With the continued technological sophistication of mobile equipment also comes heightened risks for manufacturers. Learn how OEMs turn to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) as a frontline venue for intellectual property (IP) protection and market access.
Innovation at the Intersection of Machinery and Global Trade
Machinery is reshaping how we grow food, build infrastructure, and manage supply chains. Autonomous tractors, digitally controlled harvesters, and advanced road construction systems demonstrate how agricultural and industrial equipment has become smarter, more connected, and more reliant on both hardware and software innovation involving artificial intelligence (AI).
At the same time, the commercial stakes have never been higher. Modern equipment platforms often represent billions of dollars in cumulative research and development investment, tightly integrated dealer networks, and highly regulated safety and emissions regimes. Unauthorized imports or infringing products can disrupt these ecosystems almost overnight.
This technological sophistication also introduces heightened risk. Globalized supply chains and rapid manufacturing enable infringing, gray-market, or counterfeit products to enter the U.S. market quickly undermining the very innovation that differentiates these industries.
Gray-market imports pose a particularly acute challenge in heavy equipment markets. These products are often genuine machines manufactured by the brand owner but intended for foreign markets. Differences in safety features, emissions controls, telematics, warranties, and serviceability can be significant. When unauthorized resellers import these machines into the United States, they disrupt authorized dealer networks, create compliance and liability risks, and dilute brand value.
As a result, companies increasingly turn to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) as a frontline venue for intellectual property protection and market access.
Why the ITC Matters: Speed, Scope and Strategic Leverage
Section 337 of the Tariff Act authorizes the ITC to investigate unfair trade practices, including the importation of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights. Unlike federal district courts, which primarily award monetary damages, the ITC offers powerful injunctive-style remedies:
- Exclusion orders — directing U.S. Customs to block infringing imports at the border.
- Cease-and-desist orders — preventing domestic sale of infringing goods already in U.S. inventory.
For original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) operating global manufacturing and distribution networks, these remedies can be outcome-determinative — cutting off unauthorized supply before products ever reach dealers or end users.
Most investigations conclude in 16 to 18 months, significantly faster than typical district court litigation. The ITC also evaluates public-interest factors, including effects on consumers, competition, and critical industries. In machinery cases — where safety, reliability, and equipment performance directly affect agricultural output and infrastructure — public-interest considerations often support strong enforcement rather than weigh against it.
Agricultural and Industrial Machinery in the Crosshairs: Complex Technology, High-Value IP
Modern agricultural and industrial machinery integrates multiple layers of intellectual property, including utility patents covering mechanical systems and automation, design patents protecting distinctive visual features, trade secrets governing software and calibration methods, and trademarks safeguarding brand integrity in global markets.
This layered IP creates both opportunity and vulnerability. High-value innovations attract infringers and unauthorized importers, often operating across multiple jurisdictions.
For this reason, OEMs frequently deploy ITC actions alongside foreign litigation — such as proceedings in the Unified Patent Court, Chinese IP courts, or European customs authorities—to apply coordinated, cross-border pressure. The ITC often serves as the cornerstone of these multinational enforcement strategies.
Case Studies: ITC Enforcement in Action
Exemplary investigations demonstrate how Section 337 shapes competition, protects brand integrity, and deters infringing and gray-market imports in both agricultural and industrial machinery.
Agricultural Machinery
Tama Group & John Deere (Certain Wrapping Materials and Methods for Use in Agricultural Applications, Inv. No. 337-TA-1210)
Tama Group and Tama USA initiated ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1210, alleging that imported cotton-bale wrapping materials and mechanized wrapping methods infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,787,209, which covers systems for wrapping round cotton modules. While the accused products were manufactured abroad, Tama relied on its integration with John Deere harvesters to establish domestic industry. Although infringement and patent validity were established, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that Tama failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The investigation was terminated following settlement, without exclusionary relief. The dispute proceeded in parallel litigation in China, Brazil, and multiple U.S. district courts.
