I am not entirely sure what the underlying dispute with Pegatron was about. I would guess, however, that it revolved around the existing APPL agreement's coverage. Given the common contractual provision barring double royalties, it is possible the Pegatron was arguing that devices it was making for APPL were already covered by IDCC's agreement with APPL and, therefore, not subject to royalities under the IDCC-Pegatron agreement. If so, the arbitration result is very good for IDCC in any separate arbitration with APPL over coverage of iPads, 4G etc. under their present contract. While arbitrators are not strictly bound by the decisions of other arbitrator, even under the same agreement, a well reasoned decision by highly regarded arbitrators is a big plus in other proceedings. The outcome certainly puts other contract manufacturers on notice of their potential liability.
| 
