You are mixing concepts to at least some extent.
Just as the rulings of judges of equal stature are not binding on each other, especially in differing states, the rulings of judges in federal district courts aren't binding on the ITC judges, and vice versa. Or, stated more simply, the judges in different venues conduct their own Markman hearings and make their own Markman rulings unless they see fit not to do so.
To date, we have had one Markan ruling in Texas, and two in the NDCA. The ocurrence of separate hearings as between those venues is not at all unusual, although the two Markmans in the NDCA is a bit out of the ordinary --- even so, by my recollection, Judge Ware didn't actually ask for a new hearing, he simply asked for more briefing, and it was the parties who later parlayed that into the second hearing. Nonethless, there was a second Markman in the NDCA, which was somewhat surprising.
In view of the above, there is certainly nothing unusual about a separate Markman hearing in the ITC. Again, there is simply nothing that requires the ITC judges to accept the Markman rulings from either the NDCA or the EDoT.
The point of the above is that each Markman ruling from each venue is completely separate from the other venues. As a result, now that the ruling from the NDCA is final, there would be no reason for the Company to refrain from releasing a PR based on that ruling itself. No one knows what the future may hold, so to hold up a PR merely because there will be a Markman ruling in the ITC would make be illogical.
Best wishes to you and all.
