I don't believe this new ITC order is in our favor. Looking back over a previous motion filed 5/13 by TPL, I found the letter (copied below). I believe it is the third motion filed by TPL that was denied by Order 53

From: "Thomas T. Carmack" <tom@agilityiplaw.com>

Date: Thursday, May 9, 2013 1:59 PM

To: "Pamela L. Van Dort" <pamelavandort@quinnemanuel.com>, "R. Whitney Winston"

<whitney.winston@usitc.gov>, ITC--‐853 <TPL853@agilityiplaw.com>, Charles Hoge <CHoge@knlh.com>

Cc: Acer_Amazon_Novatel Group <AcerAmazonNovatel ITC853@klgates.com>, Garmin Group <Garmin--‐

853@adduci.com>, "'Garmin 853@eriseIP.com'" <Garmin 853@eriseIP.com>, ZTE Group <Brinks--‐853--‐

ZTE@brinkshofer.com>, B&N Group <BN--‐853@quinnemanuel.com>, Huawei Group

<Huawei853@steptoe.com>, HTC Group <HTC--‐TPL@cooley.com>, LG Group <LG--‐TPLITCService@fr.com>,

853--‐DLA--‐Samsung--‐Team <853--‐DLA--‐Samsung--‐Team@dlapiper.com>, Kyocera Group <Kyocera--‐TPL--‐

ITC@mofo.com>, Nintendo Group <Nintendo--‐TPL@cooley.com>

Subject: Re: 337--‐TA--‐853: Motions in Limine

All,

Complainants contemplate filing three motions in limine:

1. To preclude testimony, argument and evidence relating to anticipation and obviousness arguments disclosed in

RB-3, but not Dr. Friedman's Report/Exhibit C;

2. To preclude testimony, argument and evidence relating to Respondents' Written Description Defense;

3. To preclude testimony, argument and evidence relating to Garmin's new theory that Complainants do not have a

domestic industry based on the 2009 reexamination of the ’336 patent.

We look forward to speaking with you at 2:30.

Tom