InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

Ghors; Here is the introduction to that part of the ITC's rules that covers terminations. Note that the word "may" rather than "shall" is used, and the ALJ's option to include conditions.

Sec. 210.21 Termination of investigations.
(a) Motions for termination.
(1) Any party may move at any time
prior to the issuance of an initial determination on violation of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for an order to terminate an
investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents, on the basis of
withdrawal of the complaint or certain allegations contained therein, or
for good cause other than the grounds listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section. The presiding administrative law judge may grant the motion in
an initial determination upon such terms and conditions as he deems
proper.
(2) Any party may move at any time for an order to terminate an
investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents on the
basis of a settlement, a licensing or other agreement, including an
agreement to present the matter for arbitration, or a consent order, as
provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section.



mschere: The ITÇ can proceed because BATT's can't make them grant the Motion to Stay or Dismiss. I believe since the interest of the U.S. consumer is at stake, the ITC has the power and duty to go forward with or without IDCC's attorney's. After all, the staff council represents the USA. They really don't need us.

Disclaimer: I invite the other attorney's to comment, but it is the best I can determine from the information available to me. The ITC is not my specialty.