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.
In a recent decision, the PTAB decided to institute an IPR despite that fact that a parallel ITC investigation was in its late stages. They reasoned that since ITC decisions are not binding on other forums, the ITC determination would not be enforceable as to the USPTO, and would not result in the cancellation of patent claims.