You guys really don't understand the case... Keep falling back on ONE analysis by Dean Pinkert. That's an opinion filed by Dean Pinkert, one of the ITC's SIX commissioners. Which might even have been interesting, were it not for the fact that the five other commissioners thought his reasoning was total BS, and even gave a substantial explanation of just why it was bollocks in the final judgement.
There was no reason that Samsung should have made any 'effort to demonstrate that the licensing terms it offered Apple "satisfied an objective standard of reasonableness."' Apple infringed, and the onus was upon them to demonstrate that Samsung refused to negotiate a FRAND licensing settlement, and the ITC concluded that:
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the evidence does not support Apple's allegation that Samsung failed to offer Apple licenses to Samsung's declared-essential patents on FRAND terms with a side-order of irritation at Apple's arrogance: it is not enough for Apple to say that Samsung's license offer was unreasonable based on Apple's rationale. Furthermore, Samsung didn't require licenses in return: it may, allegedly, have proposed negotiating a cross-licensing deal, but so what? As the ITC points out, " negotiations often involve a process of offer and counteroffer before the parties arrive at an agreed price."
In fact, the ITC concludes that Apple made no effort to negotiate: Apple's evidence does not demonstrate that Apple put forth a sincere, bona fide effort to bargain with Samsung. Remarkably, even though Apple complains that Samsung's license offer was not FRAND, Apple has not shown that, as a member to ETSI, it ever availed itself of the process and procedures of the ETSI under Clause 4.3 of the ETSI Guide on IPRs, which provides for mediation by ETSI Members or the Secretariat.
'm no fan of SEPs myself, but just striking down judgements because they might hit your rich donors and lobbyists is crony favouritism at best, and in many countries would be called as the blatant corruption that it is. The ITC is the only venue in the US system that can offer time-sensistive investigation of infringement of FRAND patents, and also the only venue where the public interest is as important as the private agendas of litigants: these are the reasons it exists at all. If Obama thinks that these functions are unnecessary then he could propose to lawmakers that they modify its authorising statues (effectively abolishing it) ... but he seems to prefer to act autocratically to protect his donors rather than offering any legal argument (as usual, one might even say).