TC
you would think the domestic argument would have been the worst to challenge... gonna be tough to convince anyone that an entity like IDCC doesn't do the following.
Domestic Industry. Section 337(a)(3) defines a domestic industry for articles protected by intellectual property. Under the statute, a domestic industry "shall be considered to exist if there is in the U.S."
A. significant investment in plant and equipment;
B. significant employment of labor or capital; or
C. substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing.
if nok ain't contesting the claims, they must be extraordinarily/strongly written by the judges.
plus the fact that J. Newman didn't contest all the claims in her dissent... WM is onto something in the CC when he said that the appeal is giving holdouts much to think about as they sit there and wait for it to keep proving up/itself.
| 
