UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, DC.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`
`
`ORDER NO. 10:
`INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING RESPONDENTS’
`
`CERTAIN IOT DEVICES AND COMPONENTS
`
`THEREOF (IOT, THE INTERNET OF
`THINGS) — WEB APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED
`ON A WEB BROWSER
`
`Inv. N0. 337-TA-1094
`
`RENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION TO TERMINATE THE
`
`INVESTIGATION PURSUANT
`
`TO COMMISSION RULE
`
`210.21(A)
`
`(February 27, 2018)
`
`On February 21, 2018, Respondents Apple Inc., Facebook, Inc., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a renewed
`
`motion to terminate (1094-004) the Investigation for good cause.‘ Respondents also moved for a
`
`shortened response time, which was granted. (Order No. 9 (Feb. 22, 2018).) Given that the
`
`renewed motion is substantively identical to Respondents’ January 29th motion to terminate and
`
`' does not raise any new issues, Order No. 9 also permitted Complainants and the Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“Staff”) to rely on their previously-filed responses to Respondents’ January
`
`29th motion. (Id) In addition, Order No. 9 clarified that the stay imposed by Order No. 7
`
`remained in effect. (Id.) On February 26, 2018, Complainants opposed the motion “for the same
`
`reasons enumerated in Complainant’s earlier Opposition filed 2/7/ 18.” (2/26/ 18 Opp. at 1.) Staff
`
`does not oppose Respondents’ motion and is relying on its previously-filed response of February
`
`5, 2018.
`
`1 On January 29, 2018, Respondents filed a substantially identical motion, which was denied in Order No. 8 for
`failure to comply with Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1).
`
`

