The Federal Circuit held that once the ITC institutes an investigation, it cannot reconsider the adequacy of the complaint. So in the case of a defaulting respondent, the Commission has to rule against them and go to the relief phase.
A recent Commission opinion serves as a reminder to litigants of the public interest analysis conducted by the ITC before determining whether to issue remedial orders against a respondent.
The Federal Circuit held that the ITC was required to consider whether to rescind a civil penalty for infringing a consent order on a now-invalidated patent, but left open the possibility that the ITC could refuse to rescind the civil penalty.
Civil penalties for violating an ITC order can be as much as $100,000 per day, even for de minimus violations. In this case, ALJ Pender determined that Respondent owed $20,000 in civil penalties for an accidental re-sale of returned dimmable compact fluorescent bulbs.
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 ITC recently modified a previously issued remedial order such that certain of the Respondents’ redesigned products were not excluded from importation.