Nokia hit by expensive arbitration

The IPKat has been reading excitedly this little item in The Register (Biting the hand that feeds IT") on the confirmation by a US federal judge yesterday that Nokia must pay $232-$252m in disputed patent royalties to InterDigital, having unsuccessfully contested a decision made in June by the International Court of Arbitration in respect of GSM handsets and network equipment sold between 2002 and 2006 (assuming there will be a 2006 ...).

The IPKat notes that this was a case in which the parties were obliged to arbitrate under the terms of InterDigital's licence of its technology to Nokia. The licensor will generally opt for arbitration as a cheaper and more discreet alternative to litigation, particularly where other licensees might otherwise be eagerly watching for the terms of a court judgment that would have a direct impact on the enforceability, or issues of liability, under their own, similar licences. Here Nokia, having contested the terms of the award, only seems to have delayed the inevitable payment by six months or so. Merpel adds, I wish I could delay paying my phone bills for six months ...

Great delays here and here
The great delayer here
SIX MONTH DELAY, BUT NOKIA MUST PAY SIX MONTH DELAY, BUT NOKIA MUST PAY Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, December 29, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. The full decision of the District Court can be found at:


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.