United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`HYOSUNG TNS INC., NAUTILUS HYOSUNG
`AMERICA INC., HS GLOBAL, INC.,
`Appellants
`
`v.
`
`INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
`Appellee
`
`DIEBOLD NIXDORF, INC., DIEBOLD SELF-
`SERVICE SYSTEMS,
`Intervenors
`______________________
`
`2017-2563
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States International Trade
`Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-972.
`______________________
`
`Decided: June 17, 2019
`______________________
`
`GREGORY G. GARRE, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washing-
`ton, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by
`GABRIEL BELL, ELANA NIGHTINGALE DAWSON, KEVIN
`WHEELER.
`
` SIDNEY A. ROSENZWEIG, Office of General Counsel,
`United States International Trade Commission, Washing-
`ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by DOMINIC
`
`

`

`2
`
`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`L. BIANCHI, WAYNE W. HERRINGTON.
`
` PATRICK FLINN, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, ar-
`gued for intervenors. Also represented by KEITH E.
`BROYLES, PAMELA COUNCILL, DAVID FRIST, JOSHUA MARK
`WEEKS; ADAM SWAIN, Washington, DC.
` ______________________
`
`Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
`DYK, Circuit Judge.
`Hyosung TNS Inc., Nautilus Hyosung America Inc.,
`and HS Global, Inc., (collectively “Hyosung”) appeal from a
`decision by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”).
`The ITC concluded that various automatic teller machine
`(“ATM”) models imported by Hyosung infringed claims of
`two patents owned by Diebold Nixdorf, Inc., and Diebold
`Self-Service Systems (collectively “Diebold”), U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,082,616 (’616 patent) and 7,832,631 (’631 patent).1
`The ITC issued a limited exclusion order as well as cease
`and desist orders.
`Because the appeal has become moot as to the ’616 pa-
`tent, we dismiss the appeal as to the ’616 patent, vacate the
`ITC’s decision as to that patent, and remand with instruc-
`tions to revise the applicable orders. We affirm the ITC’s
`decision and orders as to the ’631 patent.
`BACKGROUND
`Hyosung and Diebold are both in the market of manu-
`facturing and selling ATMs. Diebold owns the ’616 and ’631
`patents directed to ATMs. Diebold filed a complaint with
`the ITC claiming that Hyosung’s imported ATMs infringe
`
`
`1 Other patents were also at issue earlier in the ITC’s
`investigation, but the only ones at issue on appeal are the
`’616 and ’631 patents.
`
`

`

`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`3
`
`claims in the ’616 and ’631 patents and their importation
`violates 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B). The ITC initiated an in-
`vestigation. The patented technology generally relates to
`the structure and function of ATMs. The ’616 patent claims
`an ATM rollout tray that allows for easier servicing of in-
`ternal components of the ATM. The ’631 patent relates to
`a particular method for reading magnetic ink character
`recognition (“MICR”) data on checks (e.g., ink used for the
`account and routing numbers) that are inserted into an
`ATM regardless of their width or orientation.
`The ITC concluded that Hyosung’s accused products in-
`fringed both the ’616 and ’631 patents; that the asserted
`claims were not shown to be invalid; and that the domestic
`industry requirement was met for both patents. The ITC
`entered a limited exclusion order and cease and desist or-
`ders against Hyosung.
`Thereafter, Hyosung redesigned its products in an ef-
`fort to avoid infringing the ’616 patent. On May 26, 2017,
`it sought an administrative ruling by U.S. Customs and
`Border Protection (“Customs”) that the redesigned prod-
`ucts did not infringe the ’616 patent, which would allow
`Hyosung’s importation of the redesigned ATM products.
`See 19 C.F.R. § 177. Both Hyosung and Diebold partici-
`pated in the proceeding. Customs concluded that the newly
`redesigned products did not infringe the ’616 patent and
`were therefore not covered by the ITC’s limited exclusion
`order as to the ’616 patent. Ruling Letter re Certain Auto-
`mated Teller Machs., ATM Modules, Components Thereof,
`& Prods. Containing Same, HQ H286719 (Customs), 2017
`WL 3371581, at *17 (July 24, 2017).
`Hyosung appeals the ITC’s decision. We have jurisdic-
`tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6).
`DISCUSSION
`We review the ITC’s factual findings for substantial ev-
`idence and legal conclusions de novo. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.
`
`

