Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The ITC Is Dead, Long Live the ITC

By Elizabeth A. Niemeyer and C. Brandon Rash
June 02, 2014

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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?