The unfortunate part about the article on the Coaxial Cable case, and even Otterson's statements during the shareholder's meeting, are that they all took place BEFORE the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decided Motiva, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n. a few weeks ago - finding NO domestic industry. As I understand it, the ITC is bound to follow Federal Cricuit case law, much like a district court. So now I am not sure if the law has "shifted" a little on this point or not.

I copied this from one of the articles that I found on the Motiva case - it is, as I understand it, a direct qoute from the Federal Circuit:

Motiva's investment in the litigation against Nintendo could indeed satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement if it was substantial and directed toward a licensing program that would encourage adoption and development of articles that incorporated Motiva's patented technology. However, the ALJ found that Motiva's litigation against Nintendo was not directed at developing such a licensing program. Relying on extensive documentary evidence and witness testimony, the ALJ concluded that the presence of the Wii in the market had no impact on Motiva's commercialization efforts or ability to encourage partners to invest in and adopt its patented technology. And Motiva was never close to launching a product incorporating the patented technology -- nor did any partners show any interest in doing so, for years before or any time after the launch of the Wii. Motiva's only remaining prototype was a product far from completion, and a multitude of development and testing steps remained prior to finalizing a product for production. Moreover, the evidence demonstrated that Motiva's litigation was targeted at financial gains, not at encouraging adoption of Motiva's patented technology. The inventors looked forward to financial gains through Motiva's litigation, not hopes of stimulating investment or partnerships with manufacturers. Motiva also never asked for a preliminary injunction from the district court, and it waited three years before seeking relief from the Commission -- even though the importation of the Wii was allegedly the only obstacle to adoption of its patented technology in the market.

I don't know anywhere near enough to analyze this, but I can imagine high-powered attorneys for our opposition finding parallels between Motiva and Patriot. Please understand, I am NOT trying to be a Debbie Downer, I'm just saying that something could have changed in the last 3 weeks.

If anyone wants to find more, I stumbled across www.lexology.com. It looks like, if you search for "Motiva" there, the five most recent articles seem to be about that case. I hope this helps. I look forward to the thoughts of those with more smarts than me (read: everyone).