Oh, and the questions are.

In connection with its review, the parties are requested to brief their positions on the

following questions:

1. With respect to the Accused Products using so-called “current-starved

technology,” specifically identify which accused chips are implicated, cite to the

relevant evidence in the record, and discuss whether those products satisfy the

“entire oscillator” limitation of claims 6 and 13 of the ’336 patent.

2. With respect to Complainants’ alleged licensed-based domestic industry, is there

a continuing revenue stream from the existing licenses and is the licensing

program ongoing? If the licensing program is ongoing, which complainant(s)

is/are investing in the program and what is the nature (not amounts) of those

investments?

3. Please describe the claimed expenditures for patent prosecution and litigation and

explain how they relate to Complainants’ domestic industry in licensing the ’336

patent. Please provide an estimate of the proportion of the total claimed

investments in licensing the ‘336 patent accounted for by the claimed patent

prosecution and litigation expenditures.

4. Discuss, in light of the statutory language, legislative history, the Commission 's

prior decisions, and relevant court decisions, including InterDigital

Communications, LLC v. ITC, 690 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), 707 F.3d 1295

(Fed. Cir. 2013) and Microsoft Corp. v. ITC, Nos. 2012-1445 & -1535, 2013 WL

5479876 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2013), whether establishing a domestic industry based

on licensing under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C) requires proof of “articles protected

by the patent” ( i.e., a technical prong). Assuming that is so, please identify and

describe the evidence in the record that establishes articles protected by the

asserted patents.

4 The parties have been invited to brief only the discrete issues described above, with

reference to the applicable law and evidentiary record. The parties are not to brief other issues