In In re Certain Electronic Devices Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computer, and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-847, (ITC Apr. 15, 2013), Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Pender denied a motion by HTC seeking summary determination of non-infringement of certain method claims in patents asserted against it by Nokia. The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Nokia alleging violation of 19 U.S.C. § 337 by HTC in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain electronic devices that directly infringe one or more claims of nine separate patents asserted by Nokia. In its complaint, Nokia requested a permanent exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order directed at HTC for infringing phones and tablets, including the specifically accused ten mobile phones and two tablet computers. HTC’s motion argued that Nokia “wholly failed to demonstrate that the direct infringement of any of these method claims occurs with respect to HTC products, at the time of importation, as is required for a finding of a violation of Section 337.” Because any infringement, if it occurred, only occurred subsequent to importation, HTC reasoned, there is no violation of Section 337. ALJ Pender rejected HTC’s argument as “incorrect tautology,” noting that “Nokia’s failure to demonstrate direct infringement of the accused products at the time of importation does not prevent a finding of direct infringement of the method claims, it only prevents a finding that the direct infringement constitutes, in and of itself, a violation of Section 337.” Thus, because the claims were not yet directly infringed upon importation, a violation of Section 337 could not be established through direct infringement, but ALJ Pender noted that HTC did not move on theories other than direct infringement, ostensibly referring to theories of indirect infringement through which HTC might still be able to show a violation of Section 337.