In a recently issued order, ALJ Lord denied Respondent’s motion in limine with respect to issues directed towards the weight of Complainants’ expert testimony rather than its admissibility but granted the motion with respect to previously undisclosed opinions of the expert being offered in violation of the Ground Rules.
While ALJ McNamara’s recent order suggests that respondents may be permitted to add defenses in the midst of discovery if the complainant is aware of the defense, it remains important for respondents to coordinate with co-respondents so the pleadings reflect all applicable defenses as soon as possible.
A recent Order from ALJ McNamara is a reminder of the complexities in proving domestic industry at the ITC.
The ITC recently ruled that even if a respondent is estopped from raising certain invalidity challenges because it failed to raise them in a previously filed IPR, the Office of Unfair Imports Investigations Staff can raise those very same challenges during an ITC investigation.
The ITC allows supplementation of a party’s Notice of Prior Art in some instances, but will deny the addition of new prior art references if the party does not explain why they did not obtain the added references earlier or how the added references pertain to the asserted patents.
The economic prong can be satisfied even when the percentage of complainant’s domestic investments in the patented products is small in relation to its overall domestic investments.