In a recent Modification Proceeding the ITC, after two months of discovery and an evidentiary hearing, held that Respondent’s redesign did not infringe the asserted patent and thus were not covered by the previously issued limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease and desist order (“CDO”).
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.
A recent decision from the ITC highlights the difficulties that can arise with the enforcement of a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) and how the inclusion of a certification provision in an LEO can be used to permit importation of non-infringing redesigns.
In a recent decision, ALJ McNamara held that charging fees for unreturned rental equipment qualifies as a sale, either contractually or through conversion, for purposes of Section 337.
In a recent Enforcement Initial Determination, ALJ Shaw held that respondent had violated previously issued cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) and determined that the appropriate penalty was a fine of $210,134 – the net profit from those sales in violation of the CDOs.
In a recent Commission opinion, the ITC reviewed and affirmed ALJ Bullock’s Initial Determination (ID), and issued a GEO because they concluded that a limited exclusion order LEO may be easily circumvented.