This month, in Certain Arrowheads with Deploying Blades and Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-977, the Commission weighed in on the standard for obtaining a cease and desist order where the respondents default. The majority held that the ITC will only issue a cease and desist order against a defaulting respondent when evidence of domestic inventory of accused products is provided in the complaint. In such circumstances, the ITC will presume that the domestic inventory is commercially significant because the respondent defaulted.
We previously wrote about the uphill battle Respondent Eko Brands faced in an enforcement proceeding after it defaulted in the underlying investigation. The ALJ found during the proceedings that res judicata barred its defenses of non-infringement and invalidity. However, Judge Essex issued an interesting determination this month finding that the Commission’s remedial orders are not enforceable against Eko because Complainant Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises (“ARM”) did not properly establish the domestic industry requirement in the underlying investigation. He further found that even if the remedial orders are enforceable, that they should be provisionally rescinded pending final resolution of a district court case.
We previously wrote about the ITC’s determination in Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1010 that renting accused products after importation does not violate Section 337. This week the ITC issued Commissioner Kieff’s concurring additional views which cast doubt on the precedential value of the ITC’s determination.
On April 3, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice in Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1010 determining not to review Judge Lord’s finding of no violation with respect to accused products that were rented after importation. The Commission’s decision raises interesting issues with respect to the ITC’s jurisdiction under Section 337.
On February 15, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Organik Kimya v. ITC, No. 15-1774, upholding the ITC’s decision finding Respondent Organik Kimya in default for destroying evidence.
On February 7, 2017, the ITC issued a Notice modifying the ALJ’s Initial Determination in Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-959 and issuing general and limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders. Of note, the Commission vacated but took no position on the ALJ’s holding that R&D-related expenditures should not be counted toward meeting the domestic industry requirement under subsections A or B of the statute.