Takeaway: Even where infringement is proven, insufficient domestic-industry evidence — such as significant financial expenditures made in the U.S. on products that practice claim(s) of the asserted patents — can be dispositive in Section 337 investigations.
Deere & Co. (Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-487)
Deere & Company filed an ITC complaint alleging that unauthorized importation and sale of European-version John Deere forage harvesters and related vehicles constituted trademark infringement in a classic gray-market case. The Commission found that the European models materially differed from authorized U.S. versions and issued a general exclusion order along with cease-and-desist orders against specific dealers. Years of appeals followed. The Federal Circuit twice vacated and remanded the Commission’s decisions, requiring clarification of the “all or substantially all” test for authorized sales. After further proceedings, the Commission ultimately concluded that substantially all authorized U.S. sales involved North American models and reinstated the exclusionary relief. The final determination barred importation of the infringing European harvesters and reaffirmed the ITC’s authority to police trademark-based gray-market violations.
Takeaway: Trademark-based gray-market cases can support broad exclusionary relief where material differences threaten safety, compliance, or brand integrity.
Kubota Corp. (Certain Agricultural Tractors Under 50 Power Take-Off Horsepower, Inv. No. 337-TA-380)
Kubota Corporation brought a Section 337 action against U.S. importers selling small Kubota-branded tractors manufactured in Japan and imported without authorization. The ITC found that the unauthorized use of the KUBOTA mark on tractors under 50 PTO horsepower violated Section 337 and issued cease-and-desist orders barring further importation and sales absent a license. When Kubota later alleged that the respondents continued violating those orders, the Commission instituted enforcement proceedings and agreed. The ITC imposed a $2.32 million civil penalty on the respondents, reflecting $40,000 per day for 58 days of noncompliance. The case remains a leading example of the ITC’s willingness to impose substantial penalties to enforce trademark-based exclusion orders.
Takeaway: The ITC will impose significant penalties to enforce its orders and deter repeat violations.
Industrial Machinery
Bobcat v. Caterpillar, Inc. (Compact Equipment, Inv. No. 337-TA-1473) (Pending)
In late 2025, Bobcat filed a wide-reaching ITC complaint and parallel proceedings alleging that Caterpillar infringed 4 of its U.S. patents related to control systems, hydraulics, and interface technologies across several compact equipment lines — including skid-steer loaders, compact track loaders, mini-excavators, and small dozers. The complaint seeks both exclusion and cease-and-desist orders and is moving in parallel with litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, Germany, and before the Unified Patent Court. Although still pending, the investigation illustrates how the ITC continues to function as an aggressive, front-loaded enforcement venue for disputes involving fast-evolving industrial technologies.
Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc. (Certain Road Milling Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1067)
Wirtgen America accused Caterpillar Inc. of importing and selling road-milling machines that infringed multiple Wirtgen patents covering milling technology. The ALJ found infringement of key claims in two asserted patents while rejecting others, and the Commission affirmed infringement on review. The ITC issued a limited exclusion order barring the importation of machines and components practicing specified claims of the asserted patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding, but also added infringement of a third patent that was asserted below. The dispute proceeded alongside parallel actions in Germany, Italy, U.S. district courts, PTAB proceedings, and other international forums, underscoring the ITC’s role in coordinated global patent enforcement.
Takeaway: Patent-based ITC actions can be an effective tool to protect high-value mechanical innovations in competitive equipment markets.
Caterpillar, Inc. (Certain Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-582)
Caterpillar filed an ITC complaint alleging that numerous respondents imported Caterpillar-branded hydraulic excavators without authorization, infringing its CAT and Caterpillar trademarks. After many respondents settled, the remaining parties defaulted. The ALJ granted summary determination of violation, and the Commission issued a general exclusion order barring importation of the infringing excavators and imposing a 100% bond on any permitted entries. The ITC emphasized the widespread nature of the gray-market activity in justifying broad exclusionary relief.
Takeaway: General exclusion orders remain available where infringement is systemic and difficult to police respondent by respondent.
Together, these cases illustrate that the ITC is not confined to electronics or pharma — it has become an essential enforcement venue for both farm and factory equipment.
