Evan Langdon - International Trade Commission (ITC) Section 337 - Nixon Peabody LLP

Evan Langdon



Evan is the leader of the International Trade Commission (ITC) Section 337 team. He focuses on Section 337 investigations before the ITC, intellectual property litigation in U.S. District Courts, and appeals before the Federal Circuit. Evan counsels clients on the nuances of navigating fast-paced Section 337 litigation involving patents, trademarks, and trade dress, and other unfair acts.

What do you focus on?

My practice is dedicated to representing U.S. and foreign companies on intellectual property matters before the ITC and U.S. District Courts. Leveraging my mechanical engineering background and past experience as a primary examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, I litigate disputes across a wide variety of industries including LED lighting devices, mobile electronic devices and chipsets, data processing systems, semiconductors, lighting control devices, consumer electronics and accessories, shoes, household appliances, automotive, and various mechanical devices.

I have represented clients in more than thirty Section 337 investigations in all phases of litigation. I am adept at navigating the unique and complex procedural and technical issues of Section 337 investigations, and the rigorous economic analyses required for domestic industry and public interest. I also guide clients through post-investigation enforcement efforts.

What do you see on the horizon?

In today’s IP litigation landscape, complex global IP disputes are taking place at the ITC. Section 337 investigations are often a component of larger multi-jurisdictional intellectual property disputes. Sophisticated companies are choosing the ITC’s accelerated proceedings and broad remedial orders as an effective alternative or complement to U.S. District Court litigation. Because of its speed, the Section 337 investigations tend to be the driving force in resolving these disputes.

Presentations

  • “In Search of Injunctive Relief in Patent Infringement Litigation,” IPWatchdog Virtual CON2020, Webinar, September 3, 2020
  • “Direct Enforcement of University IP—A Case Study of UC Santa Barbara’s Enforcement of Patent Rights Against Retailers,” AUTM 2019 Eastern Region Meeting, Raleigh, NC, October 3, 2019
  • “Section 337 and Unfair Trade Practices,” Japan Intellectual Property Association, October 26, 2017
  • “Developments in Domestic Industry,” IPO’s ITC Committee Conference, San Francisco, CA, June 29, 2017
  • “Supreme Court Observations: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,” AIPLA ITC Committee Panel Teleconference on Ground Rules at the ITC, June 25, 2015

Publications

  • “The Case for Early Adjudication of Potentially Dispositive Issues at the USITC,” Landslide, May/June 2018
  • “Does the ITC need eBay?” Bloomberg BNA, July 2013
  • “ITC Gets Creative To Limit NPE Access Under Section 337,” Law360, April 2013

