Powerful remedies, particularly General Exclusion Orders, are often cited as a reason why patent owners should consider asserting their patents at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 instead of, or in addition to, in U.S. District Court. A recent Federal Circuit decision reaffirms another advantage of … Continue Reading
In its 2018 decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court held that an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can create an on-sale bar under AIA §102(a). Relying on Helsinn, the ITC’s ALJ Cheney has held, in In … Continue Reading
One advantage of filing a patent infringement complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) instead of in U.S. District Court is that a Complainant does not need to use the Hague Service Convention process or other treaty to serve the complaint on foreign entities. As explained here, recent ITC decisions expand the methods through … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC” or “Commission”) Opinion in Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof,[1] holding that the ITC’s authority to exclude products from the United States is not limited to “articles that infringe” at the time of importation, but can include articles that infringe after … Continue Reading
The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) can provide a powerful alternative forum for enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, including U.S. patents.[1] But there are limitations on the actions that can be brought at the ITC. For example, to bring an action for patent infringement at the ITC, a patent owner must demonstrate, inter alia, … Continue Reading
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has denied respondents’ requests for entry into the ITC’s pilot program for early case disposition in a trio of recent orders: in Certain Insulated Beverage Containers, Components, Labels, and Packaging Materials Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1084 (Nov. 17, 2017); and in the companion cases of Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware … Continue Reading
Under a pilot program initiated in 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) may designate an investigation for early disposition if the ITC believes that there is a potentially case-dispositive issue warranting the program’s speedy (100-day) treatment. Since the program’s inception, however, the ITC has designated only a handful of cases for early disposition. Although … Continue Reading
For the second time in the past few months, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has decided to maintain an exclusion order despite final unpatentability findings by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The investigation is Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-567, which resulted in a general exclusion order in July 2011 based on … Continue Reading
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has determined to maintain the $650,000.00 penalty it imposed for violation of a consent order entered in a Section 337 investigation, notwithstanding that the parties and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) supported rescinding the penalty.… Continue Reading
In yet another decision concerning how rulings in parallel, patent challenge proceedings impact Section 337 investigations, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has refused to rescind an exclusion order issued against a defaulted party despite a district court’s summary judgment ruling that it did not infringe the patent. The investigation is Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, … Continue Reading
In an August 4, 2017 Notice, the US International Trade Commission announced that it has determined to review an administrative law judge (ALJ)’s initial determination in the enforcement proceeding in Certain Network Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-944 (Enforcement Proceeding). The Commission’s notice could lead to additional rulings by the presiding ALJ (Shaw) … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit has recently ruled on two appeals of Section 337 investigations involving findings of patent invalidity. As we reported in a prior blog, in Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-929, the products under investigation were reusable beverage brewing capsules designed to replace the prior art cup-shaped … Continue Reading
In an enforcement proceeding stemming from the ITC’s December 2015 decision in Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-921, ALJ David Shaw has found that the ITC’s cease and desist order was violated by continued infringing sales of imported products and has recommended that respondent Garmin be assessed a civil penalty of $37 million. … Continue Reading
On June 1, 2016, the complainant in Certain Beverage Capsules (Inv. 337-TA-929) filed a complaint with the ITC seeking enforcement of ITC remedial orders issued against a respondent (Eko Brands) that had been defaulted for failing to participate in the original investigation. The presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) has now issued his ruling finding no … Continue Reading
Trend or coincidence? The International Trade Commission (ITC) has affirmed summary determination rulings of patent invalidity in two, separate investigations: Certain Wireless Headsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-943 and Certain Automated Teller Machines and Point of Sale Devices and Associated Software Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-958. This follows the April 4, 2016 affirmance of ALJ Lord’s Section 101-based … Continue Reading
The United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) is an independent, quasi-judicial Federal agency with investigative responsibilities on matters of trade. Among other things, the ITC adjudicates complaints filed by private parties involving imports that allegedly infringe intellectual property rights under the authority of Section 337 of the Tariff Act. If imports are deemed to violate Section … Continue Reading
Can the International Trade Commission (ITC) offer trade relief when the importation of goods is not an act of direct infringement, but rather induces a subsequent act of infringement? In its 2011 determination that Suprema and Mentalix infringed, the ITC did just that. On appeal, in a revised en banc decision, the Federal Circuit has now … Continue Reading
