Posts Tagged: "Domestic Industry"

On March 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Philip Morris Products S.A. v. International Trade Commission affirming a Section 337 ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that blocked the importation and sale of electronic vape tobacco products infringing patents owned by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company. While much of the precedential decision deals with Philip Morris’ procedural and agency challenges to the ITC’s ruling, the Federal Circuit also rejected arguments that several patentability findings entered by the ITC were not supported by substantial evidence. The present appeal stems back to an ITC complaint filed by R.J. Reynolds in April 2020 seeking a Section 337 investigation into Philip Morris’ IQOS line of heat-not-burn tobacco vaping products. The two patents asserted by R.J. Reynolds are U.S. Patent No. 9901123, Tobacco-Containing Smoking Article, and U.S. Patent No. 9930915, Smoking Articles and Use Thereof for Yielding Inhalation Materials. After a yearlong investigation, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the accused IQOS products infringed claims of both patents, that R.J. Reynolds established the existence of a domestic industry with respect to both patents, and that the public interest did not weigh against entry of a limited exclusion order (LEO).

A recent policy change at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) provides a lesson in how to properly draft a key requirement in a Section 337 complaint. The ITC is a popular forum for companies facing unfair competition from imported goods that infringe intellectual property rights. Companies alleging unfair competition can file a complaint asking the ITC to institute what is called a Section 337 investigation and issue exclusion orders barring entry into the United States of the offending goods. To prevail in a Section 337 investigation, the complainant must show, among other things, it has made investments in the US to exploit its intellectual property—the “domestic industry” requirement.

Joint-defense groups lower costs and increase efficiencies for all defendants in the groups. Certain prominent patent litigation boutiques and Big Law departments have skillfully made a business of being retained by many of the accused infringers in a single multi-defendant case. Even if counsel is not shared among defendants, the benefits of joint-defense groups inure greatly to small- and medium-sized companies that gain the benefit of top-notch defense teams retained by larger tech companies, without having to pay for them. Joint-defense groups also leverage economies of scale to accomplish more at lower costs for everyone. For instance, filing four or five IPR petitions may be feasible when those costs are spread around a group, but prohibitive for any individual defendant. In short, the pre-TC Heartland framework provided significant cost-savings and efficiencies to defendants, and in particular, small- and medium-sized companies.

We believe that the fallout from the Court’s ruling last week will be less dire for patent owners than most commentators predict. The conventional wisdom is that TC Heartland will cause a mass exodus of patent filings from the Eastern District of Texas and other supposedly plaintiff-friendly venues to Delaware, the Northern District of California and, to a lesser extent, the other states. The assumption underlying this view is that all those plaintiffs will be forced to file in the state where the defendant is incorporated. Yet even post-TC Heartland, patent owners have options and can continue to be strategic about how and where they proceed.

Judge McNamara explained that domestic industry is not limited to the activities of the patentee and may be satisfied based on a licensee’s activities alone… Judge McNamara explained that the Commission does not require third-party licensees to participate as co-complainants… Judge McNamara explained that the appropriate date for determining domestic industry is the date a complaint is filed even though, in cases where evidence shows a dwindling industry, the Commission may consider activities beyond the complaint date.