InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[LTE]

8,009,636 (issued August 30, 2011)

If one goes into the USPTO's PAIR
website below (put the in the patent
number and go to "image file wrapper"),
they can see the '636 patent went through
claim amendments in the 2010 and 2011 time
frame:

http://tinyurl.com/a5ff6cs

This patent is from the same power ramp-up family
that expired in 2016 and they're the subject of last
week's oral arguments.

The above link shows that the claims were tweaked
with the knowledge of the unfavorable ITC
decision in the original 337-TA-613 case back
in 2009:

http://www.itcblog.com/itc-decides-to-review-and-affirm-initial-determination-in-certain-3g-mobile-handsets-337-ta-613

Of course the loss in 2009 was overturned by the CAFC in 2012.
So the complications between the tweaked pre 2012 CAFC power
ramp-up patents and the original '966 and '847 patents (issued
in 2007) is causing the discrepancy in front of the CAFC right now.

That's because, just in case, InterDigital was preparing for
filing a new lawsuit in preparation for losing at the CAFC in 2012.
But they won at the CAFC in 2012, so the original power ramp-up
patents ('966 and'847) were actually 'better' than the tweaked
power ramp-up patents. This is what's causing the claims
discrepancy that was argued last week.

As InterDigital's lawyer said last week, although the patents
are from the same family, they're different patents and different
claims. So they're construed differently. And since the CAFC
ruled in 2012 that the original power ramp-up patent's (the ones
issued in 2007) claims were construed in favor of InterDigital,
they should prevail on those.