`

`4
`
`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 341 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
`2003).
`
`I. ’616 Patent
`Claims 1, 6, 10, 16, 26, and 27 of the ’616 patent are at
`issue on appeal. Representative claim 1 of the ’616 patent
`recites:
`An automated banking machine apparatus com-
`prising:
`a housing bounding an interior area, the housing
`having a first opening to the interior area;
`a rollout tray movably supported on the housing,
`the rollout tray including a wall portion, a service
`opening extending through the wall portion,
`wherein the rollout tray is movable between a first
`position wherein the tray extends outward from
`the first opening and the service opening is acces-
`sible from outside the housing, and a second posi-
`tion wherein the tray is within the interior area
`and the service opening is not accessible from out-
`side the housing;
`a first serviceable component mounted in support-
`ing connection with the tray and overlying the ser-
`vice opening, the serviceable component having a
`service point, and wherein the service point is ac-
`cessible from outside the housing by extending a
`tool upwardly through the service opening when
`the tray is in the first position.
`’616 patent, col. 8, ll. 8–25 (emphases added).
`Hyosung makes two arguments as to why the ITC
`erred when it found infringement of the ’616 patent. First,
`Hyosung argues that the ITC improperly construed the
`claim term “service opening.” Based on the intrinsic record,
`the ITC construed the term to mean “an opening through
`which a component may be serviced.” J.A. 94 (emphasis
`
`

`

`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`5
`
`added). Hyosung argues this is an erroneous construction
`because the claim term, in the context of the specification
`and prosecution history, requires an opening that is de-
`signed to enable servicing of a component. Hyosung con-
`tends that the alleged service openings were not so
`designed, and the administrative law judge found that
`most of the imported ATMs had other ways to access com-
`ponents for servicing other than by using the alleged “ser-
`vice opening extending through the wall portion” of the
`rollout tray.
`Second, Hyosung argues that the ITC improperly found
`that its products met the claim limitation “a second posi-
`tion wherein the tray is within the interior area and the
`service opening is not accessible from outside the housing.”
`The parties agreed that the term “housing bounding an in-
`terior area” refers to the “structure bounding an interior
`area from which the rollout tray extends and into which
`the rollout tray is retracted.” J.A. 336. An example of such
`a “housing” (12) is shown in Figure 1 of the ’616 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The patent distinguishes between the top portion of the en-
`closure (housing 12) and the bottom portion (chest 24). The
`ITC found that the second position limitation was satisfied
`
`

`

`6
`
`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`because in normal operation the alleged service openings
`in the imported ATMs are not accessible from outside the
`housing when the rollout tray is retracted within the inte-
`rior area. Hyosung argues that even if its products have
`service openings, they do not meet the second position lim-
`itation because the alleged service openings are always ac-
`cessible from outside the housing, albeit not from outside
`the entire ATM enclosure, when the rollout tray is re-
`tracted within the interior area.
`The ITC argues that we should not reach these issues
`because the appeal has become moot as to the ’616 patent.
`This is so, the ITC contends, because the patent expired on
`June 2, 2018, and there is no evidence that the ITC orders
`were violated during the time they were in effect. The ITC
`argues that the court should “vacate the Commission’s
`finding of violation of section 337 as to the ’616 patent, and
`remand to the Commission with a direction to dismiss as
`moot.” ITC Response Br. 28. Hyosung agrees,2 but Diebold
`argues that the appeal is not moot.
`The party arguing that a case has become moot “bears
`the burden of coming forward with the subsequent events
`that have produced that alleged result.” Cardinal Chem.
`Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 98 (1993). We agree
`with the ITC and Hyosung that this case has become moot.
`Because the ’616 patent has expired, the ITC’s limited
`exclusionary order and cease and desist orders as to that
`patent have no further prospective effect. Tessera, Inc. v.
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 646 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(citing Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`851 F.2d 342, 344 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Diebold does not disa-
`gree. However, Diebold argues the appeal is not moot
`
`
`2 However, Hyosung argues that the appeal as to the
`’616 patent only becomes moot if the ITC decision is va-
`cated.
`
`

