News & Analysis as of

International Trade › Intellectual Property Litigation › Section 337

McDermott Will & Schulte

Power Play: Pull the Plug on Parallel District Court Litigation, ITC Investigation

McDermott Will & Schulte on

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction, explaining that the district court should have immediately issued a statutory stay of the proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) because a...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Federal Circuit Emphasizes that Dollar Amount Spent is Not Determinative of § 337’s Domestic Industry Requirement...

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP on

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently emphasized that Section 337’s...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Section 337 Now Viable for “Mere Importers” After Federal Circuit’s Lashify Decision

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

For years, the U.S. International Trade Commission maintained that the potent remedies available under Section 337 were unavailable to intellectual property owners considered to be nothing more than “mere importers.” That...more

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Federal Circuit Removes Limits on “Qualifying” Domestic Industry Activities at the ITC

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. on

On March 5, 2025, the Federal Circuit rejected the ITC’s longstanding practice of excluding certain types of activities from qualifying as “domestic industry” activities under Section 337(a)(3)(B), finding the ITC’s approach...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide