U.S. ITC Section 337

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 Flash-Spun Nonwoven Materials and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1424): Representing Complainants DuPont de Nemours, Inc., DuPont Safety & Construction, Inc., and DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC in their action for trade secret misappropriation, wrongful use and exploitation of stolen DuPont confidential and proprietary information, and infringement of DuPont’s federally registered trademarks. The case is currently in its initial discovery stages and is scheduled for trial in September 2025.
• Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1392): Representing Complainant PAX Labs, Inc. in a multi-patent infringement action against foreign manufacturer and its related entities ALD Group Limited and ALD (Hong Kong) Holdings Limited and distributors/retailers in the United States - STIIIZY IP LLC f/k/a STIIIZY LLC and STIIIZY Inc. d/b/a Shryne Group Inc. Our attorneys defeated Respondents’ motions for summary determination and successfully precluded certain defenses through motions in limine. The case has been presented for trial and is pending before ALJ Moore awaiting his initial determination, which is due in March 2025. 
• Certain Pick-Up Truck Folding Bed Cover Systems and Components Thereof (III) (337-TA-1353): Defended group of Respondents (Jiaxing Kscar Auto Accessories Co., Ltd. MOSTPLUS Auto, OEDRO, Future Trucks, Wenzhou Tianmao and DNA Motoring/Auto Dynasty) in Investigation involving two patents asserted against our clients. We guided our clients through quick re-design efforts and successfully negotiated exits from the case for our clients.
• Certain Oil-Vaping Cartridges (337-TA-1286): Representing Complainant Shenzhen Smoore Technology Ltd. in patent infringement and unfair import investigation. Convinced the ITC to institute an Investigation and reject Respondents’ arguments concerning public interest and the domestic industry economic prong at the outset. Early wins include consent order stipulations and settlement agreements to cease U.S. imports of the accused products. The ITC found in favor of Smoore on trademark issues but against Smoore on the patent issues. This is the first U.S. ITC Section 337 Investigation in which the sole Complainant is located in China.
• Certain Portable Battery Jump Starters, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1256): Defended Respondent Schumacher Electric Corp. in patent infringement Investigation involving lithium battery-powered portable battery jump starters filed by The NOCO Company. Successfully, guided Schumacher toward a design-around product that was not accused of infringement and Schumacher was successfully dismissed from the case during trial.
• Certain Vehicle Control Systems, Vehicles Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1235): Defended Dana in response to subpoena served upon it. Filed Motion to Quash and Limit Subpoena and negotiated a solution that reduced the burdens on the client and satisfied the parties serving the subpoena. The Complainants and Respondents eventually settled this case prior to a final determination.
• Certain Video Processing Devices(337-TA-1222): Representing TCL Technology Group—among Forbes Global 2000 listing of the world’s largest public companies—and seven of its Vietnamese, American and Chinese subsidiaries defending against a four-patent, 50-claim investigation related to Digital Rights Management for smart televisions. Successfully beat back all but six claims of two patents prior to the hearing. At trial in July 2021, pressed defenses including non-infringement, invalidity, and lack of domestic industry. Settled favorably after the hearing.
• 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 led the patentee to withdraw its complaint and terminate the investigation before trial, resulting in total victory for DuPont.
• Certain Vehicular Smartwatch Systems(DN 3093): Defended Respondent General Motors Company and OnStar in multi-forum litigation resulting in complainant's swift voluntary withdrawal of allegations prior to institution of the case
• Certain Balanced Armature Devices, Products Containing the Same and Components Thereof (337-TA-1186): Defended Respondent Bellsing in trade secret misappropriation case. Due to Covid 19’s impact on its sales and inability to fund a legal defense, our law firm withdrew from the case and Bellsing discontinued participation in the Investigation.
• Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-1149): We defended Respondents Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunication Corp., Ltd. and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., two large Shenzhen and Dongguan based telecommunication companies, in the ITC Section 337 investigation involving five U.S. Patents Nos. 6,583,012; 6,797,572; 7,009,226; 7,880,236; and 9,373,548. We successfully defended OPPO and OnePlus in the investigation related to the chipset fabrication techniques. The case was settled on favorable terms, with no imports being prohibited.
