CAFC on RIM vs. ITC
From RIM v. ITC (and Kodak) :
It is equally clear that when the judgment entered is that the patent asserted is invalid, there is no basis for the defendant to appeal from a ruling of infringement. This court addressed and rejected such an appeal in a district court case in TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Micro- soft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2004). There, we explained that because invalidity operates as a com- plete defense to infringement for any product, reversal as to infringement would not affect the scope of the judg- ment. See id. (citing Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 1998».
The same analysis applies in section 337 cases. When the ITC renders a final determination that a product is not in violation of section 337 because the patent is inva- lid, the importer or seller of the product has no standing to appeal since any adverse infringement or invalidity finding in the lTC's decision would not alter the scope of the lTC's final determination. See Surface Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 780 F.2d 29, 30-31 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Krupp Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 626 F. 2d 844,846 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ("[F]indings associated with the ultimate determination that section 337 has not been violated are not final determinations within the meaning of subsection (c) and do not give standing to appeal to a respondent dissatisfied with those findings."). In view of the lTC's finding that they did not violate section 337, RIM is without standing to appeal. Accordingly, RIM's appeal must be dismissed.