In In re Certain Gaming and Entertainment Consoles, Related Software, and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-752 (ITC Mar. 22, 2013), the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held that Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) did not violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act by importing Xbox 360 consoles and accessories (“Xbox 360”) into the United States. The original decision by the ALJ held that the Xbox 360s infringed two method claims of a patent owned by Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”). The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), however, remanded the case back to the ALJ and ordered the ALJ to reevaluate the case in light of the ITC’s opinion in Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, No. 337-TA-724 (ITC Dec. 21, 2011). In Certain Electronic Devices, the ITC held that for purposes of Section 337, a device does not infringe a method claim unless it infringes at the time of the device’s importation. Critically, the Xbox 360s must be used in a peer-to-peer data communication to infringe Motorola’s method claims. The ALJ maintained that its previous findings of infringement remained valid, but held that under Certain Electronic Devices the Xbox 360s did not infringe Motorola’s method claims at the time of importation. The ALJ also reviewed the evidence of indirect infringement, but found that there was a lack of proof of the specific intent required for inducing infringement, and no evidence regarding substantial non-infringing alternatives necessary for a finding on contributory infringement. The ALJ noted that Motorola had “justifiably” relied on direct infringement, because the evidence established direct infringement fairly clearly, even if not “at the time of importation,” and thus Motorola had not developed sufficient evidence to prove induced or contributory infringement for purposes of Section 337.