InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[la-tsla-fan]

I found the following statements in the Commission opinion to be encouraging (my bolding):

The Commission has determined to review the final ID’s construction of “and to” in claim 16 of the ’151 patent, Final ID at 31-34; see InterDigital Pet. at 29-33, and on review finds that the term is to be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. In view of the Commission’s claim construction, the final ID’s finding of noninfringement of asserted claims 16-21 and 23-24 based upon the final ID’s construction, Final ID at 58-60, is reversed. The Commission has also determined to review the final ID’s infringement analysis of “and if so” for claim 1, Final ID at 58-60; see InterDigital Pet. at 38-43, and on review takes no position whether the accused products practice the determining steps in sequence as required for asserted claims 1-6 and 8-9.

If you reverse a "finding of noninfringement", surely you have infringement.

Or is there a different interpretation?