No they didn't. It is reasonable.

No they didn't. It is reasonable.

It is quite reasonable (from a legal perspective) for SCOG to argue that the patent infringement case is an issue separate from any allegations of contract violation (unless those contracts specifically provided for patent licensing provisions) or copyright infringement.

You have been taken in by the central FUD in this case. "IP" or "Intellectual Property" is not a term recognized in law. There are trademarks, patents, trade secrets and copyrights. They are separate forms of intellectual property. The original suit (with SCOG as the plaintiff) alleged contract violations (which covered trade secrets disclosure as the key contract obligation that they claimed has been abbrogated). The suit was ammended to remove trade secret violations and assert copyright infringement (on the basis of the "revocation of license" that SCOG claims to have exercised).

A counterclaim by IBM asserts patent infringement. Unless those patents were licensed to SCOG via the same suite of contracts that are at issue here, it sounds like that should clearly be a different case, heard in a different court.

Not that this helps SCOG's legal position. It's just more PR and stalling. From all available evidence it looks like SCOG doesn't have even a toe, much less a whole leg to stand one.

JimD