#1. Broadcom's '983 patent is NOT invalid.
#2. There is NO direct infringement by Qualcomm.
#3. Because the ITC misapplied the standard for induced infringement, the CAFC issued a vacate and remand.
#4. The ITC has no statutory authority to issue a limited exclusion order [LEO] against downstream products of non-respondents, and the CAFC issued a vacate and remand.
In the validity matter, the CAFC cited In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, and SRI, 511 F.3d 1186. For anticipation, the CAFC cited Finisar, 523 F.3d 1323.
On induced infringement, the CAFC cited DSU v. JMS, 471 F.3d 1293. The Broadcom case becomes an example that an appellate court will apply the law as it exists at the time of the appeal, not at the time of the trial court (eg. In re Schooner Betty). Qualcomm won on induced infringement because the law changed.
On the LEO point, the CAFC cited Chevron, 467 US 837, and in the "Chevron two-step", only reached step one, and ended the Chevron inquiry. [Relevant to the future Tafas case at the CAFC.] In the end, the CAFC here said Broadcom needed to get a GEO, not a LEO. The term "ultra vires" comes up in the decision.
The case involved a "cast of thousands" of attorneys.