`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND RELATED
`SOFTWARE
`
`
`Inv. 337-TA-750
`
`REMAND
`
`ORDER NO. 20:
`
`REQUIRING COMMENTS FROM THE PARTIES REGARDING
`THE PROCEEDINGS ON REMAND
`
`(May 8, 2014)
`
`On May 6, 2014, the Commission issued a notice, which included a Commission Order
`
`reading in part:
`
`Upon consideration of this matter, the Commission hereby ORDERS that:
`
`1. The investigation is remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for assignment
`to a presiding administrative law judge to make findings and issue a remand initial
`determination ("RID") concerning:
`
`a. whether Apple can establish an earlier priority date for claim 10 of the '607 patent than
`the filing date of Perski '455 such that Perski '455 is not prior art to claim 10, and if
`Perski '455 is prior art, does it therefore anticipate claim 10 in light of the Commission's
`prior determination that Perski '455 discloses all of the limitations of claim 10;
`
`s evidence of secondary considerations requires a finding of
`b. whether Apple’
`nonobviousness with respect
`to the '607 patent
`in light of the Commission's
`determination, as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, that SmartSkin in combination with
`Rekimoto ‘O33 discloses all limitations of claim 10;
`
`c. whether there is a nexus between Apple's evidence of secondary considerations and the
`invention recited in claim 10 of the '607 patent;
`
`d. whether Apple's iPhone 4 satisfies the technical prong of the domestic industry
`requirement with respect to the '607 patent by practicing all of the limitations of claim 10
`of the '607 patent;
`
`e. whether Motorola's accused products infringe the asserted claims of the ' 828 patent
`under the Federal Circuit's construction of the claim limitation “mathematically fit[ting]
`
`an ellipse”; and
`
`
`
`f. whether U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352 to Bisset anticipates claims 1 and 10 of the ' 828
`patent under the Federal Circuit's construction of the claim limitation “mathematically fit[
`ting] an ellipse.”
`A
`
`A notice by Chief Judge Bullock, which issued on May 7, 2014, indicated that these
`
`remand proceedings would be assigned to me.
`
`Each of the parties, no later than the close of business on May 19, 2014 should file its
`
`position as to what proceedings it deems necessary (with a proposed procedural schedule(s))
`
`consistent with Commission order to issue a remand initial determination. The parties should
`
`confer before any said filings.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
` Theodore R. Essex
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND RELATED
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-750
`
`SOFTWARE
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`1, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER 20 has been served by hand
`upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Lisa M. Kattan, Esq., and the following parties as
`indicated, on May
`8
`, 2014.
`
`M’???
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`On Behalf of Complainant Apple Inc.:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson, Esq.
`WEIL, GOTSHALL & MANGES LLP
`1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`On behalf of Respondent Motorola Mobilig, Inc.:
`
`Charles F. Schill, Esq.
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`(
`) Via Express Delivery
`(
`(l)() Via First Class Mail
`(
`) Other:
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`(
`) Via Express Delivery
`(
`(D<) Via First Class Mail
`(
`) Other:
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