`

`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`7
`
`because there is a genuine possibility of future enforcement
`proceedings based on Hyosung’s importation of its rede-
`signed products during the time that the ITC’s orders were
`in effect.
`There is no assertion that Hyosung imported the origi-
`nal allegedly infringing ATMs during the duration of the
`ITC orders. Diebold also does not argue on appeal that Hy-
`osung’s imported redesigned products, which have a plastic
`cover over the alleged service openings, infringe the ’616
`patent. Instead, Diebold argues that Hyosung may have vi-
`olated the ITC’s orders if Hyosung removed the plastic
`cover after importation of the redesigned products but be-
`fore it sold them or if Hyosung instructed customers to re-
`move the covers. Diebold has admitted that there is no
`evidence that this has occurred, and it has failed to identify
`a plausible reason why the plastic cover would be removed
`for most of the imported products where the covered com-
`ponents can still be accessed for service in another way.
`Diebold has had nearly two years since Customs’ ruling
`that Hyosung’s redesigned products do not infringe to in-
`vestigate whether Hyosung violated the ITC orders and to
`bring an enforcement proceeding at the ITC, which it has
`failed to do. However, Diebold argues that it has brought
`an infringement action in district court and might discover
`additional information in that action that could show Hy-
`osung violated the ITC orders, which could then lead the
`ITC to institute an enforcement proceeding. Such “specula-
`tion” based on a “highly attenuated chain of possibilities”
`is insufficient to constitute a continuing controversy. Clap-
`per v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 410 (2013); see
`United Transp. Union v. ICC, 891 F.2d 908, 912 (D.C. Cir.
`1989) (“[W]e may reject as overly speculative those links
`which are predictions of future events (especially future ac-
`tions to be taken by third parties) . . . .”); see also Friends
`of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528
`U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting Arizonans for Official Eng-
`lish v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997)).
`
`

`

`8
`
`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`Diebold argues finally that possible collateral conse-
`quences of a decision on the merits prevent the case from
`becoming moot. The argument is that our affirmance or re-
`versal of the ITC decision would have collateral conse-
`quences in the pending district court infringement action.
`To be sure, a case may remain alive based on “[c]ollateral
`consequences[, which] may be found in the prospect that a
`judgment will affect future litigation or administrative ac-
`tion.” 13C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Ed-
`ward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.3.1
`(3d ed. 2008). But we have held that the ITC’s determina-
`tion of patent infringement and validity do not have claim
`or issue preclusive effect even if affirmed by our court. Bio-
`Tech. Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 80 F.3d 1553, 1563–64
`(Fed. Cir. 1996); Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semicon-
`ductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1568–69 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Tan-
`don Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1019
`(Fed. Cir. 1987).
`In cases where the patent at issue has expired before
`appellate review, we have dismissed the appeal from the
`ITC decision as moot despite the fact that there was co-
`pending civil litigation that could have been impacted by a
`decision on appeal. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U.S. Int’l
`Trade Comm’n, 851 F.2d 342, 344 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (reject-
`ing party’s argument that the appeal was not moot based
`on the potential impact on district court litigation); see also
`e.g., Tessera, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 646 F.3d 1357,
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Tessera, Inc. v. A-DATA Tech. Co.,
`No. 2:07-CV-534 (E.D. Tex.) (case moot when there was
`pending district court litigation). We conclude that in the
`circumstances of this case, the potential for collateral con-
`sequences resulting from the possible stare decisis effect of
`
`

`

`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`9
`
`our decision, if precedential, does not prevent the appeal
`from becoming moot.3
`Under similar circumstances, where an appeal from
`the ITC has become moot based on expiration of a patent
`during pendency of appeal, such “happenstance” has been
`recognized as supporting vacatur of the underlying deci-
`sion. Tessera, 646 F.3d at 1371; see Arizonans for Official
`English, 520 U.S. at 71 (“Vacatur is in order when moot-
`ness occurs through happenstance . . . .”); A.L. Mechling
`Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States, 368 U.S. 324, 329–30
`(1961); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36,
`39–40 (1950) (noting it is the “duty of the appellate court”
`to vacate a decision that has become moot during pendency
`of appeal as the result of events outside the parties’ con-
`trol). We accordingly vacate the ITC’s decision as to the
`’616 patent, and we remand with instructions to amend the
`cease and desist orders as they relate to the ’616 patent and
`to amend the limited exclusion order so that the orders are
`inapplicable to importation of products alleged to infringe
`the ’616 patent.
`
`II. ’631 Patent4
`A. Invalidity
`Claims 1–7 and 18–20 of the ’631 patent are at issue on
`appeal. Claim 1 recites:
`
`
`3 This case is unlike Microsoft Corp. v. International
`Trade Commission, No. 12-1445, 2014 WL 10209132 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014), a non-precedential decision, where patent expi-
`ration and alleged mootness occurred after our court
`reached its decision on the merits and had already denied
`the petition for rehearing en banc and no party had raised
`the issue of the patent’s imminent expiration.
`4 The ITC declined to institute review of most of the
`administrative law judge’s determinations relating to the
`
`

