InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

My3sons; I believe you are misreading the wording in today’s order; also, that based on my reading the wording in the order is incorrect.

This is the full sentence:

“On the first appeal, we reversed an order of
the International Trade Commission finding infringement
and remanded the matter for additional proceedings.”

I believe that the phrase “finding infringement” applies to the immediately preceeding words “an order of the International Trade Commission”, not to what the CAFC wrote in their decision. If you reread the CAFC decision, no where will you find a statement that they (CAFC) found that Nokia’s products infringed an asserted patents.

What they did state in both the introductory and concluding statements was that they reversed the ALJ’s/Commission's no infringement finding and remanded for further proceedings

“We hold that the Commission erred in construing certain critical claim terms in both patents. We therefore reverse the Commission’s order finding no infringement and remand this case to the Commission for further proceedings.”


“Because the Commission erred in construing the claim terms “code” and “increased power level” and in finding, based on those claim constructions, that Nokia’s products do not infringe InterDigital’s patents, we reverse the administrative law judge’s determination of non-infringement and remand for further proceedings. “

All in all just my interpretation.