Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Nuts and Bolts of ITC Investigations
In recent years, the International Trade Commission ('ITC') has become an increasingly popular venue for parties seeking to enforce patent rights. There are several reasons for this trend. First, the ITC is a high-speed venue. The ITC's investigation of a patentee's allegations of infringement is typically completed within 12 to 15 months, far more quickly than cases in most U.S. district courts. Second, the ITC offers a powerful remedy: exclusion of infringing products from the United States. The U.S. Customs Service enforces the exclusion order. Of course, this remedy is available only when the infringing products are being imported. However, there are many industries in which most, if not all, manufacturing takes place overseas. As a result, resort to the ITC is often available even with respect to domestic competitors. Third, although the ITC does not award damages, the patentee has the option of seeking damages in a parallel case in federal district court. Thus, the patentee can obtain both damages and an exclusion order by pursuing relief before the ITC and a district court.
An ITC investigation of allegations of patent infringement is similar, in many ways, to a district court case. The ITC's determinations on patent infringement, like those of a district court, are controlled by Federal Circuit precedent and can be appealed to the Federal Circuit. In an ITC investigation, the usual defenses of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability are available to the accused infringer. The ITC has rules allowing discovery that are similar to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The ITC rules also provide for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ('ALJ'), which is similar in many ways to a bench trial in federal district court.
However, there are a number of important practical differences between participating in an ITC investigation and litigating in federal district court. These include the requirement for the patentee to prove the existence of a domestic industry; the pleading requirements; the pace, extent and conduct of discovery; the likelihood of early settlement; the nature and extent of pre- and post-hearing briefing; and the participation of an attorney representing the public interest.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?