Tag Archives: ITC section 337

ALJ Cheney Shines a Light on the ITC’s Section 337 Interim ID Pilot Program

On January 25, 2022, ALJ Cheney became the first ITC ALJ to utilize the ITC’s Section 337 Interim ID Pilot Program in two related investigations – Certain Replacement Automotive Lamps, Inv. No. 337-TA-1291 and Certain Replacement Automotive Lamps, Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1292. Our colleague, Adam Hess, explains how the pilot program gives ALJs more tools to … Continue Reading

How to Stop the PTAB from Deferring to the ITC for Patent Validity Decisions

Following up on a previous blog post explaining why the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is denying institution of inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings based on a co-pending ITC Section 337 investigation, our colleague Adam Hess provides some tips for how respondents in ITC Section 337 investigations can avoid the … Continue Reading

PTAB Defers to ITC for Patent Validity Decisions

August 9, 2012, in a decision regarding a petition filed by Kiss Nail Products, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of post-grant review (PGR) of a Lashify, Inc. patent directed to artificial eyelash extensions in view of a co-pending ITC Section 337 investigation. Why is this significant? Continue reading here a blog post by our colleague Adam Hess.… Continue Reading

Senator Cornyn Considers Expansion of ITC’s Authority under Section 337

In a recent blog post, Adam Hess and Rory Murphy discuss Senator John Cornyn’s (R-Texas) suggestion to the Senate Finance Committee of expanding the ITC’s jurisdiction under Section 337. Additionally, the post reviews three primary bills that seem to be part of the Senate’s effort to pass comprehensive legislation related to trade with China: The … Continue Reading

Cross-post: Growing Tension Between the ITC and the PTAB

One of the most common responses to being sued for patent infringement is a petition to the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the patent. To avoid duplication of effort, either the Board or the tribunal can defer to the other. According to a recent decision, the U.S. International Trade … Continue Reading
LexBlog