InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Ghors]

O.K., I've been wanting to post this but am uncertain if my reading is correct. Rebuttal with citations are welcome.

Postyle just posted the Final Commission decision on the 868 ITC 337 investigation. As has been opined on this board, the commission punted on many issues, BUT one finding of the full commission, if I reading it correctly, is good for IDCC.

The full commission changed the claim construction of "and to" in claim 16 of patent 151. Claim 16 had been found invalid by the ALJ for "indefiniteness".

The full commission found that the term "and to" was to be given it's "ordinary meaning". Thus, in making the change, the full Commission found that the claim was valid and enforceable. (I'm reading between the lines on this)

The full commission THEN FOUND THAT BECAUSE claim 16 of 151 was valid and enforceable that the findings of NON Infringement of the ALJ on claims 16 - 21 and 8 and 9 of patent 151 are REVERSED.

The issue then for IDCC is what does REVERSED mean. I think it means that the ITC's full commission decision on the 868 Investigation is that NOK,ZTE infringes claims 16-21 and 8,9 of patent 161.

Also, if I understand what that means, I think it means that NOK/ZTE have to appeal this finding to the CAFC or it becomes final and can be used in Delaware, if judge Andrews lets it into evidence.

Contrary opinions welcome.

G hors