By Eric Schweibenz
On May 21, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a notice regarding the Initial Determination on Remand (the “Remand ID”) in Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-703).

By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is Eastman Kodak Company and the Respondents are Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corp. (collectively, “RIM”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”).  On January 24, 2011, former Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued an initial determination (“ID”) finding that there was no violation of Section 337.  See our March 18, 2011 post for more details.  On June 30, 2011, the Commission issued a notice determining to affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand-in-part the findings in the ID.  See our July 6, 2011 and August 8, 2011 posts for more details. 

According to the notice, ALJ Pender refaffirmed on remand that there was no violation of Section 337 by Apple or RIM in this investigation.  Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that (1) the accused Apple iPhone 3G infringes claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (the ‘218 patent); (2) the accused Apple iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 do not infringe claim 15 of the ‘218 patent; (3) the accused RIM products infringe claim 15 of the ‘218 patent; and (4) claim 15 of the ‘218 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 

The notice issued by ALJ Pender released only the first page and conclusions of law from the Remand ID.  We will provide additional information after the public version of the Remand ID issues in its entirety.