dndodd: The ITC did not order LG and IDCC into arbitration. The ITC terminated the case in regard to LG because LG had initiated an arbitration request under the prior license, and based on law and precedent it was up to the arbitrator, not the ITC, to determine whether the issue was subject to arbitration.
LG claimed that they had a license to the asserted patents under the expired license agreement. Naturally, IDCC disageed, so LG filed for arbitration under the license disputes clause. The ALJ (order no. 30), and the Commission terminated the case after finding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate disputes and therefore it was up to the arbitrator, not the ITC, to determine whether the issue was subject to arbitration. The ALJ also found that LG’s claim for arbitration was not “wholly groundless”, which is a very easy standard to meet. It should be noted that the ITC staff attorney agreed with IDCC that LG’s arbitration claim was “wholly groundless”.
The following analysis of a CAFC ruling on a very similar case contains a very good summary of the issues involved:
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
