced search" may be able to get you more information on the nature of the affirmative defenses.