I'm scratching my head reading the OUII's argument regarding domestic industry. Aren't they supposed to be the 3rd party impartial in the investigation? Yet, they are STILL arguing that IDCC does satisfy the domestic industry requirement and that IDCC does not have the proof to satisfy.
One of ordinary skill should be able to read and interpret the final decisions of the CAFC AND Supreme Court.
Here, let me paste it again, from IDCC's brief:
In InterDigital, the Federal Circuit addressed the statutory requirement that a domestic licensing industry must be “with respect to articles protected by the patent” and held it does not require proof that articles practicing the patent or patents have actually been manufactured. Insofar as Respondents or the non-parties suggest or argue otherwise, they are wrong.
Things that make you go hmm.... where did the last OUII end up at?
I know these guys are smart felllas.... yet, I'm scratching my head on this.
| 