On May 8, 2018, the ITC published in the Federal Register (83 F.R. 21140) long-awaited revisions to its Rules governing Section 337 investigations. The ITC made several amendments to its Rules including (1) codifying the pilot program for early resolution of 337 investigations within 100 days of institution based on potentially dispositive issues; (2) authorizing the Commission ...›
Trademark owners seeking non-monetary relief for infringement can turn to the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ITC offers a variety of powerful remedies pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. These remedies include exclusion orders that bar infringing imports, and cease and desist orders that prohibit respondents from engaging in specified commercial activities with respect to infringing articles. ...›
On July 11, 2017, Federal Circuit Judges Prost, O’Malley, and Chen heard oral arguments in the appeal captioned Instradent USA, Inc. v. ITC, No. 16-2336 (Fed. Cir.), and, on July 19, 2017, issued a Rule 36 judgment affirming the International Trade Commission’s decision. Appellant-Respondent Instradent USA, Inc. appealed the Commission’s decision in Dental Implants, Inv. No. 934, finding a violation of Section 337 based on infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,714,977. ...›
Since the passage of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) in 2011, Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) have assumed growing importance in patent litigation in federal district courts. Until recently, IPRs have not played a significant role in International Trade Commission (“ITC”) Section 337 investigations. ...›
On April 20, 2017, the Commission heard oral arguments in Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. 337 TA-1002, in connection with its review of Judge Lord’s Initial Determination dismissing complainant U.S. Steel’s antitrust claims. The arguments largely focused on the applicability of antitrust standing requirements for cases brought under federal antitrust laws to antitrust-based complaints brought under Section 337. ...›
In a recent decision in UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1031, Judge MaryJoan McNamara struck a respondent’s inequitable conduct defense, which the respondent based on the complainants’ conduct during IPRs of the asserted patents. Two things make this decision noteworthy. ...›
On February 15, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s imposition of severe, case dispositive sanctions on Respondents for bad faith spoliation of evidence as well as the issuance of a 25-year limited exclusion order in Certain Opaque Polymers, Inv. No. 337-TA-883. The appeal was decided by a panel consisting of Judges Lourie, Mayer, and O’Malley, with Judge O’Malley delivering the opinion. ...›
Recent decisions by the Commission highlight a split among the Commissioners over the proper standard for issuing cease and desist orders. The majority of Commissioners appear to agree that the determination regarding whether to issue a cease and desist order is based on whether the respondent has commercially significant domestic operations or inventory of infringing products, even though those standards are not set forth in Section 337 in the United States. ...›
On January 26, 2017, after taking the unusual step of ordering a full International Trade Commission oral hearing to consider issues including laches, remedy, and public interest, the Commission issued a limited exclusion order (LEO) in Lithium Metal Oxide Cathode Materials, Inv. No. 337-TA-951. The oral hearing was the first held before the Commission since the 2007 hearing in Baseband Processor Chips, Inv. No. 337-TA-543. ...›
In 3D Cinema Systems (Inv. 939), the Commission issued an opinion that explained why it did not give deference to a decision of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR). ...›