About Banner

International Trade Commission Proceedings

Sign Up for Publications

High stakes, international IP disputes almost invariably include one or more “Section 337” investigations at the International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  As intellectual property disputes become increasingly technical, complex, and important, sophisticated companies have realized that the ITC’s accelerated time to hearing and resolution and its arsenal of far-reaching remedies, including orders excluding products from importation into the United States, provide an effective alternative or supplement to U.S. District Court proceedings.  The result is that domestic and foreign companies now choose to litigate their disputes at the ITC in unprecedented numbers. 

Quinn Emanuel is one of the few major law firms that has a dedicated ITC team with extensive knowledge and experience in navigating the unique and complex procedural and technical issues that arise in Section 337 litigation, including the unwritten rules for this process.  Our success litigating at the ITC is a result of our expertise in and understanding of the ITC’s unique procedural rules, body of law, evidentiary hearings, administrative law judges, office of unfair import investigations, and interaction with other agencies such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Our ITC group has received numerous accolades, including being named Managing IP’s “ITC Firm of the Year” in two consecutive years. 

Our ITC group is led by nationally-ranked ITC expert Alex Lasher, who has practiced before the ITC for more than twenty years, representing complainants, respondents, and third parties in more than ninety Section 337 investigations.  Another ITC expert, Kevin Chu, has more than eight years of experience in ITC matters and has represented litigants and third parties in more than thirty Section 337 investigations.  Messrs. Lasher and Chu and our other similarly accomplished partners have successfully represented companies in all aspects of Section 337 investigations, including initiating counter-investigations or actions in other venues, working with engineers to develop design-arounds, formulating public interest and FRAND arguments, coordinating with Customs, and enforcing exclusion orders.

ITC proceedings are often just one front in large intellectual property disputes that involve related actions in many different jurisdictions.  A major advantage that our ITC team has over others is that it overlaps with and is supported by Quinn Emanuel’s feared IP group.  Our world-class litigators work hand-in-glove with clients to achieve significant victories while minimizing management distraction.

We have led “bet-the-company” litigations in numerous intellectual property disputes, no matter the size or the level of technical complexity, and nowhere does this statement ring truer than at the ITC.

READ MORE

Recent Representations

Some of our notable representatives in the ITC include:

