As previously reported, ALJ Lord issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) on July 17, 2014 in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, And Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-897, terminating an investigation for no domestic industry because the complainant licensing entity whose patent-related activities were purely revenue driven could not prove the existence of the economic prong of a domestic industry entirely through its licensees’ activities under subsections (A) and (B) of section 337(a)(3). No petitions for review of ALJ Lord’s ID were filed, but the Commission determined to review and, on review, to vacate the ID and remand for further proceedings. The Commission’s Remand Order, issued on September 3, 2014, noted that 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3) requires only that “an industry in the United States shall be considered to exist,” but does not specify that the industry must be comprised of the complainant, noting that Commission precedent allows a complainant to rely on the activities of its licensees in order to show a domestic industry. The Commission further clarified that it examines the nature of a complainant’s license(s) only when a complainant asserts a domestic industry based on its own licensing activities. Finally, the Commission addressed the issue of revenue driven licensing, noting that although it gave less weight to such licenses in the calculus of whether a complainant’s investments were substantial under 337(a)(3)(C), such an inquiry has never been the Commission’s focus where the complainant alleges a domestic industry through its licensees’ activities under subsections (A), (B), or the engineering or research and development provisions of subsection (C).