Written by Brandon Baum, of Baum Legal and Practice Center Contributor.
The ITC caseload has grown significantly in recent years.
Moreover, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Wireless v. ITC limiting the downstream effect of ITC exclusion orders means complainants frequently name multiple parties when initiating complaints. Thus, the cases are far larger and more complex. The pace appears to be quickening as well, as there were 28 new 337 complaints filed between June and August, and the ITC website shows 71 cases currently pending. Many of these are “battle of the titans” type cases, involving major industry players with virtually unlimited legal budgets (e.g., various pending smartphone investigations are illustrated below).
The ITC has a relatively small budget ($87 million), yet its six ALJs preside over approximately one out of every seven patent trials in the US. Complainants enjoy the speed and expertise of proceeding in the ITC. However, given the increasing workload on the ITC, something has to give. I expect that we’ll see some changes soon, perhaps imposing a “real” domestic industry requirement beyond mere licensing activities.
Tags: exclusion orders, Federal Circuit, ITC, Kyocera Wireless v. ITC
You share in the PLI Practice Center community, so we just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.