Laws change. Law schools do not necessarily teach you what the law is. Instead, they teach you how to find the law and ascertain its current status. Intellectual property law is no different. The law involving § 337 practice at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) changed considerably in 2015.
This year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued decisions further refining the ITC's jurisdiction and remedial powers in its en banc decision in Suprema Inc. v. ITC, and in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC. In addressing the ITC's domestic-industry requirement, the court in Lelo Inc. v. ITC, further clarified the "significance'" standard under Prongs A and B, holding that the patent owner's domestic-industry investments fell short. Furthermore, the commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking involving several ITC-specific procedures.
In this article, Finnegan attorneys P. Andrew Riley and Anthony D. Del Monaco examine these important decisions affecting § 337 practice at the ITC and explain some significant procedural changes stirring there.
Previously published in BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
