In an April IP Hot Topic, we noted that the Federal Circuit left open in RealTek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC, Appeal, No. 23-1095 (March 18, 2025) the question whether a petitioner may avoid sanctions by simply terminating an ITC investigation as to the respondent alleging sanctionable conduct. The Federal Circuit decision included a footnote that it did not need to determine whether a “cause of action” existed and if RealTek had standing or jurisdiction to bring an appeal after the investigation was terminated against it.
Only a few months after this decision, the Federal Circuit has clarified, in another RealTek appeal, that it does not have jurisdiction to hear sanction appeals that are “ancillary’ to a final decision or do not have an effect on the entry of any articles. RealTek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC, Appeal No. 2023-1187 (June 18, 2025).
RealTek’s sanctions motion arose from third-party MediaTek’s agreement with complainant Future Link Systems, LLC (“Future Link”) that MediaTek would pay Future Link a lump sum of money if Future Link filed a lawsuit against RealTek. RealTek sought a sanctions order from the ALJ to make Future Link pay a fine to the Commission for filing the lawsuit. The ALJ denied the sanctions motion finding that sanctions were unwarranted as the evidence showed that the agreement did not play a role in Future Link’s decision to file an ITC Complaint against RealTek. Subsequently Future Link withdrew its complaint against RealTek and the investigation was terminated. RealTek then petitioned the Commission to review the sanctions denial which the Commission declined to do so. RealTek then appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit ultimately found that “[w]e hold that in the absence of clear statutory authority granting us jurisdiction to review a Commission order of the sort at issue in this case, jurisdiction . . . does not lie in this court.” The Federal Circuit’s ruling left open the question of whether RealTek’s sanction motion could be revived in another jurisdiction, such as a district court, and highlighted that jurisdiction over sanction motions are fact-specific. For example, while the Federal Circuit noted that its jurisdiction to hear appeals from the ITC is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6), which allows the Federal Circuit “to review the final determinations[,]” the Federal Circuit also noted that that it has jurisdiction to review decisions relating to “other associated matters necessary for the proper consideration of those final determinations.” Id. at 9-10 (quoting Refractarios Monterrey, S.A. v. Ferro Corp., 606 F.2d 966, 970 n.10, 971 (CCPA 1979). This leaves open the question whether requests for non-monetary sanctions may be appealed to the Federal Circuit. Notably, the Federal Circuit did not address the impact Future Link’s termination of the investigation had on its jurisdiction.
