Let me try to clear this up. IDCC filed a complaint with the ITC asking them to investigate the issue of whether Nokia imports products that violate their patents. It is sort of like filing a complaint with your local DA. If the DA decides to go forward, you may not be able to withdraw it. It is a little different because at the ITC the complaining party prosecutes its case and the staff represents the interests of the US. Therefore, unlike a court, where a party can dismiss a civil complaint, with the ITC, once it has decided to investigate a complaint, you need to file a motion to terminate, which has to be allowed by the ALJ and then approved by the commission.
Now Judge Batts told IDCC to first file a Motion to Stay the ITC investigation of Nokia by today. We do not know if Nokia agreed to postpone that requirement until after the Second Circuit rules on IDCC's Motion's to Stay Judge Batt's order. Either way, it likely doesn't really matter, since the ALJ can wait on ruling on that motion until after the Second Circuit rules on IDCC's Motion to Stay. During that interim period, IDCC could not participate at the ITC.
The Judge then required IDCC to file a Motion to Terminate if the ALJ denies the Motion to Stay. The ALJ could deny that motion and the ITC could continue against Nokia, but IDCC would be prevented from participating and it would be up to the staff to prosecute. IDCC could clearly communicate to the ALJ whether they preferred that option by the phraseology used in their Motion.
Judge Batt has no direct authority over the ITC and therefore couldn't directly order them to do anything. That is why the orders direct IDCC to take action.
IMHO
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
