Many global IP disputes include Section 337 investigations at the ITC. Sophisticated companies with complex, technical, and “bet the company” IP disputes are choosing the ITC’s accelerated proceedings and broad remedial orders as an effective alternative or complement to U.S. District Court litigation.
Because Section 337 investigations typically advance to trial in about eight to ten months, the results can significantly influence a business’s bottom line, supply chain, or even its continued existence. Consequently, it is pivotal to hire a trial-ready team that understands the unique and complex ITC procedures and technical issues of Section 337 litigation.
We have represented both complainants and respondents in Section 337 investigations across a spectrum of industries including LED lighting, consumer electronics and products, automotive, and computer software and hardware in matters involving all forms of IP. Our dedicated ITC team has extensive knowledge and experience navigating all aspects of Section 337 investigations. We are one of the first law firms to represent a university as a sole ITC complainant. Our success litigating at the ITC is a result of our deep understanding of the ITC’s procedural rules, body of law, evidentiary hearings, and administrative law judges.
Our lawyers have also coordinated representations in parallel proceedings when investigations involve concurrent litigation in federal district courts or post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Our core ITC team includes IP attorneys, patent agents, technical specialists, and PhD-qualified research scientists and practitioners with backgrounds working in the technology industry. Our collective experience provides the foundational knowledge necessary to strategically staff every type of IP issue that involves a Section 337 investigation.
Representative Patent Litigation Experience
- Represent The Regents of the University of California in a groundbreaking patent enforcement campaign to protect its rights in a revolutionary new generation of light bulb technology known as filament LED that was invented by a Nobel laureate-led team at UC Santa Barbara. The campaign includes litigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission, the U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California and Eastern District of New York, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (II) (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1220); and Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1172)
- Represent Solas OLED Ltd., the leading owner and licensor of technology focused on the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) market, in a Section 337 investigation against respondents Samsung and BOE Technology Group relating to patent infringement of respondents’ OLED displays. The investigation was instituted in February 2021, and is ongoing. Certain Active Matrix OLED Display Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1243)
- Represent Chemtron Biotech, Inc., which manufactures global rapid diagnostic tests, in a Section 337 investigation against complainant ARK Diagnostics, Inc., alleging patent infringement. The investigation was instituted in January 2021, and is ongoing. Certain Gabapentin Immunoassay Kits and Test Strips, Components Thereof, and Methods Therefor (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1239)
- Represented Price Point NY, which sells vaping and smoking accessories, in a Section 337 investigation against complainant Juul Labs, Inc., alleging patent infringement. The investigation settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Vaporizer Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1211)
- Represented Lifetime Brands, a leading global provider of kitchenware, tableware, and other products used in the home, in a Section 337 investigation against complainant L&L Candle Company, alleging patent infringement. The investigation settled favorably after a dispositive claim construction ruling. Certain Electronic Candle Products and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1195)
- Represented Edgewell Personal Care Co., an American consumer products company that owns a number of brands, including Schick, Playtex, Hawaiian Tropic, and Edge, in a Section 337 investigation involving the importation into the U.S., the sale for importation, and the sale within the U.S. after importation of certain shaving cartridges, components, and products by reason of infringement. The presiding administrative law judge granted a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement. Shaving Cartridges, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1079)
- Represented Hennes & Mauritz AB (H&M), an international clothing retailer, in an investigation alleging patent infringement involving technologies related to lasers used to abrade denim to make it look “aged.” The investigation and the related district court litigation settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-930)
- Successfully represented Kingston Technology, which develops, manufactures, sells, and supports flash memory products and other memory-related products, in a patent infringement investigation involving imported USB flash drives and embedded firmware. All the allegations against the client were withdrawn on the eve of trial. Certain Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) Portable Storage Devices, Including USB Flash Drives and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-788)
- Successfully represented ChipMOS Technologies, which researches, develops, manufactures, and sells high integration and high precision integrated circuits, in an investigation involving semiconductor packaging methods. The allegations against the client were withdrawn pre-trial. Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (IV) (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-649)
- Successfully represented ProMOS Technologies, a leading memory provider, and Kingston Technology Corporation in a patent infringement investigation involving packaged DRAM chips and memory cards. The initial and final determinations were granted in favor of our clients. The determinations were also affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. A Cert Petition was denied in the client’s favor. Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III) (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-630)