Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) administers U.S. trade laws, including Section 337 investigations concerning allegations of unfair competition based on alleged infringement of intellectual property rights. In the last decade, the ITC has been an increasingly popular forum for litigating IP rights, largely because it offers a quick and forceful remedy in the form of an exclusion order, which can exclude infringing products from the U.S. market. In recent months, several important decisions have caused some to question the continuing vitality of the ITC as forum. A review of complaints filed since 2011, however, reveal that patentees had already begun modifying their allegations, greatly minimizing the actual impact of these recent decisions.
This article examines three recent ITC-related decisions. First, in Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2012-1170 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2013), the Federal Circuit held that '337 measures infringement at the time of importation, which precludes a finding of a violation based on allegations of induced infringement of a method claim. Next, in Computers and Computer Peripheral Devices, Investigation No. 337-TA-841 (Jan. 9, 2014), the ITC held that a complainant alleging the existence of a domestic industry based on licensing must show the existence of articles covered by the patents-at-issue. Lastly, in Certain Electronic Devices, Investigation No. 337-TA-794, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) vetoed an ITC exclusion order based on a finding that Apple had violated '337 by infringing FRAND-encumbered, standards-essential patents.
Each of these decisions has important legal consequences that patent owners should consider before filing a complaint at the ITC. A review of the 143 patent infringement complaints filed in the last three years (2011-2013), however, shows that the practical impact of these decisions may be significantly less than reported.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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 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.
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?