Show: 1 day 1 week 1 month All
Custom (decided):
Coverage since August 21, 2001
✉️ New decisions, briefed in your inbox every morning — subscribe to Daily Case Law, free →

International Trade Commission

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Roku v. ITC — Federal Circuit Holds Domestic Industry Economic Prong Can Be Satisfied by Investment in Patent-Covered Component Alone

The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding that Universal Electronics satisfied the domestic industry requirement under Section 337 based on its investments in QuickSet technology — a patented component integrated into televisions — even though those investments did not cover the entire te

Uncategorized

Roku v. ITC — Federal Circuit Holds Domestic Industry Economic Prong Can Be Satisfied by Investment in Patent-Covered Component Alone

The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding that Universal Electronics satisfied the domestic industry requirement under Section 337 based on its investments in QuickSet technology — a patented component integrated into televisions — even though those investments did not cover the entire te

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Converse v. ITC — Federal Circuit Holds Trademark Registration Presumption of Secondary Meaning Applies Prospectively Only

The Federal Circuit held that a trademark registration creates a presumption of secondary meaning only as of the date of registration — not retroactively — requiring Converse to independently prove its Chuck Taylor trade dress had acquired distinctiveness before each infringer’s first infringing use

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

ClearCorrect v. ITC (2015) — Federal Circuit Holds ITC Lacks Jurisdiction Over Electronic Transmissions of Digital Data

The Federal Circuit held that the ITC’s Section 337 jurisdiction covers only physical ‘articles’ and does not extend to electronic transmissions of digital data — blocking the ITC from issuing exclusion orders against competitors that infringe by transmitting digital files over the

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Suprema v. ITC (2015) — En Banc Federal Circuit Holds ITC Can Issue Exclusion Orders for Induced Infringement Completed After Importation

An en banc Federal Circuit held 6-4 that the ITC has jurisdiction to issue exclusion orders for imported products that become ‘articles that infringe’ through induced infringement completed after importation — resolving a key question about the ITC’s reach over method patent claims

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

InterDigital Communications v. ITC — Federal Circuit Addresses Standard-Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing at the ITC

The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s exclusion order against Huawei and ZTE for infringing InterDigital’s standard-essential wireless patents, while clarifying important questions about the ITC’s authority to issue exclusion orders involving FRAND-committed patents — decisions th

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

InterDigital Communications v. ITC — Federal Circuit Holds Patent Licensing Alone Satisfies ITC Domestic Industry Requirement

The Federal Circuit affirmed that a patent holder whose domestic industry consists solely of licensing activities — with no domestic manufacturing — can satisfy Section 337’s domestic industry requirement at the ITC, opening the door wider for non-practicing entities to use exclusion orders as

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Kyocera Wireless v. ITC — Federal Circuit Limits ITC Power to Exclude Downstream Products of Non-Parties in Section 337 Cases

The Federal Circuit held that the ITC’s limited exclusion order authority under Section 337 does not extend to downstream products of non-parties to the investigation — rejecting the ITC’s longstanding practice of excluding finished goods containing infringing components made by responde

Federal Circuit
Uncategorized

Alloc, Inc. v. ITC — Prosecution History Disclaimer Limits Flooring Patent Claims to Require Play Between Panels

The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s non-infringement finding in a section 337 flooring patent dispute, holding that an applicant’s reliance on ‘play’ between panels to distinguish prior art during prosecution constituted a clear disclaimer that limited claim scope to syste

Scroll to Top