On April 15, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 11 denying Respondents HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation’s (collectively, “HTC”) motion seeking summary determination of non-infringement of certain method claims of the asserted patents in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-847).

According to the Order, HTC argued that such a finding was required because Complainants Nokia, Nokia, Inc., and Intellisync Corporation (collectively, “Nokia”) “wholly failed to demonstrate that the direct infringement of any of these method claims occurs with respect to the HTC products, at the time of importation, as is required for a finding of a violation of Section 337.”  ALJ Pender found this to be “an incorrect tautology,” as 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.”  Because HTC provided no other basis for its motion for summary determination, the motion was denied.