Hot Features
Premium
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Details below.
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced the commencement of the evidentiary hearing in the remand of U.S. International Trade Commission investigation No. 337-TA-613 of the company’s complaint against respondents Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc. and Microsoft Mobile Oy. In the 613 Investigation, InterDigital seeks an exclusion order prohibiting the importation into the United States of Nokia and Microsoft Mobile devices with 3G WCDMA capabilities that infringe two InterDigital patents.
In its opening arguments, InterDigital noted the positions that the Office of Unfair Import Investigations Staff has adopted in the Staff’s prehearing brief. The Staff supports InterDigital on all issues, including infringement of both of the asserted Power Ramp-Up patents and all public interest issues, including those related to licensing of standards-essential patents on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms. The Staff therefore recommends that the Administrative Law Judge find that Nokia and Microsoft Mobile have violated Section 337 and that an exclusion order should issue.
With respect to the FRAND issues, the Staff agrees with InterDigital that InterDigital has not engaged in “patent hold-up,” and that Nokia and Microsoft Mobile are unwilling licensees and have engaged in reverse patent hold-up. This refusal to license by Nokia and Microsoft Mobile is relevant to showing that it would not be against the public interest to issue exclusionary relief if a violation of Section 337 is found. The Staff’s opinions are not binding on either the Administrative Law Judge presiding at the hearing or the Commission.
The 613 Investigation was remanded to the ITC from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that the Commission had erred in interpreting certain claim terms in InterDigital’s patents. Those erroneous interpretations, which led to the Commission’s finding of no infringement and therefore no violation as to the two patents that were the subject of the appeal, were reversed.