`

`Respondents seek to terminate this Investigation on the basis that the Commission will
`
`not be able to issue a final determination prior to the expiration of US. Patent No. 7,930,340
`
`(“the ’340 paten ”) on March 5, 2018. They submit that under the current procedural schedule for
`
`the 100-day domestic industry determination, “the patent will expire nine days before the
`
`evidentiary hearing and two months before issuance of the early initialdetermination, which will
`
`be moot because no domestic industry can exist in an expired patent.” (Mem. at 1—2.) Thus,
`
`according to Respondents, “allowing this investigation to continue — even briefly — would
`
`needlessly waste the resources of the Commission,
`
`the AL], and the parties.” (Id. at 2.)
`
`Respondents also contend that upon the patent’s expiration, the Commission will no longer have
`
`jurisdiction over
`
`this matter.
`
`(Id at 1.) They therefore assert
`
`that “termination of this
`
`investigation .
`
`.
`
`. is the most efficient Way to decide the issue of domestic industry early per the
`
`Commission’s instructions and is consistent with the Commission’s statutory mandate to
`
`complete investigations ‘at the earliest practicable time.”’2 (Id. at 5.)
`
`In Complainants” earlier filed Opposition, they stated:
`
`The Commission could (and should in the public’s interest). issue a final
`determination prior to the expiration of ‘the infiingedpatent at issue’ by equitably
`finding and concluding that domestic industry patent at issue ‘is the same patent
`infringed by Microsoft that resulted in monopolizing the domestic and foreign
`markets’ requiring the US. Government to successfiJlly file an antitrust action
`against Microsoft
`in the mid-1990’s
`[notwithstanding,
`(i) an OBVIOUS
`SHOWING OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY which every child and Grandma
`knows;
`(ii) negotiated infringement
`settlements paid to Complainants by
`Complainants” Licensees over the years; and (iii) the SHOWING OF DOMESTIC
`INDUSTRY is OBVIOUS.].].
`
`While it is not clear the ”340 patent expires on March 5, 2018, it is not true that it
`will expire “well before any relief could be granted”; where, equitable finding and
`conclusion is swiftly made in the public’s interest upon the obvious domestic (and
`global)
`industry and Government use of the patent at
`issue.
`Intimating
`misstatements that ’340 patent expires on March 5, 2018 and that it will expire
`
`2 Respondents note that proceeding with this Investigation, even for a few weeks, would require a “substantial and
`unnecessary investment of staffing and resources.” (Mem. at 6.)
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`“well before any relief could be granted”, Commission could, and should and
`must adjudicate immediately because of the intimation propounded in the public’s
`interest. Failing to do that is nothing less than a compromise of the Agency’s
`mission and trust.
`
`(2/7/18 Opp. at 1-2.) Complainants further argued:
`
`Respondents cannot deny the fact that they all, including this tribunal [ it is little
`wonder that this tribunal granted every one of the Respondent’s Motions without
`concern for the public’s interest and its own mission], have smartphones and
`infringing my patents daily and that the domestic industry exists and that I created
`the domestic industry. Respondents” SEC Reports have declared that each of them
`has made trillions of dollars in'revenue and profits and are proof of the domestic
`industry I created. The SEC Reports of Web application providers/developers,
`such as IBM, Microsoft, JPMorgan, SAP, Complainants’ Licensees and all the
`enterprises in the United States, who have provided the 2M+ Web applications
`displayed on a Web browser in Apple’s App Store and Google Play in Samsung
`smartphones have declared that they have made trillions of dollars in revenue and
`profits and are proof of the domestic industry I created. The USITC itself is
`infringing my patents in all aspects of its business, even in submitting documents
`via EDIS, and including the Judges and Commission Staff in this case. Without
`the domestic
`industry I
`‘created,
`the Government cannot
`function,
`and
`Respondents would not be able to make the trillions of dollars in profits. The
`USITC and OUII engaging in what Respondents are propounding makes them
`appear as if they are attorneys to Respondents and are not performing their tasks
`as per the USITC’s mission to protect the public from infringing imports, making
`the process unconstitutional. Staffs footnote 1 in the Joint Discovery Statement
`submitted by the parties on 2/6/18 states that “Complainants’ statements are
`inappropriate.” As a citizen, I am the public employer. If I see something odd, I
`have a duty to inform the ITC and OUII. As it was propounded in the
`teleconference call of 2/6/ 18 between the parties and Staff, that it is not wrong to
`find that there is something wrong with the process, as the process is deceptive,
`leading the public to believe that their complaints will be fairly entertained,
`instead of being motioned to death. The process is irregular, because it deceives
`the public. There is an appearance of bias in this case.
`
`The domestic industry cannot be any more obvious. There is no need to litigate
`issues that have already been proven [Consistent with the Court’s ruling in US. v
`Microsoft.]. The ITC instituted because Complainants already submitted ample
`evidence from the Respondents’ websites and product labels that issue # 3 has
`been satisfied, namely, the “accused products have been imported into the United
`States, sold for importation and/or sold in the United States after importation.”
`Likewise, the ITC instituted after Complainants established and proved that issue
`# 2 was satisfied, namely, “a domestic industry exists with respect to the Asserted
`Patent.” Asking to prove or litigate the obvious are stalling tactics on the part of
`the Respondents and it is not in the public’s interest to go through superfluous
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`steps. [And consider this. The mere fact that this investigation stops at domestic
`industry, shows the workings of antitrust disparity.] None of the eight issues
`Respondents have identified as issues in the Joint Discovery Statement of 2/6/ 18
`submitted to the USITC, are necessary, as asking to litigate issues where the
`answers are obvious is a waste, fraud and abuse. What the USITC should be
`concerned about is not domestic industry, but for Respondents to show how their
`products are not defective, which is the reason why we are here. All the rest is
`farce. For example, there is nothing to litigate about issue #6 on the form and
`scope of any remedial orders to be issued should a violation of Section 337 be
`found; or issue #7 on the need for and amount of any bond, in the event a remedy
