Skip to content

International Trade Commission (ITC) litigation

In a first of its kind decision with important ramifications for patentees, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) denied a petition to suspend or temporarily rescind remedial orders issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-945 pending appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) separate finding that the patent claims at issue are invalid.  The ITC has therefore decided to continue to exclude products it found to be infringing certain patents, regardless of the PTAB invalidating the very patents the exclusion order is based upon in separate IPR proceedings.  While this decision aiding patentees may surprise some, it is consistent with the ITC’s practices regarding stays and of giving little deference to IPR proceedings.

Continue Reading ITC Denies Suspension or Temporary Rescission of Remedial Orders after PTAB Invalidates Patents at Issue

On May 17, 2017, the International Trade Commission (ITC) reversed an ALJ’s ruling and found a violation of Section 337 in Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof and Methods of using the Same (“Certain Air Mattress Systems”), Inv. No. 337-TA-971, due to the importation of certain air mattresses, and components of air mattresses, by the named respondents.  The public version of the Commission opinion has been released and provides future ITC litigants  with guidance regarding the proper allocation of expenses for domestic industry purposes, and how the Commission  views certain types of products for public interest consideration.

Continue Reading ITC Issues Public Commission Opinion Clarifying Methodology for Allocating Domestic Industry Expenses and Issuing Exclusion Order against Product with Medical Applications

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued Final Written Decisions regarding Cisco’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577 (the “’577 Patent”) and 7,023,853 (the “’853 Patent”) on May 25, 2017 and U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (the “’668 Patent”) on June 1, 2017.  The PTAB found the ’577 and ’668 Patents invalid but upheld the validity of the ’853 Patent.  The Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings were brought by Arista Networks in retaliation to Cisco’s accusations of infringement brought in multiple venues, including at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which had just a few weeks earlier upheld the validity of these very same patents and determined that Arista infringed the ’577 and ’668 Patents, and issued exclusion and cease and desist orders accordingly.  Since the IPR decisions issued Arista has filed a petition asking the ITC to suspend its limited exclusion order regarding the ’577 Patent based on the PTAB’s decision and is expected to file a similar request with respect to the ’668 Patent.  On the other side, Cisco plans to appeal the PTAB’s decisions to the Federal Circuit.  The uncertainty created by these inconsistent outcomes is an issue for patent owners, and it will be interesting to see how these cases are resolved.  In addition, this case shows that even though the ITC does not stay its investigations for IPRs, IPRs may still impact ITC proceedings.

Continue Reading PTAB Invalidates Two Cisco Patents Found Valid and Infringed at the ITC

Trade secret theft is a growing threat to American businesses. One obstacle to addressing misappropriation through a lawsuit can be a lack of direct evidence of theft. For example, if an employee leaves his company to work for a competitor and, some months later, the competitor comes out with a product similar to that of the original employer with features previously unique to the original product, it might be inferred that the employee improperly took trade secret information to the competition. A decision in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) this past summer suggests that these facts, without more compelling evidence, may be insufficient to support a finding of trade secret misappropriation. The decision is an important reminder to all trade secret owners to develop a comprehensive trade secret management plan that tracks a company’s trade secrets and who has access to them so that theft can be documented and used in judicial actions, if necessary.

In August 2015, the ITC instituted an investigation based on allegations by Jawbone that Fitbit misappropriated 154 Jawbone trade secrets through the recruitment of a former Jawbone employee. The trade secrets at issue generally relate to the manufacturing and testing of Jawbone wrist worn activity monitors that track a user’s activity and the number of calories the user has expended.

Continue Reading Jawbone Fails to Prove Trade Secret Misappropriation by Fitbit at the ITC

On October 19, 2016, the ITC instituted Investigation No. 1025, based on a complaint filed on May 26, 2016, by Silicon Genesis Corporation (SiGen), against Soitec, S.A. (Soitec).  As part of the institution, the ITC ordered that the ALJ issue an early initial determination regarding whether SiGen “has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.”  See 81 F.R. 73419 (Notice of Institution of Inv. No. 1025) (Oct. 25, 2016).  This is now the fourth time the ITC has ordered the 100-Day program in an investigation, and in this case it appears that previous behavior by the complainant SiGen contributed to the order.

