Ghors: I can come up with a different interpretation of the Commission's wording regarding the '151 patent.
In regard to the 151 patent The ALJ found that the accused products did not meet the following two limitations of the patent:
The first being “[A/The] Same Physical Downlink Contol Channel”, and
the second being “[determining/to determine whether the downlink control information is intended for the WTRU based on WTRU identity (TD0-masked cyclic redundancy check (CRC) parity bits, and [if so determining/and to determine] whether the channel assignment information is for assigning radio resources for the uplink shared channel or the downlink shared channel.;”
I believe what the Commission is saying (below) is that for the two ‘151 patent claim limitations cited by the ALJ in his non-infringement determination they only reviewed one; therefore even though they reversed the ALJ’s finding for the one limitation they reviewed, the finding that was not reviewed was still valid, and the non-infringement finding still applied.
“For the ’151 patent, the Commission determined not to review the final ID’s findings that the accused products do not infringe, and the domestic industry products do not practice, the “same physical downlink control channel” limitation in independent claims 1 and 16 of the ’151 patent. Final ID at 54-58, 134; see InterDigital Pet. 33-38. Accordingly, the Commission has found no violation of section 337 as to the asserted claims of the ’151 patent, namely independent claims 1 and 16, and asserted claims dependent upon them.”
Snip
“Accordingly, the Commission finds that the “and to” limitation in claim 16 is accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. In view of the Commission’s claim construction, the final ID’s findings of noninfringement of asserted claims 16-21 and 23-24 based upon the final ID’s construction, Final ID at 58-60, have been reversed.”
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
