Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 APRIL 2026

Dometic Decision Shows How Claim Construction Can Derail ITC Domestic Industry Requirements

The Federal Circuit's decision in Dometic Corp. v. International Trade Commission reveals how claim construction disputes can simultaneously undermine both infringement analysis and domestic industry requirements in Section 337 proceedings. This case demonstrates the compounding risks ITC complainants face when their domestic products fail to practice asserted patent claims under the same construction used to establish infringement, even when economic investment in US operations is proven.

United StatesIntellectual Property

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Dometic Corp. v. International Trade Commission (April 6, 2026) demonstrates that claim construction disputes can simultaneously undermine both infringement analysis and domestic industry requirements in Section 337 proceedings, creating compounding risks for International Trade Commission (ITC) complainants.

Section 337 Domestic Industry Requirements

Section 337 complainants must satisfy both technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement. The technical prong requires that domestic products practice at least one claim of the asserted patent using the same analytical framework applied in infringement determinations. The economic prong can be satisfied through significant US investment in plant and equipment, substantial domestic employment, or substantial investment in patent exploitation activities.

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