In another example of why defaulting at the ITC can be a
dangerous strategy, the ITC recently found all eight named
respondents in default and concluded a general exclusion order
(GEO) was the appropriate remedy. Since the ITC did not receive a
response from any of the eight respondents, Complainant Bear
Archery filed a motion for summary determination seeking a finding
of a Section 337 violation and entry of a GEO. ALJ Bullock granted
the motion and, upon review, the Commission agreed that a GEO was
the appropriate remedy. See Certain Full-Capture Arrow
Rests and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1117, Comm'n
Op. (July 31, 2019).
As we have discussed previously (
here), a GEO prohibits all importations of excluded goods, even
from non-parties. While, enjoined non-parties can appeal the
Commission's order to the Federal Circuit, it is clear that a
GEO can be a powerful remedy for complainants. See LSI Computer
Sys., Inc. v. ITC, 832 F.2d 588, 588 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