`is issued; or issue #8 on the impact of remedial relief on the statutory public
`interest factors in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1). These are superfluous steps, just delay
`tactics to stall and the USITC and the Judge, in the public’s interest, must not
`cave into such stalling tactics by Respondents. Please take notice that anyone
`intimating that this patent
`is invalid especially in this tribunal obviously is
`ignorant of the Law of the Land regarding Patent Contract Grants. See Fletcher v
`Peck, 10 US. 87 (1810). Upon notice, as a duty and solemn oath, this tribunal
`must now move to remove this violation of the Law of the Land, so as not to be in
`treasonous breach of and must enforce the Law of the Land , as ruled in US.»
`Supreme Court by Chief Justice Marshall in Fletcher v Peck, 10 US. 87 (1810)
`prohibiting the quashing of Government-issued Patent Contract Grants, even by
`the highest authority. Claim Constructions for Markman Hearing must be based
`on Patent Prosecution Histories, as per Federal Circuit’s ruling in Aqua Products
`v. Mata], Case 15-1177, October 2017, which the USITC and the attorneys and
`Respondents know or should knowl. Issue # 4 identified by Respondents in the
`Joint Discovery Statement takes us right to Markman Hearing, which should
`be held next week. All the other issues identified by Respondents are not needed.
`Complainants disagree with Staff’s Position.
`[For the reason stated —. is the
`reason (in the Public Interest) to move directly to Markman].
`
`(Id. at 3-4 (emphasis original).) A copy of Complainants’ entire opposition is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit A. In Complainants’ opposition dated February 26, 2018, they submit
`
`that “[t]he USITC and CALJ may not terminate the Investigation, because Complainants
`
`have provided ample evidence that Respondents have been engaged in an ongoing
`
`continuous antitrust anti-competitive misconduct, with no signs of abatement.”3 (2/26/ 18
`
`3 While Complainants asserted various non-patent allegations (e. g., criminal and civil RICO violations, antitrust
`violations, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation) in their Complaint and Amended Complaint, the
`Commission declined to institute those claims. See 83 Fed. Reg. 3021-3022 (Jan. 22, 2018). Thus, the only unlawful
`activity alleged in this Investigation is “whether there is violation of subsection (a)(1)(b) of section 337 in the
`importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain IoT devices and components thereof .
`.
`.
`by reason of infringement if one or more claims of 1-40 of the ’340 patent; andwhether an industry in the United
`States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.” Id.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Opp. at 1.) Complainants further allege that “[t]erminating the Investigation is a
`
`constitutional tort and a denial of due process to Complainants because it hinders access
`
`to justice.” (Id) A copy of this opposition is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`In Staff’s view, “[u]nder a full procedural schedule for this investigation the Commission
`
`will not have sufficient time to find a violation and issue relief before the March 5, 2018,
`
`expiration for the ‘340 patent term.” (2/5/18 Staff Resp. at 4.) Staff notes that “[t]he principle
`
`that Commission relief cannot be based on an expired patent, which the ‘340 patent will be on
`
`March 5, 2018, is expressly stated in the statutory language.” (Id. at 5 (emphasis original).) Staff
`therefore submits that terminating the Investigation in its entirety will conserve both the private
`
`parties’ and the Commission’s resources. (Id. at 4.)
`
`The Commission’s Rules provide that “[a]ny party may move at any time prior to the
`
`issuance of an initialdetermination on violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to
`
`terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any. or all respondents, on the basis of
`
`withdrawal of the complaint or certain allegations contained therein, or for good cause other
`
`than the grounds listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.2l(a)(1).
`
`There can be no dispute that the expiration date for the ”340 patent is imminent. The ’340
`
`patent issued from a continuation-in-part application that claims priority to three earlier filed
`
`non-provisional patent applications. The earliest of these applications was filed on August 5,
`
`1996. (See Ex. C (US. Patent No. 7,930,340).) Under 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), the ’340 patent is
`
`entitled to a 20—year term. The patent’s 20-year term was extended by 577 days under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 154(b), resulting in an expiration date of March 5, 2018. Furthermore, as Staff correctly noted
`
`in its response:
`
`(“PTA”) is set forth.
`[T]he‘ procedure for determining a patent term adjustment
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 154(b)(3), (4), and such adjustments are determined by the
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`U.S.' Patent and Trademark Office, or can be appealed to the United States District
`Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Accordingly, the Commission does not
`have the authority to alter the March 5, 2018 expiration date for the ‘340 patent. '
`
`(2/5/18 Staff Resp. at 4 n.l.)
`
`Given the structure of section 337 investigations, there is not sufficient time for the
`
`undersigned to issue an initial determination on violation, let alone an early determination on
`
`domestic industry before the March 5, 2018 expiration of the ’340 patent. Even if the
`
`undersigned had all of the necessary evidence before him to isSue a final initial determination,
`
`the Commission would still be unable to reach a final determination or issue any relief before the
`
`March 5, 2018 expiration date. The undersigned therefore agrees with Respondents and Staff that
`
`termination is appropriate and allowing the proceedings to continue will waste the resources of
`
`all parties inVOlved.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`it is the undersigned’s Initial Determination that Respondents’ renewed
`
`motion (1094-004)
`
`to terminate this Investigation in its entirety be granted. This Initial
`
`Determination, along with supporting documentation, is hereby certified to the Commission.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 19 C.F.R.§ 210.42(h),
`
`this
`
`Initial Determination shall become the
`
`determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the Initial
`
`Determination pursuant to 19 CWFR § 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to 19 CPR.
`
`§210.44, orders, on its own motion, a review of the Initial Determination or certain issues
`
`herein.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
` arles E. Bullock
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`

