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.
A recent decision by the International Trade Commission (”ITC”) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1091, suggests that the ITC may not enforce forum selection clauses.
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 order, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Shaw denied Complainants’ Paice LLC and the Abell Foundation, Inc. (“Paice”) motion for evidentiary sanctions against Respondent Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) for allegedly violating previous discovery-related Order 17.