At Fox, we understand that litigation brought before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act is fast paced and highly specialized. Our experienced IP litigators have represented both Complainants and Respondents in a wide variety of patent, trademark and unfair competition cases before the ITC.

From multinational corporations and Fortune 500 companies to small privately held companies, clients trust our team to strategically and effectively represent them in Section 337 investigations and other ITC matters.

Representative matters:

• Obtained dismissal of patent infringement case brought in the ITC against U.S. distributor of vehicle battery jump starter devices following determination by U.S. Patent & Trademark Office that the relevant patent claims are invalid. In the Matter of Certain Portable Battery Jump Starters and Components Thereof,Investigation No. 337-TA-1256 (U.S. International Trade Commission 2021).
• Represented U.S. distributor of camping furniture and equipment in case brought in the ITC by competitor for alleged infringement of patent relating to foldable rocking chairs. Following trial, we obtained Commission Opinion in May 2021 finding that the client’s accused rocking chairs do not infringe the patent-in-suit and that the competitor failed to satisfy the ITC’s domestic industry requirement because the competitor’s own products are not covered by the patent-in-suit. In the Matter of Certain Collapsible and Portable Furniture,Investigation No. 337-TA-1178 (U.S. International Trade Commission 2021).
• Represented a U.S. distributor of high-fashion shoes in a high-profile ITC action brought by Converse, Inc. against dozens of shoe companies for alleged infringement of Converse’s asserted common law and registered trademarks for the design of the toe cap, toe bumper and stripes featured on Converse Chuck Taylor All Star sneakers. Following trial in 2015, we obtained a favorable Commission ruling that all accused shoes then being sold by the client did not infringe Converse’s asserted trademarks. Notably, the ITC’s ruling was first on Law360’s list of “The Top 10 Trademark Rulings of 2016” (December 20, 2016). In 2020, on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we obtained another favorable Commission Opinion: all accused shoes at issue in the case did not infringe Converse’s asserted trademarks. In the Matter of Certain Footwear Products, Investigation No. 337-TA-936.
• Represented a Chinese manufacturer of artificial sweeteners in a Section 337 investigation involving allegations of infringement of a patent relating to a process for manufacturing acesulfame potassium. Our client prevailed in this action when, in an unusual turn of events, the complainant withdrew its complaint due to issues regarding the invalidity of its asserted patent. In the Matter of Certain High-Potency Sweeteners, Processes for Making Same, and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1030.
• Represented a textiles company in a Section 337 investigation involving allegations of infringement of a patent relating to manufacturing high thread-count cotton/polyester blend fabrics. Our team obtained a very favorable settlement for the client. In the Matter of Certain Woven Textile Fabrics and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-976.
• Represented Thunderbird Films, Inc., a Canadian production company, in a case brought regarding the originality of a broadcast television program and allegedly unfair methods of competition. The ITC ruled that Complainant’s copyright was not infringed by The Walt Disney Co. and Thunderbird Films, granting a motion to dismiss Emir Tiar and E.T. Radcliffe's claims as a matter of law. In the Matter of Certain TV Programs, Literary Works for TV Production and Episode Guides Pertaining to Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-886.
• Represented two respondents in a Section 337 investigation based on a complaint filed by Seiko Epson Corporation, et al. In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-565. Represented the same clients when a second printer company (Canon) subsequently initiated its own ITC action.

Our experience also includes achieving negative injury determinations at the ITC for:

• Certain Steel Nails from India – Preliminary (2014)
• Certain Steel Nails from Turkey – Preliminary (2014)
• Hardwood Plywood from China – Final (2013)
• Fasteners from China – Preliminary (2010)
• Allura Red from India – Preliminary (2003)
• Pigment Dispersions from India – Preliminary (2003)
• DAS Chemistry from China and India – Preliminary (2003)
• Oil Country Tubular Goods from India – Final (2002)
• Synthetic Rubber from Mexico – Final (1999)