Replies to post #388349 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[jjff]

TY FOR THE POSTING!!!! It certainly reads well and has me convinced, lol BUT!

[AMCJAX]

Déjà vu , all over again

Here is the public version of IDCC's appeal:

Complainant InterDigital's Petition for Review of the Final Initial Determination (PDF file, 58 pages)

Inv Title: Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-868
Received: 07/11/2014 04:15 PM
Filed by: Bert C. Reiser
Firm/Org: Latham & Watkins LLP
On Behalf of: InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc. and InterDigital Holdings, Inc.

[dndodd]

IMO the ALJ has chosen to ignore the Federal Circuit rulings which are the rule of law at this point, but can the whole commission realistically afford the same luxury?

[warbil]

I like the appeal language but don't think it will help on appeal to the full ITC panel of judges. They encourage settlements between the parties but continually provide erroneous orders in favor of the Respondents that will preclude settlements from ever happening. Our government working for you.

This appeal sets the framework for an appeal to the CAFC and reads very well. As noted when the ALJ changed claim language from "and to" to "if so", it places a unnecessary limitation in the claim language by inserting a sequence of operations where none is implied in the actual claim language. IDCC should win this issue.

I also like the language about DI and the fact that even if the technical prong is mandated, IDCC passes the technical prong because there is nothing in the record that disputes the use of the patented articles in the products licensed by IDCC's current licensees. Isn't that the "innocent until proven guilty" concept?

Bert Reiser is listed as a contributor to this appeal and he did a great job before the CAFC on the last appeal. Let's see if he can bring us another victory on this appeal.