`

`10
`
`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`A method of sensing magnetic indicia on at least
`one financial check, comprising:
`(a) receiving at least one check in an automated
`banking machine, wherein the at least one check
`includes a check comprising magnetic indicia en-
`coded in a micr line thereon;
`(b) sensing through operation of at least one sensor
`in the machine, a width associated with the check,
`wherein the at least one sensor is in operative con-
`nection with at least one processor in the machine;
`(c) moving responsive at least in part to the width
`sensed in (b), at least one of two magnetic read
`heads in the machine, wherein the at least one
`magnetic read head is moved responsive at least in
`part to operation of the at least one processor,
`wherein the at least one magnetic read head is
`moved such that the micr line on the check is
`aligned with one of the magnetic read heads re-
`gardless of a facing position of the check;
`(d) moving the check past the two magnetic read
`heads in the machine responsive at least in part to
`operation of the at least one processor;
`(e) sensing micr line data on the check with one of
`the two magnetic read heads.
`’631 patent, col. 41, ll. 24–46 (emphasis added).
`Hyosung makes two arguments for why the ITC erred
`when it concluded that Hyosung had failed to show the as-
`serted claims of the ’631 patent were invalid as obvious by
`clear and convincing evidence. First, Hyosung argues that
`the ITC applied an erroneous legal analysis for motivation
`
`
`’631 patent, which thereafter became the decision of the
`agency.
`
`

`

`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`11
`
`to combine. Second, Hyosung argues that the ITC erred by
`failing to find that the two prior art references, Yasuhiko
`(Japanese patent application JP2004–110612A) and Kim
`(Korean patent KR0613889), in light of knowledge of a per-
`son of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by a third ref-
`erence, Volpa (U.S. Patent No. 7,474,780), rendered the
`asserted claims obvious.
`Although we are skeptical that the ITC applied the cor-
`rect motivation to combine analysis,5 we do not reach this
`issue as Hyosung has failed to show that the prior art com-
`bination rendered the asserted claims obvious. In particu-
`lar, Hyosung has failed to show that the alleged prior art
`combination satisfied the limitation of reading a check’s
`MICR line information “regardless of the facing position of
`the check.” ’631 patent, col. 41, ll. 38–41 (claim 1), col. 44,
`ll. 10–12 (claim 18). The parties agreed that the claim term
`“facing position[s]” meant “any of the up, down, forward,
`and backward positions.” J.A. 336 (alteration in original).
`Hyosung relied on the combination of two prior art ref-
`erences, Yasuhiko and Kim, as rendering the asserted
`claims of the ’631 patent obvious. Yasuhiko and Kim are
`not alleged to have explicitly taught the ability to read
`checks inserted upside-down.6 Instead, Hyosung contends
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`that the MICR reader in Kim could read through the paper
`
`5 See Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis
`Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
`6 Hyosung also does not argue that a person of skill
`in the art would have been motivated to modify the combi-
`nation of Yasuhiko and Kim to add a MICR reader that
`could read a check that was inserted upside down to arrive
`at the claimed invention. Below, Hyosung discarded its ob-
`viousness argument based on a three-piece prior art com-
`bination of Yasuhiko, Kim, and Volpa.
`
`

`

`12
`
`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`of a check, such that the combination satisfies the claim
`limitation of being capable of reading a check inserted up-
`side down into the ATM. Hyosung relied on Volpa, not as a
`separate piece of prior art to be combined with Yasuhiko
`and Kim, but rather as evidence of the knowledge of a per-
`son of ordinary skill in the art that Kim’s MICR reader
`would have such capability. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Ver-
`inata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`(“Art can legitimately serve to document the knowledge
`that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the
`prior art identified as producing obviousness.”). The ITC
`rejected Hyosung’s argument based on the express teach-
`ing in Kim that “all the checks may be recognized [by Kim’s
`invention] unless the user inserts the checks upside down.”
`J.A. 40349.
`Hyosung’s response is that Kim misunderstood the ex-
`tent of the capabilities of its MICR reader, but that does
`not show that the ITC’s contrary conclusion was not sup-
`ported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the
`conclusion that Hyosung failed to show the asserted claims
`of the ’631 patent were obvious.
`B. Domestic Industry Requirement
`As an independent basis for reversal of the ITC’s con-
`clusion that there was a violation under 19 U.S.C.
`§ 1337(a)(1)(B) based on the ’631 patent, Hyosung argues
`that the ITC erred by relying on Diebold’s multi-million-
`dollar investment in research and development from 2005
`to 2010 to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic indus-
`try requirement.
`For there to be a violation under § 1337(a)(1)(B) based
`on a claim of patent infringement, a domestic industry
`must exist or be in the process of being established. 19
`U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) (“Subparagraph[] (B) . . . of paragraph
`(1) appl[ies] only if an industry in the United States, relat-
`ing to the articles protected by the patent . . . exists or is in
`the process of being established.”). The ITC generally
`
`

