Successful representation at the ITC requires experienced IP practitioners with extensive technical knowledge and creative strategic capabilities. Our ITC team checks every box.
Because of its fast-moving docket, the global impact of its outcomes, and its knowledgeable commissioners and administrative law judges, the International Trade Commission (ITC) has been a popular forum for businesses seeking to protect their valuable intellectual property (IP) assets. Clients from every corner of the U.S. and around the world hire us to go to work on behalf of their brand names and bottom lines. We have won, favorably settled, or had dismissed more than 50 ITC investigations on behalf of both complainants and respondents.
With so many IP disputes involving complex technology patents, a thorough understanding of both the scientific issues and the legal and litigation strategies involved is essential to a successful outcome at the ITC. We can bring IP practitioners with advanced degrees in engineering, chemistry, and other scientific fields to a matter and create the strongest possible team for each client.
We are also nationally recognized thought leaders among peer ITC practitioners. Our team includes a past president of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association, a past president of the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, and an ITC Senior Statesperson as recognized by Chambers.
We have experience on both sides of the table, having represented both complainants and respondents in Section 337 investigations. This experience helps us begin discovery efficiently, so we can identify defects in complaints early in the process and determine how to bring dispositive issues before the Commission early in the process. As a global firm, we also can call on a deep bench of tech-savvy IP litigators and patent attorneys who can jump in to staff a new ITC case and get up to speed quickly.
We have had success for our clients under the ITC’s 100-Day Program, created to fast-track a discrete and manageable issue so it can be resolved on an expedited schedule. While not all cases are eligible, we know how to use this program to our clients’ advantage when the circumstances are favorable.
Our attorneys also have experience before all six of the current Administrative Law Judges. We know their courtroom styles, as well as how they tend to address substantive issues.
Represented Nikon against complainants Carl Zeiss and ASML in several ITC investigations involving lithography machines, semiconductor lithography systems, and digital cameras and related software. The digital camera matter settled favorably after trial; the others all settled favorably pre-trial. (Certain Semiconductor Lithography Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1137; Certain Lithography Machines and Systems and Components Thereof (I) and (II), 337-TA-1128 and -1129; Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1059)
Advised respondents BlackBerry Ltd. and the BlackBerry Corporation against complainants Creative Technology Ltd. and Creative Labs, Inc., who alleged that certain Android devices manufactured and sold by BlackBerry (and a number of others) infringed a creative patent directed to methods of organizing and displaying music tracks in hierarchical categories on a portable media player. Under the 100-Day Program, the Administrative Law Judge issued a final initial determination finding the asserted patent invalid under Section 101 as covering patent-ineligible subject matter. The commission declined to review the judge’s determination, leaving it as the final determination of the ITC and making this a complete win for our client. (Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-994)
Represented automaker Honda and infotainment manufacturer Fujitsu Ten and related affiliates as respondents against Advanced Silicon Technologies LLC, in an investigation involving graphics and display system technologies for automobiles. Approximately one month before trial before the ITC, we settled the case on favorable terms. (Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof and Vehicles Containing Same, 337-TA-984)
Achieved a win for Kyocera after a two-week bench trial and a favorable ruling from the ALJ when Technology Properties Limited (TPL) accused Kyocera and several other companies of importing wireless electronic devices that allegedly infringed a microprocessor patent. In the ITC’s initial determination, the ALJ found that none of Kyocera’s 14 accused products infringed the claims of the patent asserted by TPL. Relying heavily on our expert’s testing of the accused devices, which established that the devices did not meet certain features of the asserted claims, the judge found multiple grounds to support his decision that the Kyocera products do not infringe. (Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-853)