InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

my3sons: Apparently the report could contain confidential information. Below are two documents released on the same date by the ALJ when he came up with his initial determination for investigation 337-TA-602. Note that the initial determination was confidential. The second document, titled: Notice, was a public document giving the summary of his findings (this is what we are most interested in). From other filings it appears that they are trying to come up with a redacted version of the initial determination


307094
Initial Determination
ID/RD - Final on Violation
337-602
Violation
Confidential
2008-08-08
Carl C. Charneski of   USITC
Administrative Law Judge



Notice .

The Initial Determination on the question of violation of section 337 issued on this date.. .

1. The Commission has personal jurisdiction over the parties, and subject-matter jurisdiction over the investigation.
2. The importation or sale requirement of section 337 is satisfied as to all accused products, except for one product that is still in development.
3. It is found that the accused products infringe claims 4 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,606,346.
4. It is not found that any asserted claim of the ‘346 patent is invalid.
5. It is not found that the ‘346 patent is unenforceable.
6. It is found that a domestic industry exists with respect the ‘346 patent.
7. It is found that a violation of section 337 has occurred with respect to the ‘346 patent.

(Note: comments similar to those in 3-7 above were made on an individual basis for all the patents involved)

http://edisweb.usitc.gov/edismirror/337-602/Violation/307095/376370/86e/9dbb86.pdf

in reply to:
O'dog are you saying the written report justifying the ID maybe confidential, how is that?