Posts Tagged: "International Trade Commission"

On March 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Philip Morris Products S.A. v. International Trade Commission affirming a Section 337 ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that blocked the importation and sale of electronic vape tobacco products infringing patents owned by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company. While much of the precedential decision deals with Philip Morris’ procedural and agency challenges to the ITC’s ruling, the Federal Circuit also rejected arguments that several patentability findings entered by the ITC were not supported by substantial evidence. The present appeal stems back to an ITC complaint filed by R.J. Reynolds in April 2020 seeking a Section 337 investigation into Philip Morris’ IQOS line of heat-not-burn tobacco vaping products. The two patents asserted by R.J. Reynolds are U.S. Patent No. 9901123, Tobacco-Containing Smoking Article, and U.S. Patent No. 9930915, Smoking Articles and Use Thereof for Yielding Inhalation Materials. After a yearlong investigation, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the accused IQOS products infringed claims of both patents, that R.J. Reynolds established the existence of a domestic industry with respect to both patents, and that the public interest did not weigh against entry of a limited exclusion order (LEO).

The International Trade Commission (ITC) is a popular venue for pursuing claims of patent infringement. Its fast procedural schedules and stringent remedies, including blocking infringing products at the United States border, make it attractive to patent holders. Attorneys who practice at the ITC often specialize in that forum. The primary objective of this article is to explore how the percentage of women ITC practitioners compares to that of men in 2022, as well as to examine the difference in experience levels with respect to women ITC practitioners and male ITC practitioners.

The U.S. International Trade Commission on Tuesday issued a Notice of Final Initial Determination (FID) finding that Apple violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling in the United States Apple Watches with light-based pulse oximetry technology that infringed claims 24 and 30 of Masimo’s U.S. Patent No. 10,945,648. According to a Masimo press release, Apple first started selling the Apple Watch with a pulse oximeter sensor in 2020 and has continued to use it in subsequent versions of the product since then. The ITC Notice said it found no violation of the asserted claims of four other patents named in Masimo’s complaint.

On August 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in INVT SPE LLC v. International Trade Commission (ITC) affirming the ITC’s ruling that Apple and other respondents in a Section 337 investigation did not infringe upon INVT’s patent claims covering wireless communications systems and that there was no Section 337 violation. While the Federal Circuit did side with INVT’s arguments that its patent claims were drawn to device capability and not actual operation, the CAFC opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Raymond Chen, found that INVT did not produce evidence that the accused devices possessed the capability covered by the patent claims.

Investigations brought under 19 U.S.C. § 1337, commonly known as “Section 337” cases, at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) have become a go-to enforcement option for patent owners seeking fast, injunction-type relief against infringing imports. It is well known that the ITC issues powerful remedial orders, including (1) exclusion orders, which order United States Customs and Border Protection (Customs or CBP) to exclude infringing imports imported by Respondents or, in some cases, third parties, and (2) cease-and-desist orders, which order Respondents not to import or sell infringing, imported products in the United States. Because ITC remedial orders are broadly written to cover even unadjudicated products that infringe the subject patents, and because such orders are only prospective in nature, it is critical for ITC litigants and their attorneys to understand the available procedures to adjudicate redesigned products.