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
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has decided to review in part an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)’s finding of violation of Section 337 based on patent infringement in Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1010 (Sept. 29, 2017). While review of patent issues is not unusual, the Notice of … 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
In a much-anticipated ruling, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has declined to issue an exclusion order barring hoverboards from the U.S. market, finding that the popular consumer items did not infringe the claims of the patent asserted against them. The investigation, captioned Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles, Inv. No. 337-TA-1000, was instituted in May 2016 … Continue Reading
The USITC’s investigation in Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002 was instituted to investigate alleged violations of Section 337 by the Chinese steel industry based on claims of trade secret misappropriation, false designation of origin, and (atypically for a 337 proceeding) antitrust violations. While the trade secret misappropriation claims were withdrawn, the … Continue Reading
