NOK's Amended Complaint just posted by Jim. It is interesting as to the scope of NOK's interpretation of IDCC's conduct. BTW, Olddog is correct. IDCC has not yet responded to the Amended Complaint.

Generally, in the Amended Complaint, NOK calls IDCC a patent troll that manufactures nothing. As a patent troll and in order to survive and make money, IDCC has deliberately, willfully and falsely claimed to the ETSI and the world that they MUST be paid for patents which they KNOW are not essential to the manufacture of 3g compliant products. The statement "must pay IDCC for all 3g compliant products" and the deliberate filing of patents which are supposed to be essential and which are not essential are false, misleading and untrue and actionable. Because these acts are false, misleading and untrue, they therefore violate all the unfair acts upon which NOK sues.

Interestingly, NOK then pleads in the alternative that even if IDCC has essential patents such patents are small in number and as such IDCC's claims for hugh amounts of money for such small amounts of patents are unfair, misleading and deceptive.

On the damage portion, they claim Actual Damages from this conduct and ask for punitive damages since the statements are KNOWINGLY FALSE and INTENTIONALLY MADE to deceive.

IMO, NOK's point is that if IDCC made knowingly false filings about their patents being essential to ETSI or our numbers of essential patents, we have violated all sorts of laws. NOK has now set up the case up for the judge to require a Markman on the claims construction and ultimately a decision as to whether or not the patents are essential. If some are essential, then they leave the door open for damages because of the excessive declarations being used to inflate our value in the marketplace.

Whiz has ably posted about whether or not a federal judge will allow the ETSI filings to be used as a basis for a lawsuit in the manner which NOK wants. This point becomes very important as to whether or not the court is going to allow this case to go forward.

My money stays. I refuse to believe the court is going to let NOK backdoor invalidity and infringement through false advertising types of lawsuits.

G Hors