In a recent order, the Commission denied Respondents’ request to use the Early Disposition Program because the issue of domestic industry was too complex to be resolved within 100 days and it was not clear that an early ruling on subject matter eligibility would be dispositive with respect to all of the asserted claims.
In a recent order, the ITC reiterated that, unlike in federal courts, only one complainant needs to demonstrate standing at 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.
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.
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.
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?