"[I]n investigations that have a mixed result of a violation finding (subject to a presidential review period prior to the 60-day appeal window starting) and a no-violation finding (not subject to a presidential review period and so final for the purposes of starting the 60-day appeal window at the time it issues), the notices of appeal for the different findings have distinct appeal windows. Here, as to the Active Respondents, when the Commission’s determination of no violation was entered there was no presidential review period and no other administrative proceedings for that finding (unlike for the entry of an exclusion order against the Defaulting Respondents). Thus, the no violation finding was a final decision of the Commission on the day it issued and the 60- day period in Section 337(c) to file a notice of appeal began to run. That 60-day period ended on November 13, 2023, but Crocs did not file its notice of appeal until December 22, 2023.

"In Diggs, Viasat argues, that function is performed not by the decoder (the ECC Detection and Correction module), but by the Controller. As the Board found, that distinction is inconsequential. Figure 1 of Diggs shows that the ECC Detection and Correction module (125) in Diggs is part of the Controller (114), and the text of the Diggs reference confirms that the “controller 114 further includes an ECC detection and correction module 125.” . . . The two functions that the ’347 patent assigns to the decoder are thus performed by the Controller in Diggs through the incorporated ECC Detection and Correction module."

The specification teaches that the encoder, decoder, and controller “may, individually or collectively, be implemented with one or more Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) adapted to perform some or all of the applicable functions in hardware. Alternatively, the functions may be performed by one or more other processing units (or cores), on one or more integrated circuits” . . . That language indicates that the claim language, properly construed, provides that the functions of the decoder and the controller of claim 13 can be performed by varying sets of circuits, individually or collectively."

". . . challenges the district court’s judgment upholding validity by arguing

1. claim 1 of the ’956 patent is invalid for indefiniteness and lack of enablement because the claimed method is impossible to perform;
2. claim 1 is also invalid because the “high resolution image” limitation is indefinite;
3. the district court improperly allowed the jury to resolve claim construction disputes; and
4. the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that Park Assist had offered to sell a parking system embodying the claimed invention more than a year before filing its patent application, thereby invalidating the patent under the onsale bar."

1. A computer-implemented method for decoding a transmission signal, the method comprising:
receiving, using a computer processor, the transmission signal, which is formed by repeating symbols including downlink frame prefix information, encoding repeated symbols to form encoding blocks, and interleaving the encoding blocks;
deinterleaving, using a computer processor, the received transmission signal;
combining, using a computer processor, symbols at the same positions of deinterleaved encoding blocks among the repeated symbols in the deinterleaved transmission signal; and
decoding, using a computer processor, the combined symbols.

The specification discloses that all claimed steps aside from the “combining” step were used in prior art decoding methods . . . With respect to the “combining” step, as alluded to above, claim 1 discloses what symbols are combined together, but does not explain how they are combined . . . The additional details described in the specification . . . but not captured by the claims, cannot serve as the basis of an inventive concept.

1. "First, “the clear implication of the claim language” is that the zipper members and spout are “‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention” because Claim 1 and Claim 9 list those elements separately . . . the language of the specification makes clear that the zipper members are separate from the spout . . . The specification consistently refers to the spout, male zipper member, and female zipper member as different features";
2. "Second, ZT’s proposed claim construction is illogical . . . The zipper members cannot then be part of the spout. But ZT’s proposed construction gives rise to a contradiction in which the spout would be “proximate” itself or “terminate at” itself."; and
3. "Third, ZT repeatedly looks to the preferred embodiments, rather than the claim language, to support its claim construction arguments."