  • Certain Wireless Front-End Modules, Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 (2024). We represent respondent Ruijie Networks in a patent-based investigation brought by Skyworks.  The investigation is in discovery with trial set for May 2025.
  • Certain Storage Containers and Toolboxes, Organizers, Component Boxes, Coolers, and Accessories Used Therewith, Inv. No. 337-TA-1409 (2024). We represent respondent Klein Tools in a patent-based investigation brought by Milwaukee Tools and Keter.  The investigation is in discovery with trial set for February 2025.
  • Certain Cameras, Camera Systems, and Accessories Used Therewith, Inv. No. 337-TA-1400 (2024). We represent complainant GoPro in a patent-based investigation against Insta360.  The investigation is in discovery with trial set for January 2025.
  • Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1378 (2023). We represent complainant Samsung Display in a trade secret investigation against the BOE responds over theft of trade secrets related to OLED displays.  Trial is set to begin in October 2024.
  • Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1368 (2023). We represent complainants JUUL Labs and VMR Products in a patent-based investigation against NJOY and Altria.  On August 23, 2024 the ALJ issued an initial determination finding a violation on all asserted claims of all asserted patents.  The target date for the investigation is December 23, 2024.
  • Certain LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1363 (2023). We represented respondent Hesai Group and its affiliates in a patent-based investigation brought by Ouster Inc.  On August 24, 2023, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination dismissing the investigation in its entirety based on a prior arbitration agreement between Hesai and Velodyne Lidar, a company that merged with Ouster prior to Ouster’s Section 337 Complaint.  On October 16, 2023, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision and terminated the investigation.  
  • Certain Video Processing Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1343 (2023). We represented respondent Vizio in a patent-based investigation brought by DivX and guided the case toward a favorable settlement. 
  • Certain Botulinum Toxin Products and Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1313 (2022). We represent complainant Medytox in a trade secret-based investigation against Croma Pharma and Hugel.  The trial is set for February 2024.
  • Certain Power Semiconductors, and Mobile Devices and Computers Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1308 (2022). We represented respondent Samsung in a patent-based investigation brought by Arigna Technology and guided the case toward a favorable settlement.
  • Certain Barcode Scanners, Mobile Computers with Barcode Scanning Capabilities, Scan Engines, RFID Printers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1306 (2022). We represented complainant Zebra Technologies in a patent-based investigation against Honeywell.  The case settled during the discovery period.
  • Certain Barcode Scanners, Mobile Computers With Barcode Scanning Capabilities, Scan Engines, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1307 (2022). We represented complainant Zebra Technologies in a second patent-based investigation against Honeywell.  The case settled during the discovery period.
  • Certain Wet Dry Surface Cleaning Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1304 (2022). We represent complainant BISSELL in a patent-based investigation against Tineco.  On March 24, 2023, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding a violation of Section 337 by Tineco as to some of the asserted patents.  The Commission’s final determination is expected to issue in December 2023.
  • Certain Integrated Circuit Products and Devices Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1295 (2021). We represented respondents Google and Qualcomm in a patent-based investigation brought by Future Link Systems and guided the case toward a favorable settlement. 
  • Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Electronic Devices, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1287 (2021). We represented respondent MediaTek in a patent-based investigation brought by NXP and guided the case toward a favorable settlement.
  • Certain Barcode Scanners, Mobile Computers With Barcode Scanning Capabilities, Scan Engines, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1285 (2021). We represented Zebra Technologies in a patent-based investigation brought by Honeywell regarding barcode scanning technology.  The case settled shortly after expert discovery.
  • Certain Video Security Equipment and Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1281 (2021). We represented respondent Verkada, Inc. in a patent-based investigation brought by Avigilon and Motorola Solutions.  On October 24, 2022, the ALJ issued an initial determination holding several claims of one asserted patent invalid and finding no violation as to the remaining patents.  The Commission affirmed that determination on April 19, 2023.
  • Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1272 (2021). We represented complainant MediaTek in a patent-based investigation against NXP and guided the case toward a favorable settlement following trial in April 2022.
  • Certain Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules with Nanostructures, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1271 (2021). We represented solar manufacturing giant Hanwha in a patent-based investigation brought by Advanced Silicon Group Technologies.  Trial was held in April 2022.  In September 2022, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that Hanwha did not infringe any of the asserted patents and that no orders should issue against Hanwha.  On March 3, 2023, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s initial determination.
  • Certain Wearable Electronic Devices With ECG Functionality and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1266 (2021). We represent complainant AliveCor in a patent-based investigation against Apple.  Trial was held in March 2022.  In June 2022, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding a violation of Section 337 and recommending the issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against Apple.  On January 20, 2023, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s initial determination but stayed enforcement of its decision pending the outcome of separate invalidity proceedings currently pending before the Federal Circuit.
  • Certain LTE-Compliant Cellular Communication Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1253 (2021). We represented respondent Samsung in a patent-based investigation brought by Evolved Wireless.  One month before trial was scheduled to begin, Evolved withdrew its complaint against Samsung in its entirety.
  • Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1222 (2020). We represented respondent MediaTek in a patent-based investigation brought by complainant DivX and guided the case toward a favorable settlement.
  • Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Fixtures, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1213 (2020). We represented complainant Cree Lighting in a patent-based investigation against respondent RAB Lighting. The evidentiary hearing was completed in May 2021. In December 2021, the Commission issued our requested exclusion order against RAB. 
  • Certain Vaporizer Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1211 (2020). We represented complainant Juul Labs in a design patent-based investigation against nearly 50 respondents. In February 2022, the Commission issued our requested general exclusion order. 
  • Certain Audio Players and Controllers, Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1191 (2020). We represented respondent Google in a patent-based investigation brought by complainant Sonos, Inc.  The evidentiary hearing was completed in February 2021. In January 2022, the Commission issued an opinion blessing our design-arounds for each asserted patent, which allowed Google to continue business as usual.
  • Certain Rotating 3-D LiDAR Devices and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1173 (2020). We represented respondent Hesai Photonics in a patent-based investigation brought by complainant Velodyne Lidar, Inc. The parties settled while motions for summary determination were pending.
  • Certain Light Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1168 (2020). We represent respondent Cree in a patent-based investigation brought by complainant LSG. One asserted patent was terminated on summary determination before the evidentiary hearing. We obtained victories on the other two patents following the evidentiary hearing. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s initial determination of no violation, and the case is on appeal at the Federal Circuit.  
  • Certain LED Packages Containing PFS Phosphor and Products Containing Same, No. 337-TA-1156 (2019). We represented respondent Cree in a patent infringement action filed by General Electric (“GE”).  GE alleged that certain of Cree’s LED lighting products were covered by GE’s patents.  After quickly identifying to GE several key issues in the relief that it sought, we were able to resolve this case through an effective early settlement on behalf of Cree.   
  • Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof (II), No. 337-TA-1093 (2019). We acted as lead counsel for Qualcomm in a patent infringement action against Apple.  Qualcomm alleged that Apple engaged in the unlawful importation and sale of iPhones that infringe one or more claims of five Qualcomm patents covering key technologies that enable important features and function in the iPhones.  After a seven-day hearing, the ALJ issued an Initial Determination finding for Qualcomm on all issues related to one of the patent claims and recommended that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order with respect to the accused iPhone devices.  The order, if adopted by the Commission, would have resulted in the exclusion of all iPhones and iPads without Qualcomm baseband processors from being imported into the United States.  The case settled shortly after the ALJ recommended the exclusion order.
  • Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1058 (2019).  We represented Sony in a multifront battle against Fujifilm arising from Fujifilm’s anticompetitive conduct seeking to exclude Sony from the Linear Tape-Open (“LTO”) magnetic tape market.  LTO tape products are used to store large quantities of data by companies in a wide range of industries, including health care, education, finance, and banking.  Sony filed a complaint in the ITC seeking an exclusion order of Fujifilm’s products based on its infringement of three Sony patents covering various aspects of magnetic data storage technology.  In August 2018, the ALJ issued the initial determination finding multiple Section 337 violations by Fujifilm. In March 2019, the full Commission of the ITC affirmed Sony’s victory in all respects and issued exclusion orders barring Fujifilm’s magnetic tape products from being imported into the US.
  • Certain Graphics Processors and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1099 (2019). We represented NVIDIA Corporation, a pioneering developer of graphics processing technology, and a number of its customers (ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, PNY, Zotac, and EVGA), in patent infringement actions filed by ZiiLabs in the District of Delaware and the ITC.  ZiiLabs claimed that various NVIDIA GPUs along with graphics cards and computers containing the same infringe eight patents relating to graphics processing and rendering technology.  ZiiLabs previously used its patent portfolio to sue and obtain substantial settlements from Apple, Samsung, ARM, AMD, Sony, Qualcomm, Lenovo, MediaTek, and LG. The ALJ terminated one of the four asserted patents from the ITC investigation, denied ZiiLabs’ Motion for Summary Determination, denied all relevant portions of ZiiLabs’ motion to strike our expert reports, and granted large portions of our own motion to strike, which included striking the vast majority of ZiiLabs’ validity case for one of the three remaining patents.  On the eve of trial—with multiple, case dispositive, motions for summary determination pending—the parties resolved the multiple pending actions on confidential terms.
  • Certain Modular LED Display Panels and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1114 (2019). We secured a full dismissal of all the claims against Ledman Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. in an ITC investigation launched by Ultravision Technologies, Inc. in March 2018 against 44 respondents.  Ultravision accused Ledman’s LED modules, which are used in large indoor and outdoor digital displays around the world, of patent infringement.  We were the lone respondent to develop and assert defenses of improper inventorship and inequitable conduct against Ultravision at the outset, and we later led the effort to aggressively pursue these defenses during the investigation.  Facing a court order granting Ledman’s motion to compel emails and depositions related to the defenses, Ultravision voluntarily dismissed its complaint and filed a motion to terminate the investigation.
  • Certain Microfluidic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1068 (2018). We obtained a complete trial victory for Bio-Rad in a patent infringement action against 10X Genomics relating to microfluidic devices.  The ALJ’s initial determination found that 10X infringed three of Bio-Rad’s asserted patents and recommended exclusion of 10X’s products.  The Commission issued an exclusion order in late 2019.
  • Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components (I), Inv. No. 337-TA-1065 (2018). We represented complainant Qualcomm in a patent infringement action against Apple.  The ALJ issued an initial determination finding a Section 337 violation and that Apple infringed one of Qualcomm’s asserted patents.  Although the Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding of violation, the parties settled shortly thereafter, obviating the need for any further appellate action.
