Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 MAY 2024

An Aggregation Of Errors: How Zircon Failed To Prove Domestic Industry

". . . Zircon stumbled, however, in demonstrating the scope of its investments in that specific subset of protected products, thereby failing to meet the domestic industry's economic prong. . . ."

JapanIntellectual Property

". . . Zircon stumbled, however, in demonstrating the scope of its investments in that specific subset of protected products, thereby failing to meet the domestic industry's economic prong. . . ."

Introduction

In Zircon Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2022-1649 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2024) ("Decision"), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination by the International Trade Commission ("ITC") that Zircon failed to make the required threshold showing of a domestic industry protected by its asserted patents.

In its ITC Complaint, Zircon alleged that certain electronic hand-held "stud finders" imported into and sold in the United States by Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. and Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. infringed three Zircon patents. As a prerequisite to the relief sought in its Complaint—an import exclusion order—Zircon was required to show that "an industry in

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from