Representative 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 (ITC Inv. No 337-TA-1172)
  • Represent Lifetime Brands, a leading global provider of kitchenware, tableware, and other products used in the home, in a Section 337 investigation against L&L Candle Company, alleging patent infringement.  The investigation was instituted in April 2020, and is ongoing. Certain Electronic Candle Products and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1195)
  • Represented Ecopure Filter Co. Ltd. in a patent-based investigation against Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and KX Technologies, LLC. The case settled favorably prior to the hearing. Certain Water Filters and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1126)
  • Represented Ultravision Technologies, LLC, in a patent-base investigation against various respondents. The case settled favorably prior to the hearing. Certain Modular LED Display Panels and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1114)
  • Represented Chauvet & Sons, Inc., in a patent-based investigation against Fraen Corporation. The case settled favorably prior to the hearing. Certain LED Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1107)
  • Represented BiTMICRO, LLC, in a patent-based investigation against Samsung, SK hynix, and other downstream respondents. The case was designated for the 100-day hearing and tried for domestic industry in February 2018. The ALJ found a domestic industry for BiTMICRO and the Commission affirmed. The case settled favorably during the evidentiary hearing. Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Electronics Components and Products Containing Same (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1097)
  • Represent Qualcomm Incorporated in a patent-based investigation against Apple. The case was tried in September 2018 and the ALJ issued a final initial determination finding a violation of Section 337. The case settled favorably prior to the Commission Opinion. Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1093)
  • Represented Lowe’s Companies Inc. in a patent-based investigation against Philips Lighting. A hearing was held in July 2018, and the ALJ found a violation in-part. On review, the Commission reversed the ALJ and issued a notice of no violation of Section 337. Certain LED Lighting Deices, LED Power Supplies, and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1081)
  • Represented Qualcomm Incorporated in a patent-based investigation against Apple. The case was tried in June 2018, and the ALJ found no violation in September 2018. On review, the Commission affirmed no violation. Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1065)
  • Represented SanDisk and Western Digital in a patent-based investigation against Memory Technologies, LLC. The case settled favorably prior to the hearing. Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 1337-TA-1034)
  • Represented Razor USA LLC in a patent-based investigation against Segway, Inc. The case settled favorably prior to the hearing. Certain Personal Transporters and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1021/1007)
  • Represented 3S-smart Software Solutions, GmbH, in a patent-based investigation against Rockwell Automation, Inc. The case settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Industrial Control System Software, Systems Using Same and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1020)
  • Represented Razor USA LLC and Inventist, Inc., in a patent based investigation against various respondents. The case was tried in February 2017, and the ALJ issued an initial determination of no violation in May 2017. The Commission determined not to review and the findings were appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit remanded to the Commission for further proceedings. Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1000)
  • Represented Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. in a patent-based investigation against Illumina, Inc. The case settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Nanopores and Products Containing Same (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-991)
  • Represented Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc., in a patent-based investigation against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and FCA. The case settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Variable Valve Actuation Devices and Automobiles Containing the Same (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-954)
  • Represented Converse, Inc., in a trademark and trade dress dispute against Skechers, New Balance, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Highline United LLC, and other respondents that defaulted or settled. The case was tried in July 2015, and the ALJ issued a finding of violation as to certain products and recommended a general exclusion order in November 2017. The Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding of violation and Converse appealed these findings to the Federal Circuit. In October 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated the Commission’s determination and remanded for further proceedings. Certain Footwear Products (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-936)
  • Represented Spansion LLC in a patent-based investigation against Macronix and other downstream respondents. The case was tried in October 2014. The case settled favorably prior to the ALJ’s initial determination. Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-893)
  • Represented AlEn in a trademark dispute against The Clorox Company. The case settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Laundry and Household Cleaning Products and Related Packaging (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-891)
  • Represented Roederer Champagne Louis Roederer and Maisons Marques & Domaines USA Inc. in patent-based dispute against Lamina Packaging Innovations. The case was designated for the Commission’s first 100-day hearing and tried for domestic industry in May 2013. The ALJ found no violation based on no domestic industry. The Commission affirmed and terminated the investigation. Certain Products Having Laminated Packaging, Laminated Packaging, and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-874)
  • Represented Emerson Electric Co. in a trademark dispute against Anaheim Manufacturing Co. The case settled favorably on the first day of the hearing. Certain Food Waste Disposers and Components and Packaging Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-838)
  • Represented Winplus North America Inc. in patent-based investigation against Robert Bosch LLC. The case settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Wiper Blades (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-816)
  • Represented Apple Inc. in a patent-based investigation against Via Technologies, Inc. The case settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Electronic Devices with Graphics Data Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-813)
  • Represented Apple Inc. in a patent-based investigation against S3 Graphics Co. Ltd. The case settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Computing Devices with Associated Instructions Sets and Software (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-812)
  • Represented Otter Products, LLC, in a patent and trademark-based investigation against various respondents. The case was tried in April 2012 and the ALJ found a violation in June 2012. The Commission affirmed and issued a general exclusion order. Protective Cases and Components Thereof Complainant (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-780)
  • Represented Lutron Electronics Co., Inc., in a patent-based investigation against various respondents. On summary determination, the ALJ found a violation. The Commission affirmed and issued a general exclusion order. Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches and Parts Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-776)
  • Represented Rolls-Royce Group in a patent-based dispute against United Technologies Corporation. The case settled favorably prior to hearing. Certain Turbomachinery Blades, Engines and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-751)

The Impact of Overturning eBay v MercExchange

IPWatchdog | March 02, 2020

Washington, DC, Intellectual Property partner Evan Langdon wrote this contributed article about the possible impact of proposed legislation that would overturn eBay v. MercExchange, an important Supreme Court decision regarding patent litigation.

Universities should consider ITC for IP protection

Tech Transfer Tactics | February 18, 2020

Intellectual Property partners Evan Langdon of Washington, DC, and Shawn Hansen and Seth Levy of Los Angeles co-wrote this article explaining how the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) can be a “powerfully effective venue” for patent protection. Evan, Shawn, and Seth are leading the NP team representing the University of California in an investigation pending at the ITC concerning LED lightbulb technology. Read the full article on techtransfercentral.com.

Obtaining injunctions under eBay versus at the International Trade Commission

IPWatchdog | February 16, 2020

Washington, DC, Intellectual Property partner Evan Langdon co-wrote this contributed article with IPWatchdog founder and CEO Gene Quinn, analyzing the International Trade Commission’s role as an important forum for patent owners in light of the Supreme Court’s eBay decision.

Contact

Evan Langdon

Partner
Leader, International Trade Commission Section 337 Team

Washington, DC

Phone: 202-585-8436


Fax: 833-924-0623

Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude

Villanova University, BME, cum laude

District of Columbia

Virginia

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • International Trademark Association (INTA)
  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association
Back to top