The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is an important forum for parties to litigate intellectual property disputes concerning imported goods.
ITC Section 337 proceedings are most often used to resolve patent infringement claims, but they can also be used for trade secret, trademark, copyright, and other unfair competition claims. ITC remedies are powerful – the ITC can issue orders barring all infringing imports from entry into the United States. And ITC investigations are fast – they typically conclude within 18 months, much quicker than most district court cases.
Given the high stakes and speed of ITC investigations, and the ITC’s unique procedural and substantive requirements, it is critically important for clients to engage counsel with deep knowledge of how the ITC operates. Likewise, given the nuances of IP law, and the complex technologies that may be at issue, it is equally important to retain counsel with the requisite legal and technical skills to rapidly and fully grasp the issues to be adjudicated.
Womble Bond Dickinson’s seasoned ITC team has litigated numerous cases before the ITC on behalf of both complainants and respondents, including violation and enforcement phase proceedings. Our attorneys have acted as lead counsel in ITC trials and in appeals to the Federal Circuit from ITC determinations. The team is bolstered by intellectual property litigators across the firm’s U.S. offices, with substantial trial experience, subject matter proficiency, and technical training across a wide variety of fields. Once ITC exclusion orders are issued, our attorneys also represent clients in compliance efforts before U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Lithium Ion Batteries, Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (LG Chem v. SK Innovation). Represented complainant LG Chem.*
Wireless Headsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-943 (One-E-Way v. Beats Electronics et al.). Represented respondents Beats.*
Noise Cancelling Headphones, Inv. No. 337-TA-927 (Bose v. Beats Electronics et al.). Represented respondent Beats.*
Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-892 (Straight Path v. LG Electronics et al.). Represented respondents LG and Toshiba, and non-party Google.*
Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-769 (Microsoft v. Barnes & Noble, Hon Hai, Foxconn et al.). Represented respondents Hon Hai and Foxconn.*
Birthing Simulators, Inv. No. 337-TA-759 (Gaumard Scientific v. Shanghai Honglian Medical Instrument Development et al.). Represented complainant Gaumard Scientific.*
Underground Cable and Pipe Locators, Inv. No. 337-TA-727 (Radiodetection v. Vivax-Metrotech et al.). Represented respondent Vivax-Metrotech.*
Connecting Devices ("Quick-Clamps") For Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Inv. No. 337-TA-587 (Norgren v. SMC). Represented respondent SMC.*
Network Communications Systems for Optical Networks, Inv. No. 337-TA-535 (Ciena v. Nortel et al.). Represented complainant Ciena.*
Semiconductor Memory Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-470 (Mosel Vitelic v. Hitachi et al.). Represented complainant Mosel Vitelic.*
HSP Modems, Inv. No. 337-TA-439 (PCTEL v. ESS et al.). Represented complainant PCTEL.*
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is an important forum for parties to litigate intellectual property disputes concerning imported goods.
ITC Section 337 proceedings are most often used to resolve patent infringement claims, but they can also be used for trade secret, trademark, copyright, and other unfair competition claims.
ITC remedies are powerful – the ITC can issue orders barring all infringing imports from entry into the United States. And ITC investigations are fast – they typically conclude within 18 months, much quicker than most district court cases.
Given the high stakes and speed of ITC investigations, and the ITC’s unique procedural and substantive requirements, it is critically important for clients to engage counsel with deep knowledge of how the ITC operates. Likewise, given the nuances of IP law, and the complex technologies that may be at issue, it is equally important to retain counsel with the requisite legal and technical skills to rapidly and fully grasp the issues to be adjudicated.
Womble Bond Dickinson’s seasoned ITC team has litigated numerous cases before the ITC on behalf of both complainants and respondents, including violation and enforcement phase proceedings. Our attorneys have acted as lead counsel in ITC trials and in appeals to the Federal Circuit from ITC determinations. The team is bolstered by intellectual property litigators across the firm’s U.S. offices, with substantial trial experience, subject matter proficiency, and technical training across a wide variety of fields. Once ITC exclusion orders are issued, our attorneys also represent clients in compliance efforts before U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Need legal advice and guidance in ICT Section 337 Litigation
Our team is able to help provide solutions to you and your organization. Browse through our lawyers and professional staff to find the right attorney near you.
Examples of our work and how we’ve helped companies of all sizes with a wide range of challenges.
Representative Experience
Lithium Ion Batteries, Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (LG Chem v. SK Innovation). Represented complainant LG Chem.*
Wireless Headsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-943 (One-E-Way v. Beats Electronics et al.). Represented respondents Beats.*
Noise Cancelling Headphones, Inv. No. 337-TA-927 (Bose v. Beats Electronics et al.). Represented respondent Beats.*
Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-892 (Straight Path v. LG Electronics et al.). Represented respondents LG and Toshiba, and non-party Google.*
Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-769 (Microsoft v. Barnes & Noble, Hon Hai, Foxconn et al.). Represented respondents Hon Hai and Foxconn.*
Birthing Simulators, Inv. No. 337-TA-759 (Gaumard Scientific v. Shanghai Honglian Medical Instrument Development et al.). Represented complainant Gaumard Scientific.*
Underground Cable and Pipe Locators, Inv. No. 337-TA-727 (Radiodetection v. Vivax-Metrotech et al.). Represented respondent Vivax-Metrotech.*
Connecting Devices ("Quick-Clamps") For Use With Modular Compressed Air Conditioning Units, Inv. No. 337-TA-587 (Norgren v. SMC). Represented respondent SMC.*
Network Communications Systems for Optical Networks, Inv. No. 337-TA-535 (Ciena v. Nortel et al.). Represented complainant Ciena.*
Semiconductor Memory Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-470 (Mosel Vitelic v. Hitachi et al.). Represented complainant Mosel Vitelic.*
HSP Modems, Inv. No. 337-TA-439 (PCTEL v. ESS et al.). Represented complainant PCTEL.*
This selection will switch the website from presenting information primarily about the United Kingdom to information about the United States. If you would like to switch back, you may use location selection options at the top of the page.
Contact
Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any legal matter until we authorize you to do so. To initiate a possible representation, please call one of our lawyers or staff members.
By clicking the “ACCEPT” button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that, even if you submit information that you consider confidential in an effort to retain us, our review of that information will not create an obligation on us to keep it confidential and will not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.
Please click the “ACCEPT” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.
