Loop--I get most of the points that you are making but I honestly don't understand why you think the ALJ must deny IDCC's Motion to Stay and would then enter an Order of Dismissal of the Complaint in order to protect the integrity of his ruling on the arbitration matter. Were he to dismiss the complaint, his ruling on arbitration would become a nullity. IDCC will simply state that it moves for the stay as a result of the order Judge Batts and that it is prohibited in participating in the investigation of its complaint against Nokia. Although the ALJ could nevertheless order the ITC investigation to go forward, the ITC's factfinding would be severely impacted by IDCC's inability to participate. As a result, it would be in the interests of the ITC to stay the case per Judge Batts's order to IDCC. The ALJ could deny it and then have the staff carry the ball for IDCC's complaint. And then IDCC would have to file the Motion to Dismiss, but why would he then dismiss it if he doesn't allow the stay? Under the ITC rules, a party cannot just simply dismiss its case once the commission votes for an investigation. Any dismissal actually requires a vote of the full Commission after a ruling by the ALJ. If anything, the ALJ and Commission both might rule against such a dismissal in order to preserve the integrity of its functioning in case other federal judges were to interfere by entering orders trying to force complainants to dismiss their complaints. Again, in that case, the staff would have to carry the ball.
Market Data 
Markets 
