Bottom line:
- Staying outside a Section 337 case does not mean staying outside its reach
- The International Trade Commission offers an avenue for patent holders to block competitors from importing into the U.S.
A patent dispute that never named your company can still put your shipments at risk at the border. That is the practical lesson in two recent International Trade Commission developments, each illustrating the import blocking power of Section 337. In one case, a general exclusion order banned covered infringing boiler-protection articles, regardless of source. In another, a new investigation was instituted in which a small breast-pump maker and patent holder sought import relief against multiple larger companies, including a major consumer-electronics accessory maker. Together, these developments show that the Commission's import-blocking power is broader, and more evenly available, than most companies assume. The Commission's docket is also a list of products that could disappear from the U.S. market.
The Commission doesn't award damages. It blocks imports entirely.
The International Trade Commission is not a court, and a company that wins there does not collect money. Instead, Section 337 of the Tariff Act lets a patent holder ask the Commission to block a competitor's imports from entering the United States altogether, on the theory that the imported product infringes a U.S. patent. Most of the time the remedy is a limited exclusion order: it names the specific companies found to infringe, and only their shipments are stopped at the border. When the Commission cannot reliably identify or reach every source of an infringing product, it can instead issue a general exclusion order. A general exclusion order blocks the product itself, regardless of source. The Commission can pair either kind of order with a cease and desist order, which bars the same respondents from selling infringing inventory already sitting in U.S. warehouses. When a named respondent simply does not answer the complaint (i.e., defaults), the Commission may still rule against it. Cases built on a default tend to produce general exclusion orders, since there is no responsive party whose imports alone can be blocked. However, a default does not automatically result in a general exclusion order. Before any order takes effect, it goes to the President for a 60-day review, the last procedural checkpoint before Customs and Border Protection begins enforcing it.
A recent order shows how far a general exclusion order reaches
An order issued on September 21, 2026, by the ITC found a violation of U.S. Patent No. 8,056,360, held by ARPC LLC and inventor Paul N. Unmack, covering protection components used in absorption-refrigeration boilers. The investigation named ten China-based respondents; four of them, doing business as Koofang, RVGIVE, Little Bear Pocket, and VISVIC, defaulted and never appeared to contest the case. Rather than issue exclusion orders naming only specific sellers, the Commission issued a general exclusion order barring all infringing boiler-protection components from entering the country, regardless of source, plus cease and desist orders against the four defaulting respondents, with a bond set at 100 percent of entered value. The order is still in the standard 60-day review period; however, once that period ends without Presidential disapproval, any company that imports or resells the covered component, whether it has ever heard of ARPC LLC or not, can have its shipments stopped at the port.
This order is not an outlier. A 2023 analysis of ITC statistics found that general exclusion orders rose from an average of roughly 3.5 per fiscal year between 2006 and 2019 to more than 7.7 per year over fiscal years 2020 through 2022, growing from about 29 percent to about 42 percent of all exclusion orders issued. The boiler-protection order fits that trajectory: a GEO built on defaults by hard-to-reach foreign sellers is a pattern the Commission was already issuing with increasing frequency, not a one-off response to an unusually elusive respondent.
The same tool can also be used to restrict imports of much larger competitors
The same week, the Commission opened a different kind of Section 337 case. Willow Innovations, a wearable breast-pump maker, and its UK affiliate accused twelve companies, including Anker Innovations, a major consumer-electronics accessory maker, of infringing five of Willow's patents covering wearable breast pumps and milk-storage containers. The investigation was instituted September 21, 2026, and Willow is seeking a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. If Willow prevails, products from companies many times its size could be blocked from the U.S. market.
This case is not an isolated data point. In July, GG Technologies, doing business as StayTouch, filed against one of the world’s largest consumer electronics companies over patents covering mobile-device content-sharing technology (though the Commission is considering on an expedited basis whether domestic industry exists to maintain the investigation). Also in July, Serendia LLC, a dermatology-device maker, filed against InMode and the BTL Industries group of companies, both far larger medical-device manufacturers, over patents covering RF microneedling devices. These cases illustrate the possibility of using Section 337, instead of or alongside district-court litigation, to put an alleged competitor's ability to sell in the United States at risk.
What this changes for the decisions companies actually make
For companies that import electronics, medical devices, or components of almost any kind, the question is no longer only whether their own company has been sued. It is whether an active Section 337 investigation or a general exclusion order touches a product category they source, resell, or private-label, regardless of whether they were ever a party. Treat the Commission's docket as a recurring input to import compliance and supply-chain risk review, not something litigation counsel checks only after a complaint names the company directly.
The same exposure belongs in acquisition diligence. A target's revenue can depend on products exposed to a pending general exclusion order even though the target was never sued and never appears in the case caption. A diligence questionnaire built only around the target's own litigation history will miss that risk.
For patent holders, these cases demonstrate that the Commission is a realistic venue to seek relief from alleged infringers. The ITC requires no proof of money damages, only infringement and a qualifying domestic industry, and its investigations are often faster than comparable district-court litigation.
What to watch
The boiler-protection general exclusion order remains subject to the President's review. The Willow Innovations investigation has no scheduled decision date yet. Both are worth monitoring in the coming months as concrete tests of how these orders actually play out for the companies caught in their path, sued or not.
The practical takeaway: companies should confirm this month whether anyone is tracking general exclusion orders against the product categories they import, source, or private-label, before a shipment is stopped at the port.
Sources
1. Certain Boiler Protection for Absorption Refrigeration Systems and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-1453, Fed. Reg. (Sept. 24, 2026), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/24/2026-19543/certain-boiler-protection-for-absorption-refrigeration-systems-and-components-thereof-notice-of-the
2. Certain Wearable Breast Pumps, Associated Milk Storage Containers, and Components Thereof; Notice of Institution of Investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-1522, Fed. Reg. (Sept. 24, 2026), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/24/2026-19586/certain-wearable-breast-pumps-associated-milk-storage-containers-and-components-thereof-notice-of
3. Certain Mobile Devices With Hardware and Software for Exchanging Electronic Content, Inv. No. 337-TA-1520, USITC News Release (Aug. 28, 2026), https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0828_69139.htm
4. Certain Dermatological Treatment Devices and Components Thereof II; Notice of Institution of Investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-1515, Fed. Reg. (July 27, 2026), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/07/27/2026-15064/certain-dermatological-treatment-devices-and-components-thereof-ii-notice-of-institution-of-investigation
5. Daniel P. Muino & Nomin-Erdene Jagdagdorj, ITC General Exclusion Orders Targeting All Importers Are on the Rise, The Intellectual Property Strategist (June 1, 2023), https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/230601-ip-considerations-for-itc-general
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.
