In a recently issued Commission Opinion, the ITC applied the Federal Circuit’s rule in Lelo emphasizing that a quantitative analysis must be performed in order to determine whether a complainant has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
In a recently issued Initial Determination, ALJ McNamara ruled that beer containers imported into the U.S. satisfied the domestic industry requirement because the Complainants were able to show significant domestic value-add with the use of expert testimony.
In a recent summary determination order, ALJ Bullock found that complainants cannot always rely on circumstantial evidence to satisfy the Section 337 importation requirement because, without actual importation records, such evidence may not be sufficient to prove that a respondent actually shipped an infringing product.
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 recently issued Initial Determination, ALJ Lord ruled that investments and R&D activities related to a product prototype built in Italy satisfied the domestic industry requirement as substantial investment in engineering, research and development under Section 337(a)(3)(C), without the need for a comparison between foreign and domestic investments.
Declining investments over the years leading up to the Complaint can still qualify as “significant” and therefore met the economic prong of the DI requirement, especially when complainant maintains ongoing qualified activities with respect to the relevant products.