Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Staff Attorney finds infirngement in Remand case 337-613 

By: my3sons87 in IDCC | Recommend this post (2)
Tue, 17 Mar 15 11:25 PM | 881 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications 		Msg. 47764 of 48237
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

V. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Staff is of the view that:
• the Qualcomm Devices infringe each of the asserted claims of the ’966 patent;
• the Qualcomm Devices infringe the asserted claim of the ’847 patent;
• None of the chips in any of currently imported accused products are licensed with regard to the patents-in-suit;
• the [ ] meet the “generated using a same code” limitation in the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit;
• the [ ] meet the “the message being transmitted only subsequent to the subscriber unit receiving the indication” limitation in the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit;
• the 3GPP standard supports a finding that the pilot signal (P-CPICH) satisfies the claim limitation “synchronize to the pilot signal” as recited in the asserted claim of the ’847 patent;
• InterDigital has not engaged in patent hold-up in its dealings with Respondents;
• Respondents have acted as unwilling licensees and have engaged in reverse hold-up;
• there is not, nor should there be, a per se rule that exclusionary relief is contrary to the public interest in investigations involving standard-essential patents; and
• if a violation of Section 337 is found, imposing exclusionary relief would not adversely affect any of the statutory public interest factors.
-76-
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lisa A. Murray
Margaret D. Macdonald, Director

» You can also:
« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next