As mentioned in prior coverage, on March 12, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Investigation in Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-949, ordering ALJ Pender to hold an early evidentiary hearing and issue an Initial Determination (“ID”) within 100 days of institution as to whether Complainant Andrea has standing to assert the patents-in-suit. This was only the second time the Commission has ordered early disposition; the first occurred in June 2013 in Certain Products Having Laminated Packaging, Laminated Packaging, Inv. No. 337-TA-874, resulting in an ID finding insufficient domestic industry-economic prong and termination. However, in the 949 Investigation, after a hearing held on April 30, ALJ Pender issued an ID on June 11 ruling that Andrea has standing alone to assert the patents-in-suit. A public version of the ID has not yet issued. Respondents filed a Petition to Review the ID on June 16 and a Motion for Oral Argument on review. Respondents assert that the ID found that “non-party AND34…, a special vehicle created by Andrea’s financier Fortress…, was a bare licensee.” They argue “[c]ritically, the ID did not address whether AND34 should be joined as a co-complainant in the Investigation.” OUII’s Response to Respondents’ Motion disagrees that oral argument is necessary, if review is granted by the Commission. Andrea’s Opposition to Respondents’ Petition requests that the Commission deny the Petition and adopt the ID. This Update will monitor the Commission’s decision on Respondents’ Petition.