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
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
On March 24, 2025, the United States Patent and Tradmark Office (“USPTO”) issued a new Memorandum providing guidance on discretionary denials (or “Fintiv denials”) for inter partes review (“IPR”) challenges based on...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
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
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
The patent world tends to think that the Supreme Court’s framework in Alice is a template for determining the eligibility of software and business method inventions. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, abstract ideas are not eligible for...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
On March 5, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion that will change the way the U.S. International Trade Commission addresses the threshold “domestic industry...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 Friday, the USPTO rescinded its June 21, 2022, memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Fintiv memo”). The USPTO notice makes...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a determination by the US International Trade Commission regarding subject matter ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court concluded that the...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
2024 brought exciting developments at the Federal Circuit. The court issued its first en banc decision in a patent case in five years in LKQ, which significantly altered the standard for proving obviousness of a design...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
A domestic industry may never be too small so long as the commercial product is 100% American-made according to the latest Federal Circuit opinion. In Wuhan Healthgen Biotech v. ITC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the...more
A US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto, and Raymond Chen recently heard oral argument in Lashify, Inc. v. US International Trade Commission, an appeal from a...more
On January 8, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot issued a public version of the Initial Determination (ID) in Certain Video Capable Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1380 brought by Complainant Nokia. While...more