O'dog the Domestic Industry was not appealable in the Remand Case. From Commission Revised Opinion regarding Remand dated 3/26/2014.
D. Domestic Industry .
Nokia argues on remand that the Commission’s decision in Multimedia Display and
Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No.
337-TA-694 (“Multimedia Devices”), constitutes a change in legal precedent that requires a
reevaluation of whether InterDigital has satisfied the domestic industry requirement based on its
licensing activities. Specifically, Nokia contends that the Commission clarified in Multimedia
Devices that a complainant asserting a license-based domestic industry based on a portfolio
licensing scheme must establish a nexus between the licensing expenditures and the asserted
patents and that InterDigital did not make such a showing.
The Federal Circuit held that “Nokia has not challenged the administrative law judge's
findings as to that nexus. Nor has Nokia questioned whether the scope of InterDigita1'slicensing
activities was sufficient to constitute a domestic licensing industry, a point on which the
administrative judge made extensive affirmative findings.” 690 F.3d at 1330. The Court’s
holding affirming the Commission’s finding of nexus between InterDigital’s licensing activities
and the asserted patents is the law of the case. As such, Nokia cannot challenge that finding
absent certain extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here. See Outside the Box
Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 695 F.3d 1285, 1301-2 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this case the
Federal Circuit stated:
The doctrine provides that “as a matter of sound judicial
practice, a court generally adheres to a decision in a prior appeal
in the case unless one of three ‘exceptional circumstances’ exists:
34
PUBLIC VERSION
‘the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different,
controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law
applicable to such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and
would work a manifest injustice.”’
Id. (quoting Smith Int ’l,Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 759 F.2d 1572, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) (other
citations omitted). The Cornmission’s decision in Multimedia Devices was not a “contrary
decision of the law.” Rather, the Federal Circuit specifically acknowledged the methodology
presented in the Commission’s opinion in that case in affirming the Commission’s finding of
domestic industry. 1nterDigitaI Commc’ns, LLC v. Int ’l Trade Comm ’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (denying N0kia’s petition for rehearing). Accordingly, the Commission
acknowledges the Court’s finding that Nokia has waived any challenge to the ALJ’s finding of
nexus, and declines to consider the issue on remand. 1