`

`CERTAIN IOT DEVICES AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Inv. N0. 337—TA-1094
`
`(IOT, THE INTERNET OF THINGS) -WEB
`APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A WEB BROWSER
`
`-
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER NO. 10 has been served by
`_
`hand upon the" Commission Investigative Attorney, Jeffrey Hsu, Esq., and the following parties
`as indicated, on February 27, 2018.
`
`
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`US. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`On Behalf of Complainants Lakshmi-Arunachalam, Ph.D.;
`Wechhange, Inc.:
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`222 Stanford Ave.
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`On Behalf of Respondent Apple Inc.:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`2001 M Street, NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`‘
`
`_ El Via Hand Delivery
`IZ’ Via Express Delivery
`C] Via First Class Mail
`
`C] Other:
`
`CI Via Hand Delivery
`MVia Express Delivery
`El Via First Class Mail
`[:1 Other'
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Samsung Electronics America1
`Inc. and Samsng Electronics Co., Ltd.:
`
`Sturgis M. Sobin '
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`_
`
`'
`
`D Via Hand Delivery
`gVia Express Delivery
`Cl Via First Class Mail
`[:1 Other'
`'
`
`On Behalf of Respondent Facebook:
`
`Stephen R. Smith
`COOLEY LLP .
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washlngton, DC 20004
`
`[:1 Via Hand Delivery
`{Z Via Express Delivery
`D Via First Class Mail
`B Other:
`
`

`

`‘
`
`“ EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles Bullock
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`In The Matter Of
`
`CERTAIN IOT DEVICES AND COMPONENTS
`
`
`THEREOF (IOT, THE INTERNET OF THINGS)
`
`— WEB APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A
`WEB BROWSER
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA—1094
`
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPPOSITION TO “RESPONDENTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO
`TERMINATE THE INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO COMMISSION RULE
`
`210.211A) AND REQUEST FOR A SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME”
`
`Complainants hereby oppose Respondents’ Emergency Motion to Terminate the
`
`Investigation for NO good public interest cause on Respondent’s alleged basis that “the
`
`Commission will not be able to issue a final determination prior to the expiration ofthe only patent
`
`at issue in this investigation, US Patent No. 7,930,340 (the “’340 patent”).”
`
`The Commission could (and should in the public’s interest) issue a final determination
`
`prior to the expiration of ‘the intringed patent at issue ’ by equitably finding and concluding
`
`that domestic industry patent at issue ‘is the same patent infringed by Microsoft that resulted
`
`in monopolizing the domestic and foreign markets’ requiring the US. Government to
`
`successfully file an antitrust action against Microsofi in the mid-1990’s [notwithstanding (i)
`an OBVIOUS SHOWING OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY which every 'child and Grandma
`
`knows;
`
`(ii) negotiated infringement settlements paid to Complainants by Complainants’
`
`Licensees over the years;
`
`and (iii)
`
`the SHOWING OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY is
`
`OBVIOUS.].].
`
`While it is not clear the ’340 patent expires on March 5, 2018, it is not true that it will
`
`expire “well before any relief could be granted”; where, equitable finding and conclusion is
`
`

