This document is 17 pages long. I only copied part of it to give you some idea of what happened.

Inv. No. 337-TA-807

ORDER NO. 46: INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING TERMINATION OF

RESPONDENT SONY BASED ON ENTRY OF CONSENT ORDER

(September 5, 2012)

Specifically, Sony agrees that after February 25, 2013, it shall not import into the

United States, sell for importation, or sell after importation into the United States any digital

photo frame products that infringe asserted claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 U.S. Patent No.

7,295,443 (the ‘443 patent) and asserted claims 25, 26, 28 and 29 U.S. Patent No. 7,522,424 (the

‘424 patent). (Consent Order Stipulation at 111) Sony agrees, pursuant to Commission Rule

210.2 1(c)(3)(i)(A):

(1) to an admission of the Commission’s in rem, in personam, and subject matter

jurisdiction (Consent Order Stipulation at Kl2),

(2) to an express waiver by Sony of all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise

challenge or contest the validity of the Consent Order (Consent Order Stipulation

at fi 3),

(3) to cooperate with and not seek to impede by litigation or other means the

Commission’s efforts to gather information under sub part I of part 210 of Title 19

of the Code of Federal Regulations (Consent Order Stipulation at ‘[14), and

(4) that the enforcement, modification, and revocation of the Consent Order will be

carried out pursuant to subpart I of part 210 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, incorporating by reference the Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure. (Consent Order Stipulation at 115).

Because this is an intellectual property-based investigation, the Consent Order Stipulation

also contains a statement, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.2 1(o)(3)(i)(B), that: 1

(1) the Consent Order shall not apply with respect to any claim of an intellectual

property right that has expired or been found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable by the Commission or a court or agency of competent jurisdiction,

provided that such finding or judgment has become final and non-reviewable

(Consent Order Stipulation at 1i6); and

(2) Sony Will not seek to challenge the validity of the patents-in-suit} in any

administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order. (Consent

Order Stipulation at ll 7)

In addition to the foregoing provisions required by Commission Rule 2lO.2l(c)(3 ), the

Consent Order Stipulation includes a statement, authorized by Commission Rule

2l0.2l(c)(3)(i)(C), that the signing of the Consent Order Stipulation by Sony (the “Stipulation) does not constitute an admission by Sony that an unfair act has been committed. (Consent Order Stipulation at fi 8) TPL opposes the motion on several grounds. TPL asserts that Sony’s reference to entry of the stipulation “for purposes of settlement only” to be “inaccurate,” because there is no settlement in this matter, and Sony refuses to purchase a license from TPL. This objection by TPL is without merit. The reference to settlement in the Stipulation, while necessary in the context of the paragraph f refers to the settlement of the case and does not imply that there is a settlement agreement in this matter. Such use of the term “settlement” is common in Consent Order Stipulations and is specifically authorized by Rule 210.21(c)(3)(i)(C). In fact, Sony specifically denies the existence of any agreement between Sony and TPL in the next paragraph of the Stipulation. (Consent Order Stipulation at ‘ii9)……….