AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
U.S. International Trade Commission
The U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) is seeking an en banc rehearing of the Federal Circuit’s recent Lashify v. ITC decision, contending that the panel’s statutory interpretation focused on the statute’s terms in...more
Trade Commission is a federal agency whose responsibilities include investigating and where appropriate barring the import of goods resulting from a variety of unfair trade practices. It is headed by a bipartisan six-membered...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
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
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
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions open the doors of the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to smaller companies that are threatened by unfair imports....more
Addressing the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a US International Trade Commission decision,...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
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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission finding, explaining that small-market segments can be significant and substantial enough to support the Commission’s domestic...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
Returning to Washington in May, ACI’s 16th Annual Practitioners’ Think Tank on ITC Litigation & Enforcement is your opportunity to learn from and network with key members of the ITC Bench, senior ITC Attorneys and leading...more
In August 2023, one complainant filed a new complaint for a violation of Section 337 in the International Trade Commission. Specifically, on August 22, NJOY, LLC, filed a complaint against JUUL Labs, Inc., in Vaporizer...more
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
From time to time, international trade and patent law matters overlap. We expect to see these interactions in disputes filed pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). In other instances, the U.S....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
Will the 100 Day single issue program live up to its promise? When the ITC first ordered a Judge to take evidence on a single issue to determine if the issue was case dispositive, the year was 2013. After the order, the...more
The latest news round-up from our Hogan Lovells ITC Section 337 practice, including a new section featuring "tips from the bench" by former ITC Judge Theodore (Ted) R. Essex. ...more
On May 17, 2017, the International Trade Commission (ITC) reversed an ALJ’s ruling and found a violation of Section 337 in Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof and Methods of using the Same (“Certain Air Mattress...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
The Federal Circuit debate begun in Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 796 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), continued with the court’s denial of rehearing en banc in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v....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
In a non-precedential remand decision, the original panel in the case of Suprema v. International Trade Commission affirmed the International Trade Commission’s finding that appellant Suprema violated § 337 by inducing...more