International Trade Commission

Section 337 proceedings at the International Trade Commission (ITC) have unique requirements that demand a specific attorney skill set. At Robins Kaplan LLP, our ITC attorneys bring a longstanding record of success to Section 337 ITC disputes, including trademark and design patent matters. We represent both complainants and respondents through all stages of the ITC process. We have obtained orders of exclusion on behalf of ITC petitioner-clients and also obtained determinations of non-infringement and invalidity on behalf of ITC respondents clients. We help our clients take maximum advantage of the ITC's fast-paced proceedings by developing an early, comprehensive case plan and maintaining the discipline to execute on that plan without the typical litigation distinctions. ITC actions involve the participation of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII), and we are familiar with a number of administrative law judges' personal ground rules for conducting OUII investigations. Further, we help clients stay current on ITC issues and International Trade Commission rules and regulations through our regular participation in ITC-related bar activities and committees and the insights of our former OUII member partner.

Clients and Industries

Our ITC lawyers have experience in a variety of technologies, including:

  • Circuit Board Assembly and Manufacturing
  • Electric Toothbrush Technology
  • File Formats for Cameras
  • Flash Memory Devices
  • Global Positioning Satellite Navigation Systems
  • Hydrochloride Chemical Formulations
  • Robotic Manufacturing Systems
  • Video Analytics Technology for Cameras/Recording Devices

Selected Case Results*

  • In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same, ITC  Inv. No. 337-TA-920Represented multinational consumer electronics corporation, Best Buy, in a case of alleged patent infringement concerning integrated circuits and products containing the same.  Settled on confidential terms prior to trial.
  • In the Matter of Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-918Represented one of the world’s leading providers of imaging supplies, photoreceptors and parts for imaging equipment, Katon, in a case of alleged patent infringement concerning toner cartridges and components thereof.  Settled on confidential terms prior to trial.
  • In the Matter of Certain Set-Top Boxes, Gateways, Bridges, and Adapters and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-915Represented Rambus, the leader in the development and innovation of technologies that enhance the end-user experience of electronic systems, in a case of alleged patent infringement concerning set-top boxes, gateways, bridges and adaptors and components thereof.  Settled on confidential terms prior to trial.
  • Certain Thermal Support Devices for Infants, Infant Incubators, Infant Warmers, and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-896: Represented medical device manufacturer, Draeger Medical Systems, Inc.  in a case involving infant incubators and thermoregulation devices.  Settled on confidential terms prior to trial.
  • Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-852: Represented video analytics software company, ObjectVideo, Inc., in patent infringement case concerning computer vision technology. Settled on confidential terms prior to trial.
  • In re Certain Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related Software, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-810:Defended Honeywell against claims of patent infringement relating to aeronautical display systems.  Settled on confidential terms prior to trial.
  • In the Matter of Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-795: Trial counsel for a video analytics software company, ObjectVideo, Inc., in the ITC and district court concerning computer vision technology. ObjectVideo enforced six patents against video analytics software used in video surveillance equipment, such as video security cameras and video encoders. The ITC and district court complaints were filed in 2011. The evidentiary hearing at the ITC was held in July 2012 and the matter was resolved just prior to the Initial Determination.
  • In re Certain GPS Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related Software, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-783: Represented Honeywell Inc. in the enforcement of a series of patents related to GPS and navigational systems for use in the recreational marine industry.  Filed suit in 2009 in district court; while the patents were waiting re-examination, initiated proceedings before the ITC against one named defendant, Furuno Electric Co., related to additional acts of infringement of additional patents.  Negotiated a successful resolution of that matter, along with resolution of that portion of the original district court action related to that defendant. 
  • In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Controllers, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-619: Represented Imation Corporation in a case of alleged patent infringement related to flash memory technology owned by SanDisk Corporation. The technology is used in several devices, most notably portable USB memory cards.  Based on prior art, the ITC determined that patent 7,137,011 was invalid for obviousness and that Imation Corporation's products do not infringe the asserted claims.
  • Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-657: Represented Honeywell Inc. in the enforcement of a series of patents related to GPS and navigational systems for use in the vehicle navigation display industry. Settled while on review by Commission.
  • Electric Robots and Component Parts Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-530 Represented FANUC Robotics in a case alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 6,477,913.   The technology involved a multi-axis electric spraying robot adapted for use in a hazardous environment.  

* Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.

+ READ MORE - READ LESS
Back to Top