On August 29, 2014, ITC Judge James Gildea issued a Notice of Initial Determination (“ID”) finding a violation by reason of infringement by Respondents Toshiba of two asserted patents in Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities, Inv. No. 337-TA-884. Judge Gildea found that Complainant Graphics Properties Holdings (“GPH”), a non-practicing entity (“NPE”), satisfied the domestic industry (“DI”) requirement with respect to the two asserted patents. The procedural history of this investigation is interesting and bears revisiting. GPH filed a motion for summary determination on November 7, 2013 asserting that GPH had established a licensing based DI under 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(3)(C); the ALJ held a hearing on April 10-18, 2014; the ALJ issued an Order denying GPH’s motion for summary determination on DI on April 18, 2014, i.e., the last day of the hearing. The denial of GPH’s motion for summary determination was based on two grounds: (1) GPH did not attempt to prove the technical prong of DI even though the change in law required proof that its licensee(s) are practicing the patents; and (2) genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to the economic prong of GPH’s licensing-based DI. Apparently GPH corrected these insufficiencies at the Hearing. A public version of the ID has not yet been released and will likely reveal more details on the bases for Judge Gildea’s upholding DI; and the Commission has not yet decided whether to review Judge Gildea’s decision.