You and others may want to take the time to view our ITC Exhibit List. It is 512310 filed June 28th.

The rationale for most of the stuff contained in the list is obvious. But there is also exhibits, like the USB 3.0 Spec and the multiple Qualcomm CMDA references (you need to scroll through the entire list), whose rationale is not so obvious.

And as you and others have pointed out, this was not argued at the ITC, at least in public view. But keep in mind that there are different kinds of infringement. Direct, indirect, and contributory?. Is it contributory when you aid others to infirnge? It appeared our focus at the ITC was to try and prove direct infringement, although hampered by Markmaman construction. If direct infringement had been found at the ITC, the fact that there may also be indirect, or contributory?, the additional infringement may have entered into the remedy consideration.

The same holds true for NDOC. If direct infringement is found as well as the indirect and or contributory?, then that additional infringement, even if more recent, tends to show willfulness and would enter into the remedy discussion. IMO.

Opty