Posts Tagged: "International Trade Commission"

In a pending case, the Federal Circuit is primed to provide much-needed clarity on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC). In ruling, the court will likely resolve a long-running dispute between individual commissioners regarding how to apply the so-called “mere importer” test when determining whether the domestic industry requirement is met. If the complainant, Lashify, prevails, it could make the ITC a more appealing forum for patent infringement suits involving entities that have under-utilized the ITC, including inventors, universities, and start-ups. The case at issue is Lashify, Inc. v. ITC, No. 23-1245.

Masimo’s legal team told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a January 15 filing that the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (EOE) of U.S. Customs and Border Protection has cleared a redesigned version of the Apple watches that were banned by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in late October. The CBP’s decision has not been made public. According to the filing, the redesigned watches do not contain pulse oximetry technology, which was the subject of the ITC exclusion order. The decision, which has not been made public, removes any danger of irreparable harm alleged by Apple, according to the filing.

The intellectual property regime of the International Trade Commission (ITC) made mainstream news this year with its ban on Apple Watch importation and sales in the dispute between Masimo Corporation and Apple. While that dispute is ongoing and the subject of much coverage already, here are five other key IP cases with a variety of important rulings for parties at the ITC—particularly some outside of the typically patent-centric docket.

Apple confirmed to media outlets on Monday that it will halt sales of certain Apple watches following the October International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling issuing a limited exclusion (LEO) order against the products. In its October ruling, the ITC found Apple violated section 337 by importing Apple Watches that infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels.

On Thursday, October 26, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a limited exclusion order (LEO) and cease and desist order against Apple, potentially barring the technology company from importing Apple Watches into the United States. The ITC found Apple violated section 337 by importing Apple Watches that infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation seeking to direct the International Trade Commission (ITC) to vacate its ruling granting Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD)’s motion to strike Realtek’s witness from testifying at an upcoming evidentiary hearing.

Famously, section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) are fast. By statute, the ITC must conclude section 337 investigations “at the earliest practicable time . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1). Investigations institute within 30 days after the Commission receives a complaint, evidentiary hearings (akin to trial) regularly occur within 8–9 months, and the ITC’s target dates for completing investigations routinely land at 14–16 months.

Your company (or your client’s company) is an American company. All your offices and employees are here in the United States, likely in the same location. You assemble your products or devices here. You purchase all the parts and components that you don’t make yourself from other American companies, probably by calling or emailing their American salespeople that you have a longtime relationship with. And you sell your products to other American companies. Surely your company thus cannot be sued for patent infringement in the International Trade Commission (ITC), whose mission is to “investigate and make determinations in proceedings involving imports claimed to injure a domestic industry or violate U.S. intellectual property rights.” Not so fast.

On July 7, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot issued a Notice of Initial Determination in favor of computer and graphics processor maker AMD. See In the Matter of Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Digital Televisions Containing the Same (No. 337-TA-1318). This puts AMD one step closer to preventing TCL and Realtek from importing smart TVs and components containing infringing graphics processors in its patent infringement case at the International Trade Commission (ITC).

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).

The International Trade Commission (ITC) is a popular venue for pursuing claims of patent infringement. Its fast procedural schedules and stringent remedies, including blocking infringing products at the United States border, make it attractive to patent holders. Attorneys who practice at the ITC often specialize in that forum. The primary objective of this article is to explore how the percentage of women ITC practitioners compares to that of men in 2022, as well as to examine the difference in experience levels with respect to women ITC practitioners and male ITC practitioners.

The U.S. International Trade Commission on Tuesday issued a Notice of Final Initial Determination (FID) finding that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling in the United States Apple Watches with light-based pulse oximetry technology that infringed claims 24 and 30 of Masimo’s U.S. Patent No. 10,945,648. According to a Masimo press release, Apple first started selling the Apple Watch with a pulse oximeter sensor in 2020 and has continued to use it in subsequent versions of the product since then. The ITC Notice said it found no violation of the asserted claims of four other patents named in Masimo’s complaint.

On August 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in INVT SPE LLC v. International Trade Commission (ITC) affirming the ITC’s ruling that Apple and other respondents in a Section 337 investigation did not infringe upon INVT’s patent claims covering wireless communications systems and that there was no Section 337 violation. While the Federal Circuit did side with INVT’s arguments that its patent claims were drawn to device capability and not actual operation, the CAFC opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Raymond Chen, found that INVT did not produce evidence that the accused devices possessed the capability covered by the patent claims.

Investigations brought under 19 U.S.C. § 1337, commonly known as “Section 337” cases, at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) have become a go-to enforcement option for patent owners seeking fast, injunction-type relief against infringing imports. It is well known that the ITC issues powerful remedial orders, including (1) exclusion orders, which order United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs or CBP) to exclude infringing imports imported by Respondents or, in some cases, third parties, and (2) cease-and-desist orders, which order Respondents not to import or sell infringing, imported products in the United States. Because ITC remedial orders are broadly written to cover even unadjudicated products that infringe the subject patents, and because such orders are only prospective in nature, it is critical for ITC litigants and their attorneys to understand the available procedures to adjudicate redesigned products.