This court has consistently affirmed the Commission's determination that a violation of Section 337 may arise from an act of induced infringement. See, e.g., Young Eng'rs Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 721 F.2d 1305 (Fed.Cir.1983) (affirming Section 337 violation based on contributory and induced infringement of process patents);Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed.Cir.2010) (affirming Section 337 violation based on induced infringement of method claim); Emcore Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 449 Fed.Appx. 918 (Fed.Cir.2011) (affirming without opinion Section 337 violation based on induced infringement of apparatus claim). Prior to this case, none of our reviews of the Commission's determinations have questioned the Commission's authority to investigate and find a violation of Section 337 predicated on an act of induced infringement.

Certain Optoelectronic Devices, Components Thereof, and Prods. Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337–TA–669, Pub. No. 4284 (Nov.2011), Initial Determination at 51, 2011 WL 7628061, at *45 (March 12, 2010), aff'd sub nom., Emcore Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 449 Fed.Appx. 918 (Fed.Cir.2011) (non-precedential); Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof and Prods. Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337–TA–564, Pub. No. 4261 (Oct.2011), Enforcement Initial Determination at 38, 2011 WL 6980817, at *31 (Mar. 18, 2010) (violation of limited exclusion order based on inducement); Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Prods. Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337–TA–661, Pub. No. 4266 (Oct.2011), Initial Determination at 42, 2011 WL 6017982, at *85 (Jan. 22, 2010); Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Prods. Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337–TA–617, Comm'n Op. at 10, 2009 WL 1124461, at *5 (Apr. 23, 2009), aff'd in relevant part sub nom., Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed.Cir.2010); Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Prods. Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337–TA–543, Pub. No. 4258 (Oct.2011), Initial Determination at 151, 2011 WL 6175074, at *83 (Oct. 10, 2006); Certain Foam Masking Tape, USITC Inv. No. 337–TA–528, Pub. No. 3968 (Dec.2007), Initial Determination at 14–15, 2007 WL 4824257, at *20 (Jun. 21, 2005); Certain Automated Mechanical Transmission Sys. for Medium–Duty and Heavy–Duty Trucks and Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337–TA–503, Pub. No. 3934 (Aug.2007), Initial Determination at 154, 2007 WL 4473082, at *101 (Jan. 7, 2005); Certain Display Controllers and Prods. Containing Same, USITC Inv. No. 337–TA–491, Initial Determination, 2004 WL 1184745, at *116 (Apr. 14, 2004); Certain Hardware Logic Emulation Systems and Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337–TA–383, Pub. No. 3154 (Jan.1999), Comm'n Notice at 2 (Mar. 6, 1998), Initial Determination at 179, 1997 WL 665006, at *1

Anticipation under § 102 is a question of fact, which we review for substantial evidence. Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A claim is invalid for obviousness if, to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made."

Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of fact, which we review for substantial evidence. Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

The Federal Circuit has instructed, however, that a preamble limits a claim when the language of the preamble "recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim." Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1340-41 (Fed Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Put another way, a term in a preamble limits a claim where it is the "essence or a fundamental characteristic of the claimed invention."

Plaintiff also argues that when a limitation refers to the "essence of the invention," it limits the scope of the claim, even if it appears in the preamble. (Dkt. No. 59 at 6) (citing Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). The Court agrees with this statement of law.

The ultimate question of anticipation is a finding of fact that we review for substantial evidence. See id. at 1364 (citing Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). A

"We review the Commission's final determination of a violation of section 337 under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act ('APA')." Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). "Under the APA, this court reviews the Commission's legal determinations de novo, and its factual findings for substantial evidence."

Anticipation is a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence. Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n , 605 F.3d 1330, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Because the ’359 patent does not contain any claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the applicable version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 is the one preceding the changes made by the America Invents Act.

Acceleration argues the claim terms "game environment" and "information delivery service" are limitations despite appearing in the preambles because they provide structure for the remainder of the claims. Appellant’s Br. 35–38 (citing, e.g., Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ; Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n , 605 F.3d 1330, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ); Appellant’s Reply Br. 26. Acceleration alternatively argues that these terms appear in the body of the claims because there is no transition phrase denoting a preamble. See, e.g. , Appellant’s Br. 38; Oral Arg. at 7:22–7:36.