Background - Practices (Details)

U.S. International Trade Commission Section 337
Unfair Import Investigations

Representative Engagements

The cases described in the summaries that follow are examples of the experience that Crowell & Moring LLP attorneys have gained during and/or prior to their tenure with the firm.

  • Certain Vacuum Insulated Flasks (337-TA-1216): Represented iconic outdoor equipment brand in a trademark and design patent investigation related to water bottle knockoff imports from China. In less than six months, complainant client won early consent order against an international fashion brand respondent, early settlement with an online marketplace respondent, and a stay of the investigation pending settlement with a manufacturer respondent. All 20 other respondents are in default.
  • Certain Synthetic Roofing Underlayment Products (337-TA-1202): Represented DuPont in a patent infringement investigation related to synthetic roof underlayment products. Won dispositive claim construction for DuPont and co-respondents, which lead the patentee to withdraw its complaint and terminate the investigation before trial, resulting in total victory for DuPont.
  • Certain Pick-Up Truck Folding Bed Covers (337-TA-1188): Represented Chinese manufacturer and popular U.S. retailer in a patent infringement investigation related to pick-up truck folding bed covers.  Beat the complainant on three key procedural motions for our respondent clients, finally resulting in withdrawal of the complaint and termination, a complete defense win.
  • Certain Carburetors (337-TA-1123): Represented Lowe’s, MTD Products and a premier outdoor equipment maker in a patent infringement and importation investigation as to carburetors involving 26 downstream equipment- and retailer-customers. Won termination early-on by consent order for two clients, based on complainant’s stipulation of non-infringement, and summary determination on the eve-of-trial for another.
  • Certain RF Microneedles (337-TA-1112): Represented Lumenis Ltd. and Pollogen Ltd. in a patent infringement investigation related to radio frequency skin treatment devices. Lead defense trial attorney at hearing where judge tentatively ruled the asserted patent was invalid.  Entered favorable settlement with no exclusion after hearing.
  • Certain Wireless Audio Systems (337-TA-1071): Counter-asserted patented streaming audio multimedia technology against opponent in -1010 investigation, seeking to prevent the importation of wireless speakers and other audio systems and settled entire dispute favorably shortly thereafter.
  • Certain Vehicular Smartwatch Systems (337-TA-3093):  Represented General Motors Company and OnStar in multi-forum litigation resulting in complainant's swift voluntary withdrawal of allegations pre-institution.
  • Certain Athletic Footwear (337-TA-1018): Obtained complete victory for a global retailer in a patent infringement and importation investigation related to athletic shoe sole functionality after all respondents ultimately agreed to cease importation of the accused products. Pursued damages in Oregon district court until a favorable settlement was reached.
  • Certain Semiconductor Devices (337-TA-1010): Defended a semiconductor powerhouse and its seven downstream customers in a patent infringement and importation ITC investigation related to semiconductor chip packaging technology. Prevailed in two of three asserted patents at trial and convinced the Commission to review findings on the third patent.
  • Certain Digital Video Receivers (337-TA-1001): Defended a global electronics manufacturer in patent infringement and importation investigation concerning on-screen programing guide technology; completed five-day trial to win final determination of no violation, affirmed by the full Commission. Advocacy continued before U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Circuit as to implications of the no-violation ruling.
  • Certain Sulfentrazone, Sulfentrazone Compositions (337-TA-914): Represented DuPont in hotly contested third-party discovery dispute, limiting testimony to only public information regarding DuPont's products.
  • Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices (337-TA-909): Represented General Motors as a third party presenting public interest testimony at deposition and at the hearing. Parties settled shortly after hearing.
  • Certain Communication Equipment (337-TA-817): Represented respondent Avaya in an investigation related to Power over Ethernet (PoE) features in telephones, switches, and wireless access points. Settled favorably.
  • Certain Automotive GPS Navigation Systems (337-TA-814): Represented General Motors LLC in a patent infringement investigation related to automobiles with in-dash GPS navigation systems. Won dismissal of GM and termination of the investigation after six months, with no exclusion.
  • Certain Polyimide Films (337-TA-772): Represented DuPont in hotly contested third-party discovery dispute, successfully quashing a third-party subpoena for deposition and presenting very limited trial testimony.
  • Certain Adjustable-Height Beds (337-TA-734): Represented Complainant Invacare in a patent investigation related to adjustable hospital beds, resulting in respondent agreeing to never import the accused products into the U.S. during the lifetime of the patent.
  • Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras (337‐TA‐703): Represent complainant Kodak in ITC and parallel district court against respondent RIM.  Settled favorably.
  • Certain Machine Vision Software and Systems (337‐TA‐680): Represented respondents Fuji America Corp. and Fuji Machine Co. in investigation related to machine vision systems. Settled Favorably without exclusion.
  • Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits (337-TA-665): Represented respondent LSI, Inc. against complainant Qimonda AG, obtaining Final Determination of non-infringement on five patents and defeating the complainant's claim of domestic industry.
  • Certain Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof (337‐TA‐582): Represented complainant Caterpillar in an investigation to bar gray market Caterpillar‐branded excavators. Obtained general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
  • Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets (337-TA-543): Represented Intervenor Sprint Nextel Corp. in the investigation brought by Broadcom against Qualcomm related to baseband processor chips used in wireless handsets before Judge Bullock. Lead counsel during the remedy phase, the Presidential Review Period, before IPR at customs, and during the enforcement action. Obtained a stay of the limited exclusion order and won the appeal to the Federal Circuit, resulting in the seminal Kyocera Wireless Corp., et al., v. Int'l Trade Comm'n decision.
  • Certain Laminated Floor Panels (337-TA-545): Represented six of 32 respondents in investigation. Lead counsel at two -week hearing, resulting in a finding of Initial Determination of invalidity of broadest patent.
  • Certain Network Communications Systems for Optical Networks (337‐TA‐535): Represented respondent Nortel and obtained summary determination in Nortel's favor.
  • Certain Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337‐TA‐516): Represented respondent in patent infringement investigation asserting seven patents on components and processes within disc drives. Settled favorably on the eve of the hearing.
  • Certain Automobile Tail Light Lenses (337‐TA‐502): Represented respondent Daimler and successfully obtained summary determination in Daimler's favor before the hearing.
  • Certain Musical Instrument Products (337-TA-XXX): Represented complainant Yamaha Musical Instruments against foreign importers of gray market goods. Settled favorably before institution.