ITC Section 337 Proceedings



With technical depth and high-stakes IP litigation experience, we provide strategic and comprehensive counsel to help our clients successfully navigate the fast-paced proceedings of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).

Our Approach

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 first-of-its-kind patent-based investigation against Amazon.com, Bed Bath & Beyond, IKEA, Target, and Walmart, involving filament LED lighting products. The investigation was instituted on August 28, 2019, and is ongoing. Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (USITC 337-TA-1172)
  • Represented Edgewell Personal Care Company, 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 (USITC 337-TA-1079)
  • Represented Hennes & Mauritz AB (H&M), an international clothing retailer, in an investigation involving technologies related to lasers used to abrade denim to make it look “aged.” This ITC proceeding involved patent infringement claims in connection with laser abrasion machines used for denim products. We successfully defended one respondent through a Markman hearing, summary judgment (ruling pending), and expert reports, at which point we obtained a walk-away and were the only defendant from over 25 that did not pay to settle either the ITC proceeding or the related district court litigation. We participated in an active joint defense group, managing multiple defendants and third parties as well as experts domestically and overseas. Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments (USITC 337-TA-930)
  • Represented Sierra Wireless, a wireless communications equipment designer and manufacturer, before the ITC in a patent dispute involving cellular communication devices. Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (USITC 337-TA-853)
  • Successfully represented Motorola Mobility, a consumer electronics and telecommunications company, as a third-party licensee in multiple investigations, including:
    • pre-trial and trial proceedings in relation to a domestic industry prong. Electronic Imaging Devices (USITC 337-TA-850)
    • a pre-trial proceeding in relation to a domestic industry prong. Electronic Imaging Devices (USITC 337-TA-726)
  • 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 (USITC 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) (USITC 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) (USITC 337-TA-630)
  • Represented Samsung Electronics, a multinational electronics company, in a Section 337 investigation involving the importation into the U.S. and the sale of certain wireless communications equipment, articles therein, and products. The presiding administrative law judge granted a joint motion to terminate the investigation based upon a signed patent license agreement between the parties. Certain Wireless Communication Equipment, Articles Therein and Products Containing the Same (USITC 337-TA-577)
Back to top