This week the ITC stood firm in its position that final PTAB rulings of unpatentability in IPR proceedings are not grounds to modify, suspend, or rescind remedial orders. In Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-567, the ITC issued a short order denying a petition for such relief. In the Order, the ITC cited its precedent in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945, Order (Sept. 11, 2017) which we discussed here.
In a recent Order, the Commission held that an earlier-entered Consent Order should be vacated in view of a settlement agreement between the parties but that the Commission did not have the authority to vacate a civil penalty for violation of the Consent Order.
In a recent Initial Determination, Administrative Law Judge Shaw concluded that the Complainant’s reliance on marketing and instructional materials was not sufficient to prove inducement of infringement of a claimed method.
The Federal Circuit has determined to partially stay an ITC exclusion order as it pertains to products redesigned after the remedial orders issued. We have previously posted about Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II); Inv. No. 337-TA-745 and the ITC’s refusal to stay its remedial orders after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found the asserted patents unpatentable in an IPR proceeding. Respondent Arista has had better luck in the Federal Circuit obtaining a stay of the remedial orders for its redesigned products.
The ITC has dealt a significant blow to the use of Inter Partes Review as a defense to a Section 337 investigation. In an order issued this week, the Commission denied a request to stay remedial orders that are currently on appeal after the asserted claims were found unpatentable by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR proceedings.
ALJ Shaw held that the “colorable difference” test established by the Federal Circuit in its en banc Tivo v. Echostar opinion was not the appropriate test to determine whether the CDO was violated.