Inducement After Importation Actionable Under Section 337

Inducement After Importation Actionable Under Section 337

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 relating to post-importation inducement and distinctions between induced and contributory infringement.  Certain Digital Video Receivers And Hardware And Software Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1001, Commission Opinion (December 6, 2017). 

Commission to Weigh in on IPR Estoppel

Commission to Weigh in on IPR Estoppel

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 Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding.  Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1042, Notice (Dec. 8, 2017).  The underlying initial determination raises nuanced issues regarding the application of IPR estoppel in Section 337 investigations.

ALJ Finds Violation in Mobile Device Holders Investigation

ALJ Finds Violation in Mobile Device Holders Investigation

ALJ Pender’s initial determination in Certain Mobile Device Holders and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1028 (Sept. 12, 2017), finding a violation of Section 337, provides important guidance on what investments count toward the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  Although Respondents provided no counterarguments because they had defaulted, ALJ Pender analyzed and challenged each of Complainant’s proofs, ultimately finding that the domestic industry requirement had been met.