By Eric Schweibenz
On October 16, 2009, the International Trade Commission issued a notice stating that it had determined to review and based on that review, affirm Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern’s August 14, 2009 Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (“ID”) in Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components (Inv. No. 337-TA-613).

By way of background, and as explained in our August 17 and September 23 posts, the Complainants in this investigation are InterDigital Communications, LLC and InterDigital Technology Corp. (“InterDigital”) and the Respondents are Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp. (“Nokia”).  In the ID, ALJ Luckern held that no violation of Section 337 had occurred in connection with the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, or the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain 3G mobile handsets and components.  Specifically, ALJ Luckern determined that the asserted claims of the ‘004, ‘966, ‘847, and ‘579 patents were not infringed.  He also found that the claims were not invalid and that a domestic industry exists with respect to the asserted patents.

In the October 16 notice, the Commission stated that it determined to review the ID in part.  Specifically, the Commission determined to review ALJ Luckern’s claim construction of the terms “synchronize,” found in certain claims of the asserted ‘847 patent, and “access signal,” found in certain claims of the asserted ‘847 and ‘004 patents.  The Commission also “determined to review the ALJ’s validity determinations with respect to the four asserted patents.”  On review, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s determination of no violation and took “no position” with respect to validity and the term “synchronize.”

Additionally, the Commission modified the ALJ’s construction of “access signal” to clarify that the ALJ’s construction “does not read out the situation where the ‘access signal’ may continue to be transmitted after the power ramp-up procedure ends.”  In this respect the “Commission agrees that the ‘access signal’ is transmitted during the power ramp-up procedure and that the ‘access signal’ is a separate transmission from any other call set up messages that a subscriber unit pursuant to the Power Ramp-Up Patents transmits to a base station during a communication event.”  The Commission also determined that the asserted ‘004 and ‘847 patents “do not require that the transmission of the ‘access signal’ ends when the power ramp-up procedure ends.”  Finally, the Commission determined “not to review the remaining issues decided in the ID.”