ITC 2025 Year in Review: A Momentous Shift, but the Impact Remains Pending

For Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), 2025 was a year of contrasts. As one example, the Federal Circuit’s long-awaited decision in Lashify, Inc. v. ITC reduced the burden for satisfying Section 337’s domestic industry requirement, under which ITC complainants must show adequate U.S. investments in practicing or exploiting the asserted intellectual property rights. But this lower threshold did not immediately result in increased Section 337 complaint filings. For much of 2025, uncertainty concerning U.S. trade policy and federal government operations likely depressed ITC complaint filings.

But while ITC developments in 2025 provided contrasting outcomes, they are best seen as leading indicators of an active 2026. A relaxed domestic industry requirement, a recent uptick in complaint filings, Trump Administration support for Section 337 enforcement, and complainants’ strong track record of success, all suggest that 2026 could be busy for Section 337 litigants and confirm that the ITC remains an attractive forum for enforcing IP rights. Below, we summarize these leading indicators and provide thoughts on the year ahead.

Several 2025 Decisions Relaxed the Domestic Industry Requirement, but Limits Continue to Exist

2025’s most significant developments in Section 337 practice concerned the domestic industry requirement. The most dramatic of these developments was the Federal Circuit’s rejection of nearly 40 years of precedent in Lashify, which followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo to overturn Chevron deference. In Lashify, the Federal Circuit ended the ITC’s longstanding practice of treating investments in sales, marketing and distribution as insufficient to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. Ignoring the ITC’s previous interpretation, the Federal Circuit construed Section 337 as containing no categorical restrictions on the types of investments that can establish a domestic industry, opening the door for complainants to rely on quantitatively significant investments in sales, marketing, and distribution to satisfy the domestic industry requirement, without also asserting investments related to manufacturing or R&D.

Lashify was not the Federal Circuit’s only important decision applying the domestic industry requirement in 2025. In Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. ITC, the appellate court concluded that a complainant satisfied the requirement even though the dollar-amount of its investments was “meager.” Explaining that evaluating whether a domestic industry exists “requires a holistic review of all relevant considerations,” the court concluded that substantial evidence showed the requirement satisfied because “all of the investments [we]re domestic, all market activities occur[ed] within the United States, and the high investment-to-revenue ratio indicate[d] . . . a valuable market.”

Taken together, Lashify and Healthgen favor improved access to the ITC for small and medium-sized businesses. By expanding the pool of investments on which complainants can rely and confirming the absence of any monetary threshold, these decisions will lower the domestic industry barrier to entry for certain kinds of IP owners. As a result, we may see increased use of the ITC by companies who market simpler products than computer and telecommunications technologies, which have historically dominated Section 337 investigations.

Other 2025 decisions show, however, that the ITC will continue to rigorously apply the domestic industry requirement. In Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels, Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, the ITC concluded that the complainant failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement due to insufficient evidence of investments related to products protected by the asserted patents. The complainant had relied on two categories of investments: (1) expenditures in U.S. R&D in display panels that practiced the asserted patents; and (2) its downstream affiliate’s expenditures related to smartphones that included those panels. After methodological deficiencies in calculating the first category of investments doomed it before the administrative law judge, the complainant abandoned it. As for the second category, the ITC found that investments in smartphones were too remote from the patent-practicing panels to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.

Despite the Relaxed Domestic Industry Requirement, 2025 Did Not See an Increase in Section 337 Complaints Due to the Overall Political Environment

After Lashify and Healthgen lowered the bar for satisfying the domestic industry requirement, many ITC practitioners anticipated an increase in Section 337 complaints. 2025 had other ideas.

For much of the year, new complaint filings decreased relative to prior years. The ITC received only 31 new complaints for alleged violations during the first three quarters; aside from 2022, this marked the low-point for new complaints filed over the first three quarters in the past ten years.

Chart current as of 12/18.

Although the precise reasons for the decrease in complaint filings remain unclear, likely causes include the impact of the Trump Administration’s use of tariffs on international trade and the federal government shutdown, which ultimately lasted 43 days.

But signs suggest that this slump may be over. In the month since November 17, when the ITC began accepting new complaints after the shutdown ended, 12 new Section 337 complaints have been filed.

The Trump Administration Expresses Support for Section 337 Investigations but Has Not Yet Filled any Commissioner Vacancies

As others have observed, the Trump Administration has proclaimed its support for strong intellectual property rights and vigorous enforcement. Recently, the Administration extended this support to the ITC’s use of Section 337 to protect against infringing imports.

On November 25, amidst the flurry of activity following the end of the shutdown, the USPTO and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division jointly submitted a public interest comment in response to a new section 337 complaint. The agencies emphasized the statutory presumption favoring exclusion orders for violations of Section 337 and the public interest in enforcing patent rights, and they urged the ITC to maintain its historical practice of forgoing exclusion orders only for extraordinary public health or safety concerns. The agencies’ submission of this comment articulating policy preferences—divorced from the specific facts or issues in the complaint—was unusual, and it provides a reason for optimism for IP owners hoping for Administration support for strong enforcement.

Despite this expression of support, however, the ITC continues to have a glaring area of need for the Trump Administration to address—lengthy vacancies at the commissioner level. The ITC may have up to six commissioners but currently has only three, and the three current commissioners are all serving on expired terms. The Trump Administration could thus nominate an entirely new slate of Commissioners. Despite its interest in trade and IP issues, the Administration made no moves to fill those seats in 2025.

2025 Saw Complainants Thrive

In terms of outcomes, 2025 favored Section 337 complainants. They won findings of violation in 58% of investigations in the violation phase that resulted in a final determination on the merits, including investigations where the respondents defaulted. This win-rate slightly improved upon the 10-year average and rose considerably from the 41% win-rate in such investigations in 2024.

Certain categories of complainants fared particularly well when considering their desired outcomes. The ITC resolved six investigations involving standard-essential patents asserted by Ericsson and Nokia. Five of these investigations ended in settlement. Although the other one concluded with a final determination of no violation, it belonged to a series of investigations involving Ericsson and Lenovo that contributed to the parties agreeing on a global settlement. Further, the two investigations initiated by Nokia resolved following initial determinations from the respective ALJs finding respondents had violated Section 337. Although the ITC still has not issued an exclusion order based on a SEP since 2013 (which the President vetoed), 2025 showed that SEP owners can benefit from including the ITC in their enforcement toolkit.

2025 was also a strong year for life sciences companies at the ITC. Complainants obtained exclusions orders in four of the six investigations involving life sciences that concluded this year, with the other two resulting in settlements. These six investigations featured a wide variety of technologies and IP rights, including causes of action for trade secret misappropriation, trademark and trade dress infringement, false advertising and designation of origin, and design and utility patent infringement.

Looking Ahead: A Busy 2026?

After a mostly down 2025 in terms of ITC activity, signs point to an upswing in the coming year. As noted above, the slew of new complaints filed since the end of the federal government shutdown reflects pent-up demand for IP enforcement via Section 337. Sectors that have been under-represented before the ITC may feed this demand as industry players begin to appreciate Lashify’s impact. In addition, the Trump Administration’s expression of support for Section 337, along with its broader interest in trade and IP, portends that we may finally see new Commissioner appointments, and the influx of new viewpoints from such appointees could bring an interesting dynamic to new investigations. Finally, the success of life sciences companies before the ITC may reflect increased reliance on Section 337 in that sector, and complaints filed this past year represent a wide spectrum of technologies across the pharmaceutical and medical device fields.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID:41829891
Copyright:enterlinedesign