Continue Reading ITC Institutes “Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers” Investigation – Only the Fourth 100-Day Pilot Program Ordered

In a newly issued statement, the U.S. International Trade Commission once again made it clear that standard-essential patents may be asserted at the ITC and will be treated no differently than other patents asserted in a Section 337 investigation. Issues of standard essentiality will be addressed – under commission’s statutory obligation to assess an exclusion order’s impact on the public interest – only after it has been determined that a violation of the statute has occurred. Such issues, therefore, are not appropriate for resolution through the ITC’s Early Disposition Pilot Program.

Read more on the team’s insights into the SEPs at the ITC issue in this Law 360 article (republished with permission).

The owners of popular brands, trademarks, and designs have been confronted with a rising tide of counterfeits and knockoffs. The products may be straight counterfeits – products using the trademarked brand names and identical to the legitimate product – or knockoffs, which copy a designer or brand’s style, trade dress, or patented designs without containing logos or brand names but are still so confusingly similar that consumers assume that they are branded products. To fight this, brand and trademark owners are turning to new strategies such as actions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Lanham Act, and pulling products from Amazon and other websites.

Read more on the team’s insights into using the ITC to fight counterfeits and knockoffs in this Law 360 article (republished with permission).

The October 2016 issue of Financier Worldwide features our article discussing the ITC’s general exclusion order procedure and how it impacts fighting counterfeit goods.  Though the US International Trade Commission (ITC) is most often thought of in terms of high stakes patent litigation, the issuance of a general exclusion order (GEO) by the ITC has always been a powerful tool for intellectual property owners to fight counterfeits and knockoffs. Word of the benefits of obtaining a GEO seems to have spread as in recent years the numbers of these orders, and the parties seeking them, have been increasing rapidly.

Companies seeking to stop a tide of imported knockoffs often find themselves playing legal whack-a-mole – they spend a great deal of money and time filing repeated cases in the US district courts against the sellers they can identify, but after it all find that the orders they worked so hard to obtain are difficult to enforce against small overseas companies which simply cease their official operations then re-emerge having changed their names, locations or channel of importation.

To read the entire article, please click here.

Several months ago, we were struck with the question of whether, as counsel for a patent owner at the ITC, our clients’ case would benefit from a Markman hearing.  Claim construction during an ITC investigation was routinely performed as part of the evidentiary hearing in an investigation, rather than as part of earlier Markman proceedings.  This has now changed.  Recently appointed ALJs at the ITC have been trending towards conducting Markman hearings rather than pushing claim construction to the final hearing.  This new trend has resulted in additional litigation strategy considerations at the ITC, regarding whether Markman hearings are beneficial, or detrimental, and what affect the increase in Markman hearings have on investigations.

Claim construction will occur at some point in any patent-based ITC investigation.  From a patent owner’s perspective, the question is whether having a Markman hearing at the ITC will be helpful.  A negative claim construction order, especially early in the investigation, may imperil the ability to reach the evidentiary hearing as an adverse ruling could result in summary determination.  In contrast, a favorable claim construction order could result in added pressure for settlement.

Continue Reading Markman at the ITC and Its Effect on an Investigation

The deadline has come and gone for the ITC and patentee Align to file petitions for certiorari seeking review by the Supreme Court of the Federal Circuit’s decision in ClearCorrect. On November 10, 2015, a panel of the Federal Circuit found that the ITC does not have jurisdiction to bar digital downloads or imports where there was no physical article to bar from importation.  After the panel decision, the ITC and the patentee Align submitted a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied on March 31, 2016.  The deadline for further appeal was August 26 and neither the ITC nor Align filed for certiorari.

Continue Reading ITC Declines to File Petition for Certiorari – CAFC Holding that ITC Does Not Have Jurisdiction over Digital Imports Stands