ITC's Exclusion Order in Cell Phone Chip Investigation Could Not Extend to Parties Not Named in Investigation

Case: Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Fed. Cir. No. 2007-1493, -1494, -1495, -1496, -1497, -1498, -1499, -1514, -1573; 2008-1004, -1009, -1010, -1012, -1013, -1015, -1018, -1019 (October 14, 2008)

The One Sentence Summary: In reviewing the ITC's exclusion order regarding cell phone chips, the Federal Circuit affirmed claim construction, anticipation, and obviousness rulings, but vacated the remedy due to errors in finding induced infringement and in ordering a limited exclusion order against producers of downstream products who were not named as parties in the ITC investigation.



Federal Circuit Holdings:

• The ITC properly construed the claim term "different" in light of the specification.
• The GSM specification was properly construed as publicly available prior art, but was not a single anticipating reference because it consisted of many documents created at different times.
• The post-hearing decision by the Supreme Court in KSR did not allow Qualcomm to revive an obviousness defense that had not been asserted earlier.
• Broadcom failed to show direct infringement.
• The ITC's finding of inducement to infringe was vacated because the ITC did not make a finding of specific intent to infringe as required by the decision in DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006), that was issued after the ITC hearing. The matter was remanded for consideration in light of DSU.
• The Commission lacked authority under 35 U.S.C. § 1337(d) to issue its limited exclusion order against parties who made downstream products containing the accused devices but which were not named in the investigation.