`

`swiftly made in the public’s interest upon the obvious domestic (and global) industry and
`
`Government use of the patent at issue. Intimating misstatements that ’340 patent expires on
`
`March 5, 2018 and that it will expire “well before any relief could be granted”, Commission
`
`could, and should and must adjudicate immediately because of the intimation propounded in the
`
`public’s interest. Failing to do that is nothing less than a compromise of the Agency’s mission
`
`and trust.
`
`Strict adherence to the recently issued Procedural Schedule (Order No. 3), propounding
`
`the ’340 patent will expire nine days before the start of the evidentiary hearing on the domestic
`
`industry issue is obviously moot since the Federal Court found antitrust predicated upon the
`
`patent at
`
`issue impinging domestic industry; warranting,
`
`immediate Markman Hearing
`
`[predicated on the patent’s obvious universal
`
`infringements continuing by import by
`
`Respondents] for timely determination by the Commission.
`
`The overwhelming impact of strictly requiring an evidentiary hearing on domestic
`
`industry issue with an ID to issue within 100 days of institution (USITC INV. NO. 337-TA—
`
`1094, Notice of Investigation) in the instant case would be; a) oppressive, respecting the obvious
`court and government actions predicated upon the infringed patent; b) compromising, respecting
`
`the public interest objective of the Commission; and, c) chilling regarding the public’s
`
`confidence and genuine expectation that a complaint filed will be heard instead of technically
`
`quashed.
`
`Equitable considerations in the public’s interest, or protecting the public’s rights can
`
`waive statutes of limitation and doctrine of laches to preserve the same; and, this Complaint
`
`warrants such considerations. Commission cannot but
`
`find obvious equitable domestic
`
`industry, and the ease must move to Markman Hearing forthwith in the public’s best interest.
`
`

`

`Respondents cannot deny the fact that they all, including this tribunal [ it: is little wonder
`that this tribunal granted every one ofthe Respondent’s Motions without concern for the public’s
`
`interest and its own mission.], have smartphones and infringing my patents daily and that the
`
`domestic industry exists and that I created the domestic industry. Respondents’ SEC Reports
`
`have declared that each of them has made trillions of dollars in revenue and profits and are proof
`
`of the domestic industry I created. The SEC Reports of Web application providers/developers,
`
`such as IBM, Microsoft, JPMorgan, SAP, Complainants’ Licensees and all the enterprises in the
`
`United States, who have provided the 2M+ Web applications displayed on a Web browser in
`
`Apple’s App Store and Google Play in Samsung smartphones have declared that they have
`
`made trillions of dollars in revenue and profits and are proof of the domestic industry I created.
`
`The USITC itself is infringing my patents in all aspects of its business, even in submitting
`
`documents via EDIS, and including the Judges and Commission Staff in this case. Without the
`
`domestic industry I created, the Government cannot function, and Respondents would not be
`
`able to make the trillions of dollars in profits. The USITC and OUII engaging in what
`
`Respondents are propounding makes them appear as if they are attorneys to Respondents and
`
`are not performing their tasks as per the USITC’s mission to protect the public from infringing
`
`imports, making the process unconstitutional. Staff’s footnote 1 in the Joint Discovery Statement
`
`submitted by the parties on 2/6/18 states that “Complainants’ statements are inappropriate.” As a
`
`citizen, I am the public employer. If I see something odd, I have a duty to inform the ITC and
`
`OUII. As it was propounded in the teleconference call of 2/6/1 8 between the parties and Staff,
`
`that it is not erng to find that there is something wrong with the process, as the process is
`
`deceptive, leading the public to believe that their complaints will be fairly entertained, instead of
`
`

`

`being motioned to death. The process is irregular, because it deceives the public. There is an
`
`appearance of bias in this case.
`
`The domestic industry cannot be any more obvious. There is no need to litigate issues
`
`that have already been proven [Consistent with the Court’s ruling in US. v Microsoft]. The ITC
`
`instituted because Complainants already submitted ample evidence from the Respondents’
`
`websites and product labels that issue # 3 has been satisfied, namely, the “accused products have
`
`been imported into the United States, sold for importation and/or sold in the United States after
`
`importation.” Likewise, the ITC instituted after Complainants established and proved that issue #
`
`2 was satisfied, namely, “a domestic industry exists with respect to the Asserted Patent.” Asking
`
`to prove or litigate the obvious are stalling tactics on the part of the Respondents and it is not in
`
`the public’s interest to go through superfluous steps. [And consider this. The mere fact that this
`
`investigation stops at domestic industry, shows the workings of antitrust disparity] None of the
`
`eight issues Respondents have identified as issues in the Joint Discovery Statement of 2/6/1 8
`
`‘ submitted to the USITC, are necessary, as asking to litigate issues where the answers are
`
`obvious is a waste, fraud and abuse. What the USITC should be concerned about is not
`
`domestic industry, but for Respondents to show how their products are not defective, which is
`
`the reason why we are here. All the rest is farce. For example, there is nothing to litigate about
`
`issue #6 on the form and scope of any remedial orders to be issued should a Violation of Section
`
`337 be found; or issue #7 on the need for and amount of any bond, in the event a remedy is
`
`issued; or issue #8 on the impact of remedial relief on the statutory public interest factors in 19
`
`U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1). These are superfluous steps, just delay tactics to stall and the USITC and
`
`the Judge, in the public’s interest, must not cave into such stalling tactics by Respondents.
`
`Please take notice that anyone intimating that this patent is invalid especially in this tribunal
`
`

