In a recently issued ID, the ITC recommended the issuance of a GEO against respondents after finding that an LEO would likely be circumvented and it was difficult to identify the source of infringing goods due to a widespread pattern of violation.
In a recent Modification Proceeding the ITC, after two months of discovery and an evidentiary hearing, held that Respondent’s redesign did not infringe the asserted patent and thus were not covered by the previously issued limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist order (“CDO”).
In a recently issued order, the ITC indicated its willingness to consider case-by-case modifications to its hearing procedures in view of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic – including implementing procedures regarding witness statements, objections, and possible depositions in lieu of an in-person evidentiary hearing.
A recent opinion by the ITC reiterates that a violation of Section 337 can be based on infringement of a method claim that occurs after importation of the relevant article.
Recent statistics reflect that the ITC continues to be an attractive venue for IP litigation. FY 2019 had a decrease in the number of complaints filed but trends to-date in FY 2020, suggest minimal disruption in the number of filings due to COVID-19.