well, there were 2 claims that were in the appeal that was reversed.
1) meaning of code... nok transmits scrambling vs spreading code, etc...
2) the power claim (continuous vs intermittent)
as I said before in my first post, I believe the cafc basically said idcc patent covers both power claims and nok is doing one of them.
they can try and contest the #1 as the CAFC ruled that the new meaning of code will need to be reapplied, but they should be infringing on #2. As the WM once said, it only takes 1 claim to be right.
remand should read something like the following:
infringe #2
reapply code meaning and test for infringement on #1
I'm ok with the latter b/c it will just strengthen the current cases against all parties in the current ITC case. I personally would like to go for the wilfful infringement in the Delaware fed court while the remand happens... unless summary determination can end the current ITC cases quickly due to this remand.
| 
