"I believe I've seen a post saying we've offically appealed the ITC Initial Determination. If that's the case, do you or does anyone have an idea of the time it takes to get a decision on the appeal? Also, I've read that the Federal Court decision must be adopted by the ITC." ------------- lamberts, we are requesting the ITC commission (3 democrats and 3 republicans) to review Judge Gildea's initial determination. If the commission refuses to review the ID or after deciding to review but refuses to overturn Judge Gildea's initial determination, then I believe we would go to the CAFC (federal appralate court) which is controlling over the ITC. The CAFC is also controlling over the regional federal circuit, eg, NDoC, EDoT, etc. I keep stating that I believe the differing Markmans between the ITC and NDoC were essentially merged into one once Judge Grewal allowed HTC to add "claim construction language" to the jury instructions due to Judge Gildea's ID at the ITC, which was used, and can be used, as persuasive authority. Our side argued against the inclusion based on the fact that HTC was essentially arguing again (another bite at the apple) to include further construction of the "entire oscillator" idea by adding and "entire ring oscillator that does not use an external crystal to generate the clock signal." "Does not use" (NDoC) and "does not rely" (ITC) de facto claim constructions are identical in my book and both the NDoC jury and ITC judge used the terms, respectively. So, if we make that argument to the commission, hopefully they will reverse Judge Gildea's ID, at the minimum, to save the judicial sytem another case at the CAFC which would overturn an adverse ITC commission review ruling anyway. And the CAFC, again hopefully, would weight the NDoC jury decision significantly when deciding an adverse commission ruling. Corrections welcome.
