AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
U.S. International Trade Commission
Formerly a niche venue for trade-related matters, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has emerged as a battleground for many high stakes intellectual property disputes, particularly in the technology, life sciences,...more
US SYNTHETIC CORP. v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION - Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit found claims reciting magnetic properties of a claimed...more
In its recent decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit opened the door for patent owners to include expanded categories of domestic investment to satisfy the economic prong of the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction, explaining that the district court should have immediately issued a statutory stay of the proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) because a...more
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expands which intellectual property (IP) owners can seek relief before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to block the import of infringing...more
Lashify, Inc. is an American company, with headquarters and employees in the United States, that distributes, markets, and sells eyelash extensions (and cases and applicators for the eyelash extensions) in the United States....more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently emphasized that Section 337’s...more
Lashify, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 23-1245, 2025 WL 699368 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2025) - On March 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the International Trade Commission (“ITC”)’s decision and exercised its “independent...more
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions open the doors of the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to smaller companies that are threatened by unfair imports....more
Addressing the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a US International Trade Commission decision,...more
On March 5, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 23-1245, vacating in part the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that...more
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upended years of settled law and ruled that sales and marketing expenses, by themselves, can be the basis for a finding of domestic industry in an...more
On this episode of Ropes & Gray's ITC-focused podcast series, Talkin' Trade, IP litigators Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, and Patrick Lavery discuss a groundbreaking Federal Circuit decision in Lashify v. ITC. This pivotal...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) recently issued a landmark decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, expanding what expenditures count to prove the economic prong of...more
On March 5, the Federal Circuit held that sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, or distribution expenditures may count as “employment of labor or capital” for purposes of satisfying the economic domestic industry...more
In Lashify v. ITC, the Federal Circuit held that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, which is a precondition for obtaining International Trade Commission Section 337 relief, can be satisfied with...more
In a precedential decision issued on March 5, the Federal Circuit held that the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) must consider various domestic expenditures related to foreign-made products in determining whether the...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has taken an axe to years of precedent in § 1337 investigations at the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC has long denied “mere importers” the protection of §...more
On March 5, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion that will change the way the U.S. International Trade Commission addresses the threshold “domestic industry...more
Effective February 3, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) amended its Rules of Practice and Procedure governing Section 337 investigations. While some of these amendments make technical corrections and clarifications,...more
For decades, the ITC’s jurisdictional requirement – known as the domestic industry requirement – effectively shut out innovators from availing themselves of the powerful remedies of the forum, in the form of an exclusion...more
For years, the U.S. International Trade Commission maintained that the potent remedies available under Section 337 were unavailable to intellectual property owners considered to be nothing more than “mere importers.” That...more
Examine real-world strategies for tackling the most pressing challenges in ITC practice at ACI’s 17th Annual Practitioners' Think Tank on ITC Litigation & Enforcement. Be in the same room with leading in-house counsel,...more
On March 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit rejected the ITC’s longstanding practice of excluding certain types of activities from qualifying as “domestic industry” activities under Section 337(a)(3)(B), finding the ITC’s approach...more
Earlier this month, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) implemented amendments to its Rules of Practice and Procedure governing Section 337 investigations. The amended rules, which govern investigations instituted...more