• Certain Pickup Truck Folding Bed Cover Systems and Components Thereof (337‐TA-1143): Defended Respondent Chinese manufacturer Changzhou Sunwood International Trading Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement investigation. We successfully forced the complaint to withdraw a temporary exclusion order (TEO) request, provided a feasible design around and obtained a favorable settlement with the complainant so that Sunwood can continue the distribution of its design around in the U.S. market.
• 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 LED Lighting Devices, LED Power Supplies, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1081): Defended Respondent Topaz Lighting Corp. in multi-patent infringement suit filed by Philips Lighting North and Philips Lighting Holding BV Corp. The case settled favorably for our client.
• Certain Reusable Diapers Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1077): Defended Respondent Chinese manufacturer Shenzhen Adsel Trading Co., Ltd and Huizhou Huapin Garment Co., Ltd, in investigation involving one U.S. Patent No. 8,518, 007 and one U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 4,120,270. We successfully forced the complaint to withdraw the case after locating invalidating prior art and severely challenged the validity of the patent-in-suit and the validity of the trademark-in-suit.
• Certain Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof Such as Spare Parts (337-TA-1057): Successfully defended Robotics USA with respect to subpoena served by Respondents in patent-based case filed by Complainant iRobot Corporation.
• Certain Electrical Connectors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1043): Successfully defended subpoena recipient General Motors LLC in patent-based case filed by Complainant J.S.T. Corporation.
• 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 Semiconductor Devices (337-TA-1010): Defended Respondent ASUS (Taiwain) in a patent infringement investigation related to semiconductor chip packaging technology. Settled favorably after ITC hearing.
• Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof (337‐TA‐994): Defended Respondent ZTE against Complainant Creative Technology Ltd. and Creative Labs, Inc. and, in 100‐day proceeding, convinced ITC that the claims of Creative’s U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming non‐patentable subject matter and investigation was terminated with finding of no violation of section 337.
• 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 Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras and Components Thereof (337-TA-907): Along with co-counsel at Lathrop & Gage, successfully defended Respondent TRW Automotive in an ITC case filed by Magna Electronics, Inc. in retaliatory counter-suit investigation involving technology used for driver assistance systems and autonomous vehicles. The ITC ruled for our client TRW with respect to all patents in suit and no exclusion order was issued.
• Certain Vision-Based Driver Assistance System Cameras and Components Thereof (337-TA-899) Along with co-counsel at Lathrop & Gage, represented Complainant TRW Automotive U.S. LLC in patent-infringement Investigation against Magna Electronics, Inc. involving technology used for driver assistance systems and autonomous vehicles. We defeated a request by Respondent to initiate a 100-day proceeding during the Investigation and a request to consolidate this Investigation with the counter-suit Investigation in 337-TA-907. TRW sought a stay of the Investigation to pursue foreign discovery in Israel involving source code and algorithms via letter of request from the Federal District Court issued to the supplier of electronic processor/controller chips used in both Respondent’s and Complainant’s products involved in the pending Investigation. Eventually, as a result of other actions in Federal Court in which similar foreign discovery was sought, the client’s ITC case became moot, and the client withdrew the complaint. 
• Certain Thermal Support Devices for Infants, Infant Incubators, Infant Warmers, and Components Thereof (337-TA-896) Defended Respondent Atom Medical International Inc., a Japanese producer of infant incubators and warmers, against complainant German company, Draeger Medical Systems Inc. Shortly after discovery commenced the case was settled favorably for our client.
• Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components (337‐TA‐ 868): Defended Respondent ZTE against Complainant InterDigital Communications, LLC (“IDC”), InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. in case involving standard essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND issues and convinced ITC that asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966; 8,286,847 and 7,941,151 were not infringed by ZTE, that the domestic industry articles do not practice the asserted patents and that claim 16 of asserted U.S. patent No. 7,941,151 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The investigation was terminated with a finding of no violation of section 337.
• Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Tablet Computers, Media Players, and Televisions, and Components Thereof (337-TA-862): Defended ZTE in response to subpoena and Letter of Request pursuant to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters served upon it by Respondent Samsung in a case filed by Ericsson. The case eventually settled between the parties.
• Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same and Products Containing Same (337-TA-855) Defended Respondent Skull Candy against complainant Hitachi’s assertions of patent infringement and coverage of the Investigation to our client’s downstream earphones and ear buds. The case settled favorably for our client.
• Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof (337‐ TA‐853): Defended Respondent ZTE against Complainant Technology Properties Ltd., LLC (“TPL”), Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC and Patriot Scientific Corp. and convinced ITC that asserted U.S. patent No. 5,809,336 is not infringed, directly or indirectly, by ZTE and succeeding in convincing the ITC that no Section 337 violation has occurred.
• Certain Electronic Devices For Capturing And Transmitting Images, and Components Thereof (337-TA-831): Represented Complainant Eastman Kodak Company in multi-patent infringement suit against Apple and HTC. The case settled favorably for our client.
• Certain Electric Fireplaces, Components Thereof, and Manuals for Same, Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same, And Products Containing Same II (337-TA-826) Represented Complainant Twin-Star International, Inc. and TS Investment Holding Corp. in trade secret misappropriation, unfair trade practices and copyright infringement action against infringing producer in China and importers in the United States. The U.S. Respondent agreed to abandon the accused product via consent order stipulation, and we prevailed against the remaining parties and an exclusion order was issued against them.
• 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 Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (337‐ TA‐800): Defended Respondent ZTE against Complainant InterDigital Communications, LLC (“IDC”), InterDigital Technology Corporation and IPR Licensing, Inc. in case involving standard essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND issues and convinced ITC that asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,970,127; 7,536,013 and 7,616,970 are invalid in view of prior art and that asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,706,830; 8,009,636; 7,502,406 and 7,706,332 are not infringed by ZTE. The investigation resulted in a finding of no violation of section 337. We also prevailed in the appeal by IDC to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (337-TA-797): Defended Elo TouchSystems in response to subpoena served upon it by Respondents HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc. and Exedea, Inc. in multi-patent suit filed by Apple. The parties eventually settled.
• Certain Electric Fireplaces, Components Thereof, Manuals for Same, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same (337-TA-791): Represented Complainant Twin-Star International, Inc. and TS Investment Holding Corp. in trade secret misappropriation, unfair trade practices and copyright infringement action against infringing producer in China and importers in the United States. The U.S. Respondent agreed to abandon the accused product via consent order stipulation, and we prevailed against the remaining parties and an exclusion order was issued against them.
• Certain Equipment for Communications Networks, Including Switches, Routers Gateways, Bridges, Wireless Access Points, Cable Modems, IP Phones and Products Containing Same (337-TA-778): Defended Tyco Electronics in response to subpoena served upon it in this multi-patent suit. The case eventually settled between the parties.
• 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.
• Set Top Boxes, and Hardware and Software Components Thereof (337-TA-761): Along with co-counsel at Irell & Manella, defended Respondent TiVo against patent infringement case by Microsoft. We defended TiVo through trial and the case settled favorably for the client prior to issuance of the ALJ’s Initial Determination.
• Reduced Ignition Proclivity Cigarette Paper Wrappers and Products Containing Same (337-TA-756): Defended third-party witness and recipient of a subpoena from the ITC throughout discovery and trial on the merits. We aided and assisted the named Respondent in defending against the case, and ultimately, we were successful in preventing any finding of a violation of section 337.
• Video Game Systems and Controllers (337-TA-743): Along with co-counsel at Lanier Law Firm, defended Complainant start up Motiva, Inc. as ITC counsel with Lanier law firm in patent infringement action against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc. covering video game products. The ITC decided against Motiva.
• 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.
