A recent opinion by the ITC reiterates that a violation of Section 337 can be based on infringement of a method claim that occurs after importation of the relevant article(s). Certain Blood Cholesterol Testing Strips and...more
On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit held that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) does not require a single entity to perform, direct, or control all of the steps of a patented process for infringement liability to arise from...more
Direct and Indirect Infringement Claims Allowed to Proceed Against Japanese Parent that Neither Imported nor Sold Allegedly Infringing Cellphones in the US - Semcon IP Inc. v. Kyocera Corp., US District Court for the...more
Complainants often must rely on indirect infringement to prove a violation of Section 337. Indirect infringement may be in the form of induced or contributory infringement. In a recent opinion, the Commission clarified issues...more
Before 2011, the ITC routinely found violations of Section 337 based on the infringement of method claims through a respondent’s own use of an article post-importation. This changed when the ITC issued its Opinion in Certain...more
Who enforces a patent? When can a district court patent case be filed? What does the patent holder have to prove to win an infringement suit? Fenwick patent litigators Charlene Morrow and Dargaye Churnet cover these and other...more
It is a deceptively simple question with a not so simple answer. A purely foreign transaction is certainly beyond the reach of U.S. patent law, but what if part of the transaction occurs within the United States? For example,...more
In the latter half of 2015, the Federal Circuit in Suprema v. ITC and ClearCorrect v. ITC issued two decisions addressing the scope of the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) authority to exclude infringing articles. In...more
The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (No. 2014-1431, -1462, 8/28/15) (Prost, Dyk, Wallach). Dyk, J. Reversing award of supplemental damages. "We hold that the intervening change in the law of...more
On August 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit held that under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the International Trade Commission (ITC) could exclude from the United States imported goods that, after importation, are used in...more
On August 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit, acting en banc, ruled that the International Trade Commission (ITC) has the authority to prevent importation of products based on claims for induced infringement where the predicate...more
Suprema, Inc. and Mentalix Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 12-1170 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2015) (Reyna, J.) (O’Malley, Proust, Lourie, and Dyk JJ., dissenting). By way of background, appellee Suprema manufactures...more
En banc Court reverses panel decision 6-4 and upholds U.S. International Trade Commission determination that it has broad authority to address acts of induced infringement based upon post-importation conduct. Procedural...more
Reversing an earlier panel decision, the en banc Federal Circuit confirmed that the ITC has the authority to issue exclusion orders against imported products that ultimately are used to infringe method claims, even if those...more
Yesterday morning, the full Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Suprema, Inc. v. ITC and reversed the controversial Federal Circuit opinion that had effectively precluded the International Trade Commission from...more
On Aug. 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a much-anticipated opinion confirming the authority of U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “the Commission”) to stop importation of articles which are used, after...more
Oral Argument Fails To Shed Light On The Outcome Of Anticipated En Banc Federal Circuit Decision In Suprema – On February 8, oral argument was held before the en banc Federal Circuit in Suprema v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No....more