AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Meet Meaghan Luster: Patent Litigation Associate at Wolf Greenfield
EV Tech Series: IP Enforcement at the ITC and Federal Courts - Battery + Storage Podcast
Trade secret litigation after the Defend Trade Secrets Act
A changing competitive landscape: the role of the ITC in the biosimilars space
IP|Trend: International Remedies for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
Emerging Strategies for Protecting Global IP Rights
Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...more
Patent litigation at the International Trade Commission (ITC) is characterized by its rapid pace, with proceedings for investigations under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 typically concluding within 15 to 18 months after the filing of the...more
Last month the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the Lashify case that significantly broadens the opportunity for companies to bring a lawsuit before the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The ITC is known for...more
The Federal Circuit has overturned the U.S. International Trade Commission’s longstanding interpretation of section 337(a)(3)(B). Complainant Lashify, Inc. appealed an adverse decision by the U.S. International Trade...more
In its recent decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit opened the door for patent owners to include expanded categories of domestic investment to satisfy the economic prong of the...more
LASHIFY, INC. V. ITC - Before Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Warehousing, quality control, distribution, sales, and marketing expenses incurred in connection with an imported...more
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expands which intellectual property (IP) owners can seek relief before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to block the import of infringing...more
Given the recent unanimous decision by a UK appellate court that Ericsson’s injunction efforts based on standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) were, essentially by their very nature, “hold-up” and “coercion” that violated...more
Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission Before: Prost, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from ITC Investigation. The Federal Circuit expands the economic prong of the domestic-industry analysis to include domestic spending on...more
Lashify, Inc. is an American company, with headquarters and employees in the United States, that distributes, markets, and sells eyelash extensions (and cases and applicators for the eyelash extensions) in the United States....more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently emphasized that Section 337’s...more
Lashify, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 23-1245, 2025 WL 699368 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2025) - On March 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the International Trade Commission (“ITC”)’s decision and exercised its “independent...more
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upended years of settled law and ruled that sales and marketing expenses, by themselves, can be the basis for a finding of domestic industry in an...more
On this episode of Ropes & Gray's ITC-focused podcast series, Talkin' Trade, IP litigators Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, and Patrick Lavery discuss a groundbreaking Federal Circuit decision in Lashify v. ITC. This pivotal...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) recently issued a landmark decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, expanding what expenditures count to prove the economic prong of...more
On March 5, the Federal Circuit held that sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, or distribution expenditures may count as “employment of labor or capital” for purposes of satisfying the economic domestic industry...more
In a precedential decision issued on March 5, the Federal Circuit held that the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) must consider various domestic expenditures related to foreign-made products in determining whether the...more
For years, the U.S. International Trade Commission maintained that the potent remedies available under Section 337 were unavailable to intellectual property owners considered to be nothing more than “mere importers.” That...more
Examine real-world strategies for tackling the most pressing challenges in ITC practice at ACI’s 17th Annual Practitioners' Think Tank on ITC Litigation & Enforcement. Be in the same room with leading in-house counsel,...more
On March 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit rejected the ITC’s longstanding practice of excluding certain types of activities from qualifying as “domestic industry” activities under Section 337(a)(3)(B), finding the ITC’s approach...more
A recent opinion issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission in Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-1370) serves as a reminder for sellers to be cautious with any...more
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission significantly alters the landscape for small companies seeking recourse against foreign infringers. The court...more
Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) remain an efficient and powerful method for American businesses seeking relief from foreign acts of unfair competition, including infringement of...more
HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology, Inc., No. 2023-1397 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Feb. 6, 2025). Opinion by Lourie, joined by Stoll and Cunningham....more
On Friday, Feb. 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Wuhan Healthgen Biotech. Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 23-1389, 2025 WL 420819 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The three-judge panel, consisting of Chief...more