• Surface Mount MEMS Microphones and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-700): Along with co-counsel at Dykema Gossett, we defended Respondent Knowles Electronics LLC in retaliatory countersuit filed by Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI) involving MEMS microphone packages. Despite successfully petitioning for review and reversing some of the ALJ’s findings in the initial determinations, the Commission ultimate decided against Knowles and issued an exclusion order; however, the parties settled this case along with several other pending litigations against each other soon thereafter.
• Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-695): Along with co-counsel at Dykema Gossett, represented Complainant Knowles Electronics LLC as ITC counsel in patent infringement action against Analog Devices Inc. (ADI) on MEMS microphone packages. The case involved a rare motion for temporary exclusion order (TEO), which was denied. The case was ultimately decided against Knowles.
• Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (337-TA-685): With co-counsel at McDermott Will & Emery, defended Respondents Alpine Electronics and Alpine Electronics of America in patent infringement case filed by Samsung Electronics involved allegedly infringing Spansion chips. Complainant decided to withdraw its allegations with respect to the clients and moved to dismiss the client from the case.
• 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.
• Active Comfort Footwear (337-TA-660): Defended Respondent RYN Korea Co., Ltd. against patent infringement allegations brought by Masai Marketing & Trading AG and Masai USA Corp. involving rocker-sole shoes. Soon after we filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement, the case settled favorably for the client.
• Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-657): Defended Respondent Alpine Electronics, Inc. and Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. in multi-patent infringement action. The case settled favorably for our client.
• Cast Steel Railway Wheels, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing Same (337‐TA‐655): We successfully represented Complainant Amsted Industries Inc. and its affiliated entities in China, Datong ABC Castings Company Limited (“DACC”) and Xinyang Amsted Tonghe Wheels Company Limited (“Tonghe”) in investigation asserting trade secret misappropriation and prevailed in the proceeding finding violation of section 337 and imposing exclusion orders against respondents. We also prevailed in the appeal by TianRui at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Base Stations and Wireless Microphones (337-TA-653): Defended Respondents International Science Ventures, Co. Ltd (ISV), KCI Communications Inc. and Telex Communications Inc. in patent infringement suit filed by L-3 Mobile Vision. The clients filed consent order stipulations to be terminated from the case.
• Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (337-TA-629): Represented Complainant Knowles Electronics LLC as ITC counsel along with co-counsel at Dykema Gossett in patent infringement action against MEMS Technology Berhand. We were successful in demonstrating infringement and withstanding validity challenges and an exclusion order was issued after a violation of section 337 was found.
• Base Plugs (337-TA-622): Defended Respondents Schutt Sports, Inc. and East Texas Sports Center, Inc. in patent infringement action filed by Anchor Sports I, Inc. The case settled favorably for our clients.
• Certain Computer Systems, Printers and Scanners (337-TA-618): Defended Alps Electric (North America) Inc. and Alps Electric (USA) Inc. in response to subpoena served upon it by Respondent Hewlett-Packard in suit filed by Acer Inc. The parties eventually settled the case.
• Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same (337-TA-615): Assisted co-counsel at McNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helgren defend Respondent Designers Edge in patent-infringement suit involving 6 Asserted Patents filed by Pass & Seymour. The ITC found a violation of Section 337 and issued limited exclusion orders.
• Magnifying Loupe Products and Components Thereof (337-TA-611): Along with co-counsel at Gifford Krass Sprinkle Anderson & Citkowski, represented Complainant General Scientific Corporation in multi-patent suit against Respondents Sheervision, Inc and Nanjing Jijiahe I/E Co. After Sheervision signed settlement agreement and consent order stipulation, the remaining respondent defaulted and we were successful in finding a violation of Section 337 and obtaining an exclusion order against imports.
• Certain Semiconductor Devices, DMA Systems, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-607): Defended Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. by successfully moving to quash subpoena served upon it by Complainant Samsung Electronics in its suit against Renesas. The parties eventually settled the case.
• 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 against all non-settling respondents.
