Replies to Msg. #781477
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
46412 Re: i briefly reread the cafc appeals
   [i]"is this not saying indirectly that NOK is infringing? If the curre...
tfwg   IDCC   15 Jan 2013
11:51 PM
46411 Re: i briefly reread the cafc appeals
   expanding further, the panel stated that there were two alternate ave...
bim24   IDCC   15 Jan 2013
10:26 PM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

i briefly reread the cafc appeals

By: bim24 in IDCC
Tue, 15 Jan 13 10:16 PM
Msg. 46410 of 48237
Jump to msg. #  

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.