Not All Complainants Need Standing
In a recent order, the ITC reiterated that, unlike in federal courts, only one complainant needs to demonstrate standing at the ITC.
Don’t Wait For Service Under the Federal Rules – Go to the ITC
Parties considering whether to pursue litigation in a district court or the ITC should know that service against a foreign respondent is easier at the ITC.
ITC Denies Request to Modify Protective Order
In a recent Notice, the Commission denied Respondents’ motion to modify the administrative protective order (APO) to permit them to use a third party’s confidential business information in related European proceedings.
Default Determination Highlights The Importance Of Alleging Every Element
In Certain Carbon Spine Board Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1008, the ITC investigated Complainant Laerdal’s allegations of section 337 violations based on the infringement of certain U.S. patents, copyrights, trade dresses and trademarks. The ITC determined to issue a limited exclusion order to some, but not all of the respondents, and a cease and desist order to one respondent. But the Commission also found that certain of Laerdal’s allegations relating to trade dress and copyright infringement were not adequately plead to support a violation of Section 337 which reduced the scope of the granted remedy.
ITC Declassifies Portions of Final Determination
In re Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), Inv. No. 337-TA-944 (ITC Comm’n Apr. 19, 2017), is a surprisingly rare opinion addressing a common issue: When should the ITC redact a portion of an opinion before it issues it to the public?
Complainant Cannot Move For Summary Determination Against Its Own Interests
Judge Pender issued Order No. 19 in Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1016, denying Complainant The Chamberlain Group’s (“CGI”) motion for summary determination that the accused products do not infringe one of the asserted patents under the ALJ’s claim construction order. CGI moved for summary determination in an attempt to obtain interlocutory Commission review of the claim construction order, but the ALJ denied the motion explaining that summary determination cannot be entered against the moving party’s interest.