Category Archives: International Trade Commission

Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. International Trade Commission (ITC) (Appellee) and Royal DSM NV, et al. (Intervenors)

Docket Nos. 2018-1247 and 2018-114 PROST, WALLACH (D), HUGHES May 1, 2019 Brief summary: ITC decision “that Amarin’s allegations are precluded by the FDCA” affirmed since, e.g., “[p]rivate parties may not bring [FDCA] enforcement suits.” Summary: Amarin, which markets Vascepa … Continue reading

Posted in International Trade Commission | Leave a comment

Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al. v. International Trade Commission (ITC) (Appellee) and Royal DSM NV, et al. (Intervenors) (Docket No. 2018-1247)

Docket Nos. 2018-1247 and 2018-114 PROST, WALLACH (D), HUGHES May 1, 2019 Brief summary: ITC decision “that Amarin’s allegations are precluded by the FDCA” affirmed since, e.g., “[p]rivate parties may not bring [FDCA] enforcement suits.” Summary: Amarin, which markets Vascepa(TM) … Continue reading

Posted in International Trade Commission | Leave a comment

Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. et al. v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC (Appellee)) / Hyosung TNS Inc. et al. (intervenors)

Docket No. 2017-2553 PROST, BRYSON, O’MALLEY August 15, 2018 Brief summary: ITC finding that Diebold violated § 337 by importing components of automated teller machines (“ATMs”) that infringe means-plus-function claims reversed as invalid for indefiniteness (§ 112, para. 6). Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness, International Trade Commission, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. ITC / Arista Networks, Inc. v. ITC

Docket Nos. 2016-2563, -2539 REYNA, SCHALL, WALLACH September 27, 2017 Brief summary: ITC decision that Arista’s importation of switches lacking software infringed (induced and contributory) Cisco’s patents affirmed. Summary: This decision relates to the ITC’s § 337 investigation based on … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Contributory Infringement, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Rivera et al. v. International Trade Commission and Solofill, LLC (Intervenor)

Docket No. 2016-1841 REYNA, LINN, CHEN May 23, 2017 Brief Summary: ITC decision of no § 337 violation because the asserted claims to a beverage brewer are invalid for lack of written description affirmed. Summary: Rivera appealed ITC holding that … Continue reading

Posted in Contributory Infringement, Importation, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, International Trade Commission, Written description | Leave a comment

Suprema, Inc. et al. v. International Trade Commission et al.

Docket No. 2012-1170 En banc opinion (REYNA), DYK(d), O’MALLEY/PROST/LOURIE/DYK (d) August 10, 2015 Revised Sept. 14, 2015: affirmed ITC findings of no infringement of US 7,277,562, infringement of US 5,900,993, and that Appellants failed to prove invalidity of the ‘993 … Continue reading

Posted in Importation, International Trade Commission | Leave a comment

X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. International Trade Commission and Intel Corp. et al.

Docket Nos. 2013-1340 MOORE, REYNA, WALLACH July 7, 2014 Brief Summary: ITC claim construction affirmed based on disavowel in specification that disputed limitation is “an essential element”. Summary: X2Y appealed ITC final determination that Intel did not violate 19 USC … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, International Trade Commission | Leave a comment