ITC/Section 337 Litigation

Successfully litigating patent infringement cases before the International Trade Commission (ITC) requires a thorough understanding of the ITC’s unique substantive law and procedural rules. Because ITC cases are very likely to proceed to hearing, companies and individuals need representation that couples frontline ITC experience with powerhouse trial skills.

Our lawyers have many high-profile patent infringement cases before the ITC and hundreds more in federal district courts, seamlessly guiding clients through these complex disputes. We also handle proceedings relating to ITC investigations before the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Our ITC practice includes trained engineers and numerous seasoned intellectual property trial lawyers with advanced engineering and science degrees. These capabilities enhance our understanding of ITC litigation subtleties and enable us to successfully achieve our clients’ objectives.

Representative Matters

Our attorneys' ITC/Section 337 experience includes the following matters, among others:

• Nokia Technologies. Representation of Nokia Technologies in a patent infringement action in the U.S. International Trade Commission against Apple alleging the infringement of eight patents related to antenna and other technologies. The matter settled on confidential terms. (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1038 and 337-TA-1039)
• Rovi Corporation and Rovi Guides, Inc. Representation of Rovi Corporation and Rovi Guides, Inc., in a patent infringement action in the U.S. International Trade Commission against Comcast, Technicolor, and Pace concerning seven Rovi patents covering Interactive Program Guide technologies. The ITC entered an initial ruling in May 2017 finding that Comcast violated section 337, which involves imports. (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1001)
• Ericsson. Representation of Ericsson Inc. in patent infringement actions against Apple concerning 41 of Ericsson’s standard essential and implementation patents. The companies reached a settlement agreement in December 2015 that resolved the dispute, which spanned eight federal court lawsuits filed against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas, one matter filed against Ericsson in the Northern District of California, and two matters filed against Apple before the ITC. As reported by Reuters, news of the settlement made Ericsson’s shares soar, and the company noted that “overall revenue from intellectual property rights in 2015 would hit 13 to 14 billion crowns ($1.52-$1.64 billion)” up from 9.9 billion in 2014.  (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-952 and Inv. No. 337-TA-953)
• WilsonArt. Representation of Wilsonart in defense of allegations of infringement of five design patents brought by Cambria Company LLC in the U.S. International Trade Commission. (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-996)
• ChriMar Systems, Inc. Representation of ChriMar before the ITC, as well as parallel district court proceedings, concerning communication equipment, including PoE telephones, switches, wireless access points, and routers.  (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-817.)
• Freescale Semiconductor. Served as lead counsel for Freescale against LSI Corp in a matter before the ITC in a patent infringement dispute concerning semiconductor packaging, sense amplifiers, and dynamic bus termination. The matter was eventually settled favorably to our client. (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-656)
• BTG International Inc. Represented BTG as lead counsel in a matter filed with the ITC concerning infringement of five patents related to MLC Flash memory chips. The Investigation involved digital video cameras, laptop computers, flash memory cards, solid state flash drives, MP3 players and cell phone headsets. The case settled favorably to our client before a final determination was issued by the ITC. (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-683)
• Ericsson. Representation of Ericsson in a patent infringement dispute against Samsung involving more than 50 patents related to the GSM, UTMS, and LTE telecommunications standards. The dispute spanned two co-pending U.S. ITC investigations and three U.S. District Court actions, which all settled on confidential terms. (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-862 and 337-TA-866)