IP News

In the ITC proceeding, the complainants asserted infringement of their '850 patent against several respondents, not including Mayborn. Id. at 2-3. At the conclusion of its investigation, the ITC determined that two respondents infringed claim 1 of the '850 patent and issued a general exclusion order. Id. at 3. The respondents had not raised an invalidity challenge. Id. The complainants then notified Mayborn that its products infringed the '850 patent in violation of the exclusion order. Id. In response, Mayborn petitioned the ITC to rescind its order pursuant to its power under 19 U.S.C. §1337(k)(1), which allows the ITC to rescind or modify an order if "the conditions which led to such exclusion from entry or order no longer exist." Id. at 3-4. Mayborn argued that this requirement was satisfied because claim 1 of the '850 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103. Id. at 4. The ITC denied Mayborn's petition, holding that a petitioner's asserted discovery of invalidating prior art after issuance of an exclusion order is not a changed condition under §1337(k)(1). Id. On appeal, Mayborn argued that the ITC erred in rejecting its petition for rescission, and the ITC argued that Mayborn lacks standing to appeal the ITC's denial of Mayborn's petition because Mayborn continues to import the accused products and thus lacks the requisite injury. Id.

The Federal Circuit found that Mayborn had standing to appeal. Id. at 5. Any person may petition the ITC for rescission or modification of an exclusion order, provided that there is a case or controversy for which federal courts have jurisdiction under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Id. The court found that Mayborn had shown it suffered injury in fact as a result of the exclusion order because Mayborn imports products that potentially infringe the '850 patent and thus violate the exclusion order. Id. at 6.