`

`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`13
`
`determines whether a domestic industry exists as of the
`date the complaint is filed. See Motiva, LLC v. Int’l Trade
`Comm’n, 716 F.3d 596, 601 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The do-
`mestic industry requirement has two prongs: “the ‘eco-
`nomic prong,’ which requires that there be an industry in
`the United States, and the ‘technical prong,’ which requires
`that the industry relate to articles protected by the patent.”
`InterDigitial Comm’cns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707
`F.3d 1295, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2013). There is no argument on
`appeal that the technical prong is not satisfied by Diebold’s
`products, which are within the scope of the claims.
`For the economic prong, the statute provides that an
`industry:
`shall be considered to exist if there is in the United
`States, with respect to the articles protected by the
`patent . . . concerned—
`(A) significant investment in plant and equipment;
`(B) significant employment of labor or capital; or
`(C) substantial investment in its exploitation, in-
`cluding engineering, research and development, or
`licensing.
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3). The above activities “must pertain
`to products covered by the [asserted] patent.” InterDigital,
`707 F.3d at 1297–98. Additionally, the statute “requires a
`quantitative analysis in determining whether a petitioner
`has demonstrated a ‘significant investment in plant and
`equipment’ or ‘significant employment of labor or capital.’”
`Lelo Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 786 F.3d 879, 883 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015).
`The ITC has previously held that “[p]ast expenditures
`may be considered to support a domestic industry claim so
`long as those investments pertain to the complainant’s in-
`dustry with respect to the articles protected by the asserted
`[intellectual property] rights and the complainant is
`
`

`

`14
`
`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`continuing to make qualifying investments at the time the
`complaint is filed.” Certain Television Sets, Television Re-
`ceivers, Television Tuners, & Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`337-TA-910, 2015 WL 6755093, at *36 (Oct. 30, 2015).
`As of the date Diebold filed its complaint in 2015, the
`ITC found that the economic prong of the domestic industry
`requirement was satisfied for the ’631 patent. The ITC pri-
`marily relied on Diebold’s multi-million-dollar investments
`between 2005 and 2010 for the research and development
`of its IDMbd module, which included the claimed feature of
`a movable magnetic read head recited in the asserted ’631
`patent claims. The ITC found this to be a substantial in-
`vestment with a nexus to ongoing expenses in field service
`and assembly for the ATMs containing the IDMbd module,
`and reflected in an increasing number of ATMs that were
`being fitted with the IDMbd modules.
`On appeal, Hyosung argues that the ITC erred by find-
`ing that a domestic industry “exists” “irrespective of when
`[Diebold’s research and development] investments oc-
`curred or how connected they are to the present.” Hyosung
`Open. Br. 55. Hyosung contends that “where investments
`occur five years or more before a complaint is filed and are
`not connected to any meaningful ongoing investments, they
`do not count.” Hyosung Reply Br. 26. We disagree with Hy-
`osung’s characterization of the ITC’s decision and conclude
`that Hyosung has failed to demonstrate error with the
`ITC’s determination.
`There is nothing in the statutory language that sup-
`ports Hyosung’s bright line rule for rejecting research ex-
`penditures that are made more than five years earlier. To
`be sure, a past investment may have such an attenuated
`connection to the continued existence of a domestic indus-
`try as to be irrelevant, see, e.g., Motiva, 716 F.3d at 600–
`01, but that has not been shown to be the case here. We see
`no legal error in the ITC’s conclusion that a past invest-
`ment may, by virtue of its connection to ongoing field
`
`

`

`HYOSUNG TNS INC. v. ITC
`
`15
`
`service and assembly expenses, support a finding that the
`economic prong of the domestic industry requirement is
`met. Here, there is substantial evidence supporting the
`ITC’s finding that Diebold’s earlier substantial investment
`in research and development relating to the ’631 patent
`was relevant based on the ongoing qualifying and mean-
`ingful expenditures exploiting that technology, and that
`there was a sufficient nexus between the earlier invest-
`ment in research and the continuing expenditures. We af-
`firm the ITC’s determination that a domestic industry
`exists for the ’631 patent.
`CONCLUSION
`As to the ’616 patent, we dismiss the appeal as moot,
`vacate the ITC’s decision, and remand with instructions to
`amend the relevant ITC orders. For the ’631 patent, we af-
`firm the ITC’s conclusions that Hyosung failed to show that
`the asserted claims were invalid as obvious and that the
`economic prong of the domestic industry requirement un-
`der 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3) was satisfied.
`AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART,
`DISMISSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`