On February 18, 2015, the International Trade Commission filed its brief in an appeal to the Federal Circuit of the Commission’s opinion in Certain Digital Models,Inv. No. 337-TA-833. This appeal, No. 2014-1527, by Respondents ClearCorrect Operating, LLC and ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd. (collectively “ClearCorrect”), challenges,inter alia, the Commission’s decision affirming the ALJ’s rulings that the accused digital models used in constructing dental appliances are “articles” under Section 337 and “materials” used in practicing a patented process under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). (A separate appeal, No. 2014-1533, brought by Complainant Align Technologies, Inc. challenges other aspects of the Commission’s opinion.) In arguing that the digital models are “articles” under Section 337, the Commission addressed arguments made by amici who, according to the Commission, “raise concerns about the Internet generally, but lose sight of the fact that this is a case about teeth.” For example, the Commission argued that concerns stated by the amici about the ruling’s potential effects on Internet service providers are strictly hypothetical because the cease-and-desist order issued in this investigation is a personal remedy that does not implicate any non-parties. The Commission argued that the finding of contributory infringement is correct because, contrary to ClearConnect’s arguments, the definition of “material” in § 271(c) does not incorporate a “tangibility requirement.” The Commission also noted that certain arguments concerning contributory infringement likely would be resolved by the decision in the en banc Federal Circuit’s rehearing of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC.