While the ITC rarely issues general exclusion orders, two recent cases illustrate the importance of seeking such relief in appropriate circumstances.
Commission Continues Use of Standard Certification Provision Even When Finding That All Accused Products Infringe
By: Daniel Kazhdan, Ph.D. and Vishal Khatri– In a recent Opinion, the Commission continued the practice of including its usual certification provision in the Limited Exclusion Order despite the complainant’s request for a more restrictive certification provision.
The ITC issued an Opinion finding a violation of Section 337 and issuing a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders. Of note, the Commission clarified that the “industry” for unregistered trade dress need not be defined by the subheadings in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3) like they are in a patent-based or registered trademark-based investigation.
In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. ITC, No. 16-2563 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s exclusion order entered in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), Inv. No. 337-TA-944.
In response to the Federal Circuit’s reversal of the ITC’s indefiniteness and invalidity finding, the Commission remanded the investigation to ALJ with instructions to issue an ID within 30 days.
This week the ITC stood firm in its position that final PTAB rulings of unpatentability in IPR proceedings are not grounds to modify, suspend, or rescind remedial orders. In Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-567, the ITC issued a short order denying a petition for such relief. In the Order, the ITC cited its precedent in Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-945, Order (Sept. 11, 2017) which we discussed here.