• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / SECOND CIRCUIT’S FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF WAIVED THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE IS BINDING ON THE DISTRICT COURT

SECOND CIRCUIT’S FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF WAIVED THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE IS BINDING ON THE DISTRICT COURT

April 7, 2009 by Carlton Fields

After Interdigital, Inc. (“Interdigital”) brought two suits against Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”) for patent infringement before the International Trade Commission and in the District of Delaware, Nokia petitioned the Southern District of New York for injunctive and declaratory relief and to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in two contracts that allegedly licensed the patents to Nokia. The New York district court granted Nokia’s requested injunctive relief prohibiting Interdigital from proceeding against Nokia prior to the completion of arbitration proceedings and issued an order compelling arbitration, but the Second Circuit reversed the injunction and order compelling arbitration, concluding that Nokia waived its right to arbitrate its license claim through prior litigation and remanded the case to the district court. Upon remand, the district court stated that the Second Circuit’s finding that Nokia had waived its right to arbitrate is binding on the court and dismissed with prejudice the counts for injunctive relief and an order to compel arbitration. In regards to the requested declaratory relief that Nokia and its affiliates are licensed to the asserted patents, the court concluded that Nokia’s claim was a compulsory counterclaim and, thus, dismissed the third claim deferring to the earlier-filed action in the District of Delaware for the resolution of the claims. Nokia Corp. v. Interdigital, Inc., Case No. 08-1507 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2009).

This post written by Dan Crisp.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Week's Best Posts

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.