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
Recent changes at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) discretion to deny institution of inter partes reviews (IPRs) or post-grant reviews (PGRs) based on parallel...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal challenging a US International Trade Commission decision that upheld an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) order, ruling that such an order was within the...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
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
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
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
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has taken an axe to years of precedent in § 1337 investigations at the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC has long denied “mere importers” the protection of §...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 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