Advantages of ITC Actions for Equipment Companies
For agricultural and industrial equipment manufacturers, ITC enforcement offers several strategic advantages. Most notably, Section 337 investigations provide fast and decisive relief, with many investigations concluding within just over a year. Border enforcement prevents infringing products from reaching U.S. customers in the first place, protecting market share and preserving the competitive edge that innovation creates.
Given the high commercial stakes and the global nature of equipment supply chains, complainants in this space often deploy the ITC as part of a broader international strategy, leveraging its remedies alongside foreign court actions, customs seizures, and parallel litigation to maximize pressure on respondents.
By reinforcing the integrity of the U.S. innovation ecosystem, these actions benefit companies across the spectrum — established original equipment manufacturers as well as emerging start-ups. ITC proceedings also offer meaningful negotiating leverage, strengthening a complainant’s position in settlement or licensing discussions.
This is especially true in gray-market disputes, where exclusion orders can immediately shut down unauthorized import channels that threaten brand integrity and product-line viability.
The ability to block unauthorized imports can slow competitors who rely on infringing goods to enter the market, giving innovators a strategic advantage. For companies confronting counterfeiting, gray-market activity, or other unfair import practices, the ITC can be an indispensable enforcement tool.
Challenges and Limitations
Despite these advantages, ITC litigation is not without significant hurdles. Proceedings are resource-intensive and while comparable in cost to federal court litigation, the budgets are incurred in roughly a year and a half versus 3 to 5 years that it would take to complete a district court action involving the same allegations. Complainants must also satisfy the ITC’s domestic industry requirement by demonstrating that at least one patent claim in each patent in the investigation is practiced by a product (the technical prong) and that enough investments are made within the United States for that product through manufacturing, research and development, marketing, a licensee’s activities, etc. (the economic prong). The ITC’s jurisdiction is limited to accused products that are imported, meaning it cannot address purely domestic infringement activity. In addition, the Commission does not award monetary damages; available remedies are exclusion orders and cease-and-desist orders. For smaller innovators, these constraints mean that choosing the ITC is often a strategic decision driven by specific business objectives involving overseas actors rather than a routine enforcement path.
Strategic Considerations for Counsel
In machinery cases, counsel should anticipate that Section 337 proceedings will be only one component of a coordinated global enforcement plan. Because respondents often operate complex multinational distribution networks, parallel foreign actions — filed before the ITC complaint or shortly thereafter — can amplify the pressure of a fast-moving U.S. investigation.
Selecting the appropriate forum depends on the desired outcome. When the primary objective is to quickly stop the flow of infringing imports, the ITC is often the most effective choice. When the primary goal is to secure financial compensation, district court litigation may be more appropriate. In many situations, however, a dual-track approach — pursuing injunctive relief in the ITC while simultaneously seeking damages in federal court — offers the strongest overall position (noting that the district court action can be mandatorily stayed pending finality of the ITC action).
Because ITC discovery and scheduling move at a rapid pace, preparation is essential. Companies should develop domestic industry evidence, maintain well-structured IP portfolios, and be prepared to respond promptly to accelerated discovery timelines. Cross-border coordination is equally important. Disputes may arise simultaneously in Europe through the Unified Patent Court, in China where courts tend to be more damages-focused, or in other jurisdictions. Multinational innovators must align their strategies across these venues to ensure cohesive and effective global protection of their intellectual property assets.
Looking Ahead
As agricultural and industrial equipment continues to advance — powered by automation, robotics, electrification, and AI — the economic stakes and IP risks will escalate. For high-value machinery reliant on complex supply chains, ITC’s ability to block infringing imports will only grow more important.
Given the global nature of these disputes and the high value of the equipment involved, future ITC actions will almost certainly continue to operate as part of broader international enforcement strategies, particularly in cases where entire product lines or competitive positions are at stake.
For manufacturers whose equipment underpins food production, infrastructure development, and energy transition, ITC enforcement is no longer optional. It is a core component of a proactive, global IP strategy — essential to keeping innovation, and industry, moving forward.
