A recent opinion by the ITC reiterates that a violation of Section 337 can be based on infringement of a method claim that occurs after importation of the relevant article.
Circumstantial Evidence Can Help You Satisfy The Importation Requirement…But Only Under The Right Circumstances
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 recently issued Commission Opinion, the ITC affirmed the ALJ’s finding that asserted claims directed to a road paving machine with an adjustable screed assembly were invalid as directed to an abstract idea.
In a recent order issued in the Northern District of Texas, Judge Godbey denied a Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion despite the Federal Circuit’s holding that the asserted patent was invalid as indefinite. He reasoned new evidence not presented on the ITC record may alter a term’s claim construction and, as a result, the asserted patent’s validity.
In a recently issued order, ALJ McNamara relied on her Ground Rules to require the parties to focus on their best theories by limiting the number of asserted claims and the number of prior art references relied upon for invalidity.
A recent opinion by the Commission highlights the risk for defaulting at the ITC – the Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding of a violation as to the participating respondents but maintained that the defaulting respondent was in violation of Section 337 based on the allegations in the complaint.