Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 FEBRUARY 2026

AI And Section 337 Investigations

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Because p 337 applies only to "articles," the ITC generally lacks authority over intangible digital imports such as electronically transmitted...

United StatesIntellectual Property

The Highlights 

  1. Jurisdictional Limits on Digital AI Inputs:  Because p 337 applies only to "articles," the ITC generally lacks authority over intangible digital imports such as electronically transmitted AI training data or standalone AI software.
  2. Hardware-Linked AI Products Likely to Drive Future Cases:  AI‑first and AI‑enabled hardware—such as wearables, smartphones, and automotive sensors—are expected to generate substantial ITC litigation as companies rely on p 337 to block infringing physical imports.
  3. Induced Infringement May Provide a Path for AI Software Claims:  Under the Suprema framework, complainants may pursue p 337 relief against imported hardware if the importer facilitates post‑importation installation or use of infringing AI software.

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.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from