`

`obviously is ignorant of the Law of the Land regarding Patent Contract Grants. See Fletcher v
`
`Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810). Upon notice, as a duty and solemn oath, this tribunal must now move
`
`to remove this violation of the Law of the Land, so as not to be in treasonous breach of and
`
`must enforce the Law of the Land , as ruled in U.S. Supreme Court by Chief Justice Marshall in
`
`Fletcher v Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) prohibiting the quashing of Government-issued Patent
`
`Contract Grants, even by the highest authority. Claim Constructions forMarkman Hearing must
`
`be based on Patent Prosecution Histories, as per Federal Circuit’s ruling in Aqua Products v.
`
`Matal, Case 15—1177, October 2017, which the USITC and the attorneys and Respondents know
`
`or should knowl. Issue # 4 identified by Respondents in the Joint Discovery Statement
`
`takes us right to Markman Hearing3 which should be held next week. All the other issues
`
`identified by Respondents are not needed. Complainants disagree with Staff’s Position. [For the
`
`reason stated — is the reason (in the Public Interest) to move directly to Markman].
`
`1 SEE ‘FLETCHER VPECK]1810[£ Reexamining ‘Government Granted Patent Contracts’ [With or
`without considering a patent’s ‘Prosecution History Estoppel’ to determine patentability by the
`USPTO/PTAB for the Federal Circuit (or ‘Highest Authority’).] to rescind a government grant
`once issued. Can be done only by ‘Breach of Solemn Oath(s) [In (willful or wanton) failing] to
`uphold the Constitution and Laws of the Land [In contempt of Chief Justice Marshall’s patent
`‘Mana’ated Prohibition ’ from rescinding government grants once issued,
`amounting to treason
`and misprisions thereof by the USPTO/PTAB, the Federal Circuit, Courts [Including the
`Supreme Court], and all the patent attorneys [Ignorant, indifferent, or sincerely confused]
`noticed of the mandated prohibition [As this governing case has not been overturned].
`Respondents cannot propound anything contrary to the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Aqua Products
`Inc. v. Matal, 15-1177, October 2017, that reverses all decisions in Courts and the PTAB where
`Patent Prosecution History was not considered. Furthermore, Judges and PTAB Judges held
`direct stock in a litigant, as per their own Annual Financial Disclosure Statements and they lost
`their jurisdiction and immunity. The only estoppels that apply are Patent Prosecution History
`Estoppel and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling in Fletcher v Peck, 10 U.S. 87
`(1810) prohibiting the quashing of Government-issued Patent Contract Grants, even by the
`highest authority. All other alleged estoppels are invalid, given all the (extrinsic and intrinsic)
`fraud(s), obstruction(s) ofjustice, antitrust violations, civil rights’ violations and civil RICO that
`has gone on by multiple players, including Judges, lawyers, PTAB Judges, USPTO Re-Exam
`Examiners, and multiple large enterprises; and based upon bad law that has been adjudicated for
`over two centuries; and the AIA is unconstitutional and invalid. Respondents arguing that the
`Law of the Land be subverted is unconstitutional and treasonous.
`
`

