Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 FEBRUARY 2016

Top Developments In IP Practice At The ITC In 2015

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

Laws change. Law schools do not necessarily teach you what the law is. Instead, they teach you how to find the law and ascertain its current status.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Laws change. Law schools do not necessarily teach you what the law is. Instead, they teach you how to find the law and ascertain its current status. Intellectual property law is no different. The law involving § 337 practice at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) changed considerably in 2015.

This year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued decisions further refining the ITC's jurisdiction and remedial powers in its en banc decision in Suprema Inc. v. ITC, and in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC. In addressing the ITC's domestic-industry requirement, the court in Lelo Inc. v. ITC, further clarified the "significance'" standard under Prongs A and B, holding that the patent owner's domestic-industry investments fell short. Furthermore, the commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking involving several ITC-specific procedures.

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