Ok I might be wrong on the details and there may have been other developements since last time i looked into the case, but my understanding is basically:

1. Nokia has "essential" patents that they during the standardization work have promised to license to anyone under "reasonable non-discriminatory terms"
2. Price is based on cost of handset.
3. I becomes clear that Apple gets more than the up front cost of the handset, through % of charges from telcos.
4. Nokia goes: "That's just a trick to weasel out of paying us for lisences according to the real value of the device. Gimme more monies!"
5. Apple goes: "F.U."
6. Nokia goes: "See you in court"

The big problem here is that Apples iPhone business model didn't fit with the basic "sell hardware price - cost = profit" value model, so it's hard to say what is resonable terms by looking at the other manufactureres, and the water is muddied further by patent deals where one two companies exchange lisences (usually in addition to a little money from the one with the least patents)

This may be only one aspect of the case now, since their lawyers are probably looking up any little thing that can be added to the claim. It's also unclear exactly what Nokia wants, they could be after the money or they could be trying to force a cross licensing deal to get access to som apple patented tech.

In the end it's the lawyers that will win no matter the outcome, and us customers that will be picking up the bill in one way or another.