`

`All the other-interim steps are superfluous and are merely delay tactics, preventing the
`
`'USITC from doing its job in the public’s interest. The Commission can and should provide
`
`relief by removing all these superfluous steps and going straight to Markman Hearing next
`
`week.
`
`The infringement is as patently obvious as its antitrust impact. The infringement is
`
`Hayrimqfacie) obviousnfor the same finding ofthe Court in US. v Microsoft]. No discovery is
`
`needed. Eliminate all superfluous steps and cut to the chase [‘The Public’s Interest and ,Trust’.]
`
`The ITC must carry out its mission to protect the public from infringing imports that are not
`
`licensed [Or ‘Infringently’ Licensed.’].
`
`It is not clear that the asserted patent expires on March 5, 2018, and particularly so,
`
`given all the (extrinsic and intrinsic) fraud(s), obstruction(s) ofjustice, antitrust violations, civil
`
`rights’ violations and civil RICO that has gone on by multiple players, includingJudges,
`
`lawyers, PTAB Judges,'USPTO Re-Exam Examiners, and multiple large enterprises.
`
`Complainants’ disagree with Respondents’ Statement that “the parties nOte that there is
`
`only one patent at issue in this investigation, and accordingly the intrinsic evidence for any claim
`
`construction issues is limited.” Staff and Respondents know (or should know) that Prosecution
`
`history of a_ll the patents in the patent portfolio all deriving a priority date of 11/13/1995 from the
`
`Provisional application with S/N 60/006,634 must be considered.
`
`Respondents state in their Motion: “The remaining issues of (at least) infringement,
`
`validity, and public interest must also be addressed (likely in a full hearing held several 1
`
`months from now) before any remedy can be issued.”
`
`For all the reasons Respondents allege,
`
`it makes sense to continue this investigation
`
`to Markm an Hearin g
`
`and force the parties and Commission to equitably and
`
`

`

`expeditiously expend the necessary resources adjudicating the imported patent infringements,
`
`the issue [for which there is no defense for the infringement imports into the United States] in
`the public’s interest before the case allegedly becomes moot on March. 5, 2018, when the
`
`patent allegedly expires.
`
`False factors have been propounded by Respondents, because (1) no discovery is required
`
`to prove an obvious result, where the infringement and the existence of the domestic industry are
`
`as patently and (primafacie) obvious as their antitrust impact for the same finding of the Court
`
`in US. v Microsoft, as asking to litigate issues where the answers are obvious, consistent with the
`
`rulin in US..V. Microsot
`
`
`is a waste fraud and abuse. The Commission can and should
`
`provide relief by removing all
`
`interim superfluous steps that are delay tactics by
`
`Respondents and going straight to Markman Hearing next week. The USITC must carry out
`
`its mission to protect the public from infringing imports that are not licensed [Or ‘Infringently’
`
`Licensed.’]. The ITC and Staff are not to 'act as attorneys for Respondents. There would be
`
`undue prejudice and clear tactical disadvantage to Complainants by
`
`granting Respondents
`
`Motion to Terminate the Investigation
`
`in aiding and abetting
`
`antitrust violations by
`
`Respondents and civil rights’ discrimination against a minority woman-owned small business
`
`that has been abused by the Government and Respondents;. Each of the Respondents’ falsely
`
`propounded factors compels,
`n_ot a termination of the investigation, as falsely propounded by
`Respondents, but
`the Commission andthe CALJ providing immediate relief by removing all
`
`interim superfluous steps that are delay tactics by Respondents and going straight to
`
`Markman Hearing immediately. Furthermore, Respondents seeking a limited Stay of
`
`Discovery is moot, given that Discovery is not needed to prove an obvious result, where the
`
`

`

`infringement and the existence ofthe domestic industry are as patently and (primqfacie) obvious
`as their antitrust impact for the same finding ofthe Court in US. v Microsoft.
`
`Complainants respond that the Commission MUST find OBVIOUS domestic industry
`
`(asking to prove the OBVIOUS is a stalling tactic that only serves to aid and abet anti-trust, and
`
`civil rights’ discrimination against a genuine inventor), and the case must move to Markman
`
`Hearing forthwith in the public?s best
`
`interest and Respondents’ Motion to Terminate the
`
`Investigation should not be granted, as it is a delay tactic on the part of Respondents.
`
`Therefore, as a citizen and Complainant, I am making a Motion to this Judge to include
`
`these reasons in all of my filings in the initial Complaint and all of my subsequent filings, in the
`
`public’s interest, prior to the expiration date of the patent, for these oppressive reasons.
`
`I swear, under the penalty of perjury, all the above facts and law are true and correct to
`
`the best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`Dated: February 7, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`Mammal.
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`222 Stanford Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995; Lak522002@yahoo.com
`
`On Behalfof Complainants
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE-COMIVIISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, DC.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles Bullock
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`In The Matter Of
`
`
`
`CERTAIN IOT DEVICES AND COMPONENTS
`
`THEREOF (IOT, THE INTERNET OF THINGS) —
`WEB APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A WEB
`BROWSER
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1094
`
`copies of the foregoing
`certify that on February 7, 2018,
`I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam,
`“COMPLAINANTS’ OPPOSITION TO RESP