U.S. International Trade Commission
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
Not surprisingly, 2023 was another notable year for design rights around the globe. However, nowhere more than the U.S. did we see court decisions that will, in the case of one, and could in the case of another, have...more
Join litigation shareholder Libbie DiMarco as she breaks down the latest developments for mitigating ITC remedial orders with effective litigation strategies ranging from product redesigns (and when to introduce them) to PTAB...more
Trends, triumphs and challenges – the first annual BakerHostetler IP Perspectives (BHIPP) provides insights on all three fronts in the complex world of intellectual property (IP). From the potential hazards associated with...more
Regular consumers now enjoy a front-row seat to the long-running intellectual property dispute between Apple, the tech giant based in Cupertino, California, and Masimo, a medical device company based in Irvine, California....more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
We are pleased to announce that our team’s fourth-annual international trade law year-in-review report was published just before the New Year. In it, we take a detailed look at how 2022 played out and explore how 2023 might...more
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more
We have seen that decisions to institute an inter partes review (IPR) when the challenged patent is part of a parallel proceeding have become rare recently in light of the Fintiv factors. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
One unique aspect of the International Trade Commission’s authority under Section 337 is the power to issue general exclusion orders (GEO). Under such orders, companies never named as a respondent in an ITC complaint can find...more
A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
Addressing an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by respondents to an earlier-filed International Trade Commission (ITC) Section 337 investigation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to treat the petition...more
Since the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are interacting more with Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission...more
In In re Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1058 (ITC October 2, 2018, Order), Administrative Law Judge Cheney ruled that even if a respondent is estopped from raising certain invalidity...more
In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
The United States loses between $225 and $600 billion each year due to misappropriation of intellectual property — an estimated 50-80 percent of which has been attributed to China. While Chinese officials have taken steps to...more
On March 20, 2018, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. v. Neology, Inc., Case IPR2016-01763, Paper 60 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2018), finding that Petitioner Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. (“Kapsch”)...more
Section 337 intellectual property enforcement actions before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) continue to gain in popularity....more
The Commission has determined to review an initial determination finding that Respondent Ford is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting certain invalidity defenses previously adjudicated by the Patent Trial and...more
This week the ITC stood firm in its position that final PTAB rulings of unpatentability in IPR proceedings are not grounds to modify, suspend, or rescind remedial orders. In Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-567, the ITC...more
The Federal Circuit has determined to partially stay an ITC exclusion order as it pertains to products redesigned after the remedial orders issued. We have previously posted about Certain Network Devices, Related Software and...more