BlueTower: Since The Court has assigned a docket number to the case (2012-1628), and has issued an order, I would say that they have accepted the case. As I posted the case may be under seal as arbitration is usually conducted in secrecy.
Although some parts were redacted, I don't believe the redactions are involved in the arbitration request.
The public version of the ALJ's order (#30) recommending termination, explains the legal basis for the termination. However, the specific license terms cited by LG and their reasoning as to why they believe they still have a license, were redacted, so we don't know the basis for their rquest. As I previously stated the not "wholly groundless" standard is a low standard to meet to justify a reason as to why a case should be terminated if arbitration is claimed.
In regard to all the recent noise about injunctions for standard related patents, since the law the ITC operates under does not differentiate between standard and non standard related patents, and they have no authority to award damages, I believe they will keep issuing bans if infringement is found. As far as the Presidential review overturning a ban in the public interest, I believe that has only happened five or six times in the ITC's history. JMHO
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