  • Organik Kimya v. ITC, Case No. 15-1774 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  We obtained an important victory in the Federal Circuit for Dow Chemical, upholding the ITC’s entrance of judgment against Organik Kimya and an unprecedented 25-year exclusion order and $2 million sanction as a result of our opponent’s extensive discovery abuses.
  • Certain Flash Memory Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1034 (2017). We represented third party Samsung in a patent infringement action between Memory Technologies LLC and SanDisk and Western Digital.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1038/1039 (2017). We represented third party Samsung in patent infringement actions between Nokia and Apple.  The cases settled.
  • Certain Graphics Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-1044 (2017). We represented third party Samsung in a patent infringement action between ATI and multiple electronics companies. 
  • Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002 (2016). We represented complainant S. Steel against a host of Chinese steel manufacturers and importers in an action based on price-fixing, false designation of origin, and trade secret misappropriation. 
  • Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1023 (2016). We represented third party Samsung in a patent infringement action between Netlist and SK Hynix. 
  • Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-965 (2016). We represented complainant SawStop, LLC in a patent infringement action against German entity Robert Bosch GmbH and its subsidiary Robert Bosch Tool Corporation.  An Initial Determination found a violation of Section 337 based on infringement of two asserted SawStop patents.  After the Commission determined not to review an Initial Determination finding a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, we successfully obtained a limited exclusion order on behalf of SawStop.
  • Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-984 (2016). We represented third party Samsung in a patent infringement action between Advanced Silicon Technologies and various automobile manufacturers.  The case settled.
  • Certain Woven Textile Fabrics and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-976 (2015). We obtained a General Exclusion Order on behalf of AAVN in a patent infringement action against numerous respondents.
  • Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-968 (2015). We represented Varian Medical Systems, Inc. in a patent infringement action against Elekta AB, Elekta Ltd. and its subsidiaries.  After a two-week trial, the ALJ issued a final initial determination that Elekta infringed three Varian patents, and recommended that the ITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order covering Elekta’s infringing products.  The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Standard Compliant Electronic Devices, Including Communication Devices and Tablet Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-953 (2015). We represented third party Samsung in a patent infringement action between Apple and Ericsson.  The case settled.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Computers, Tablet Computers, Digital Media Players, and Cameras, Inv. No. 337-TA-952 (2015). We represented third party Samsung in a patent infringement action between Apple and Ericsson.  The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-947 (2015). We represented Cree and brought patent infringement and false advertising claims against Feit Electric Company, Inc. and Unity Opto Technology, Ltd.  After a six-day trial, the ALJ issued a final initial determination that respondents infringed multiple claims of five Cree patents, in addition to finding a violation of the Lanham Act and federal common law of unfair competition, with respect to the false advertising claims.  We also obtained monetary and non-monetary sanctions against Feit for its discovery misconduct.  The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-946 (2015). We represented complainant Seiko Epson against nearly 20 respondents for patent infringement. We obtained an initial determination of violation, which was affirmed by the Commission. The Commission terminated the investigation by granting a general exclusion order for the benefit of Seiko Epson barring the entry of respondent’s infringing ink cartridges, in addition to a cease-and-desist order against two domestic defaulting respondents.
  • Certain Optical Disk Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-897 (2014).  We represented MediaTek in a Section 337 investigation brought by Optical Devices, LLC alleging patent infringement related to optical disk drive technology.  Optical Devices alleged that optical disc drives that used MediaTek’s semiconductor chips infringed its asserted patent and sought an exclusion order on these products based on this alleged infringement.  We obtained a complete victory for MediaTek by winning summary determination of lack of standing before the evidentiary hearing, thereby terminating the Investigation in its entirety. 
  • Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-920 (2014). We represented MediaTek and Sony against patent infringement allegations brought by Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.  The case settled favorably after only a few months.
  • Certain Set-Top Boxes, Gateways, Bridges, and Adapters and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-915 (2014). We represented DIRECTV against patent infringement allegations brought by ViXS Systems, Inc. of Canada. We obtained a walk-away settlement for DIRECTV during early discovery.
  • Certain Navigation Products, Including GPS Devices, Navigation and Display Systems, Radar Systems, Navigational Aids, Mapping Systems and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-900 (2014). We represented complainant Furuno against Garmin, Navico and Raymarine for patent infringement. We settled on very favorable terms prior to the hearing.
  • Certain Optical Disk Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-897 (2014). We represented MediaTek in a Section 337 investigation brought by Optical Devices, LLC alleging patent infringement. The case settled favorably.
  • Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-837 (2014). We represented respondents MediaTek, Ralink and Funai in an investigation brought by LSI and Agere alleging infringement of, among other patents, two patents purportedly relating to 802.11 Wi-Fi technology.  After a trial in April 2013, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that, as a matter of claim construction, neither patent read on the 802.11 standard.  Accordingly, the ALJ found no infringement of any of the 38 asserted claims from these patents. The Commission terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation.
READ MORE
Who Works Here? Take a look and get to know the talented attorneys that are part or our team. LEARN MORE
Who are we? Learn more about our firm and what our attorneys have accomplished. LEARN MORE
Ready to reach out? Locate the contact information for an office near you to get the conversation started. LEARN MORE
sticky image

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, or by clicking ‘accept’ you agree to the use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.

Cookies Settings