|
My3,
Great news!! thanks for posting. The 868 investigation hopefully will shape up that will get the rest of the infringers to pony up to idcc!! Again, not sure how the ITC can rule and contradict the CAFC opinion. The staff arguements were scaring me but with the Markham hearing complete I gotta believe ZTE and the boys wouldnt' mind arbitration like Huawei. I don't want to get to confident with the 868 as we all know how legal decisions go but the Markham hearing is a nice vote of confidence.
» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Delaware District Court Judge Markman hearing in IDCC's favor.
By: my3sons87
in
IDCC
Sat, 22 Mar 14 1:08 AM
|
Msg. 47299 of
48237
|
|
THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
Before The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN 3G MOBILE HANDSETS
AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-613
COMPLAINANT INTERDIGITAL’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
REGARDING THE ’966 AND ’847 PATENTS
Complainants InterDigital Communications Corp. and InterDigital Technology
Corp. (“InterDigital”) submit this Notice of Supplemental Authority to bring to the attention of
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) claim constructions by the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware as to U.S. Patent No. 7,190,966 (the “’966 patent”) and U.S. Patent
No. 7,286,847 (the “’847 patent”) in the district court proceeding that is parallel to the 868
Investigation as to ZTE, and that is directly relevant to this Remand Investigation.
Last week, Judge Andrews held a claim construction hearing in InterDigital
Commc’ns, Inc. et al. v. ZTE Corp. et al., C.A. No. 1:13-cv-00009-RGA. Judge Andrews heard
oral arguments on, inter alia, three disputed claim terms in the ’966 and ’847 patents. (Ex. A
(Hearing Tr.) at 7:17-62:6.) Subsequently, Judge Andrews ruled from the bench that he expects
to construe the three disputed terms as InterDigital had suggested and as follows:
• “code” means “a sequence of chips or bits” (id. at 61:19-22);
• “generated” means “produced” (id. at 62:1-2); and
• “successively transmitted signals” means “successively transmits
sequences of chips or bits” (id. at 62:3-5).
2
Judge Andrews’ claim constructions on the ’966 and ’847 patents are directly
relevant to this Investigation, which involves the same two patents.1 See, e.g., Certain Elec.
Devices with Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpads and Touchscreens, Inv. No. 337-TA-714, Order
No. 17 (Nov. 9, 2010); DE Techs., Inc. v. ISHOPUSA, Inc., 826 F. Supp. 2d 937 (W.D. Va.
2011) (noting that “prior Markman rulings will be given ‘deferential treatment unless clearly
erroneous.’”); see also Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2014 WL
667499, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 21, 2014) (noting importance of “national uniformity, consistency,
and finality to the meaning and scope of patent claims.”). InterDigital will submit a copy of
Judge Andrews’ written order to the ALJ once the order issues.
InterDigital respectfully submits that the ALJ should consider Judge Andrews’
recent bench rulings as the ALJ adjudicates the issues on remand in this Investigation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: March 21, 2014 /s/ Bert C. Reiser
Maximilian A. Grant
Bert C. Reiser
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
1 Judge Andrews heard oral arguments on certain disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,941,151
and 8,380,244 as well. There are also additional terms in these patents, and two additional terms
in the ’966 and ’847 patents, that were not addressed during the oral argument but have been
briefed and are expected to be construed by Judge Andrews. Judge Andrews only rendered a
construction as to the “code,” “generated,” and “successively transmitted signals” terms in the
’966 and ’847 patents from the bench. A written order construing all of these terms is expected.
|
|
|
|
|
| 
