regarding the power claim, the panel basically said that nok devices transmit power intermittently (vs continuously) and the ALJ errored in saying that IDCC patent claim only covers continuous power ramps. They also went on to say that the ALJ 'should have construed "increased power level" to include both intermittent and continuous increase in power.
is this not saying indirectly that NOK is infringing? If the current ITC case and the remand commission can't see this, something is wrong.
I have skimmed over a few other cases on remand the ITC Commission issued an ID fairly quick, based on the cafc instructions.