While limited exclusion orders remain the default remedy, a recent Initial Determination issued by ALJ Bullock is a reminder that the ITC may issue a general exclusion order if it finds a limited exclusion order would be insufficient to protect a complainant’s domestic industry.
The Federal Circuit recently reversed the ITC’s finding of a Section 337 violation based on the ITC’s reliance on unrebutted expert testimony.
Economic Prong of Domestic Industry Requirement Is Not Evaluated in Relation to Complainant’s Overall Investments
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.
In a recent order, ALJ Bullock indicated that it is unsettled whether evidence related to unreleased products can be used to establish that a domestic industry exists.
In a recent decision, the Commission expanded the universe of investments that complainants can use to meet the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
In a recent order, the ITC reiterated that, unlike in federal courts, only one complainant needs to demonstrate standing at the ITC.