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.
Economic investments and activities related to patented pre-commercial and non-commercial articles can meet the ITC’s domestic industry requirement.
The ITC recently clarified that 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) does not require that a domestic industry product be sold before a complaint is filed for a domestic industry to exist.
The ITC permits a domestic industry to be based on any claim of an asserted patent even if the claim defines an article that is different from the investigated article of commerce.