• Certain Laminated Floor Panels(337-TA-545): Our attorney, while at a previous firm, 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 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. 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 
• Certain Network Communications Systems for Optical Networks(337‐TA‐535): Represented Respondent Nortel and obtained summary determination in Nortel's favor.
• Rubber Antidegradants, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-533): Our attorney, while at a previous law firm, defended Respondent Stolt Nielson and moved for summary determination based on failure to satisfy the importation requirement and, in response, Complainant Flexsys America LLP jointly moved to terminate our client from the case.
• Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-525): Our attorney, while at a prior law firm, represented Complainant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Inc. (TSMC) against Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) in ITC as part of a large-scale, multi-jurisdiction litigation. The Investigation involved allegations of trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement of multiple patens and other unfair acts in import trade. On the eve of trial before the ALJ, the case settled favorably for our client.
• 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.
• Automated Mechanical Transmission Systems for Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks (337-TA-503, and combined enforcement/advisory opinion proceeding and Customs enforcement proceeding appeal to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT)): Defended Respondents ZF Friedrichshafen AG and ArvinMeritor, Inc. against Eaton Corp. in multi-patent case. We succeeded in dismissing or prevailing on 75 out of the 76 claims in the 6 patents asserted at the outset of the case and successfully worked with the clients to design around the one remaining claim such that none of our clients’ products were halted at the border due to the limited exclusion order that issued in the case. We then successfully defended our clients in an Advisory Opinion and Enforcement Proceeding covering the redesign and in proceedings before U.S. Customs & Border Protection and appeals thereof to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).
• 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(DN 2404): Represented Complainant Yamaha Musical Instruments against foreign importers of gray market goods. Settled favorably before institution.
• Home Vacuum Packaging Machines (337-TA-496): Defended Respondents the Rival Company and the Holmes Group against Tilia Inc. and Tilia International Inc. in patent infringement action that involved a temporary exclusion order (TEO) motion. We prevailed against the TEO in the temporary relief proceeding and, during the full proceeding, the parties settled favorably for our clients.
• Coamaxiclav Products, Potassium Clavulanate Products, and Other Products Derived From Clavulanic Acid (337-TA-479): Our attorney, while at a prior law firm, defended Respondents Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Biochemie S.p.A. and Biochemie GmbH against trade secret misappropriation and unfair practices claims of Complainants Glaxo Smith Kline Corporation and Smith Kline Beecham Corporation. After a number of successful motions, including one motion to dismiss certain claims, the parties settled favorably for our clients.
• Recordable Compact Disks and Rewritable Compact Discs (337-TA-474): Our attorney, while at a prior law firm, defended Respondents STI Certified Products Inc., U.S. Digital Media Inc., Bregusa Micro International LLC in a patent infringement action filed by Complainant U.S. Philips Corp. We succeeded in obtaining grant of consent order stipulations over Complainant’s opposition to terminate the case as to our clients.
• Bearings and Packaging Thereof (337-TA-469): Our attorney, while at a prior law firm, defended a number of Respondents, including McGuire Bearing Co., against the largest antifriction bearing producer in the world, SKF. We disproved the gray market trademark, and unfair competition claims and succeeded in proving no violation of Section 337. We also prevailed on appeal to the U.S. Court of appeals for the Federal Circuit and in challenging certiorari on further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Certain Bar Clamps, Bar Clamp Pads, Related Packaging, and Display Materials (337-TA-429): With co-counsel at Miller & Chevalier represented Complainants American Tool Companies and Petersen Manufacturing in patent infringement suit against Wolfcraft GmbH and Wolfcraft, Inc. The case settled favorably for the client.
• Certain Two-Handle Centerset Faucets and Escutcheons, and Components Thereof (337-TA-422): Defended Respondent Hometek International Group (Taiwan) in patent lawsuit filed by Moen Inc. Through consent order stipulation, the client was dismissed from the case.
• Agricultural Tractors Under 50 Power Take-Off Horsepower (337-TA-380): Our attorney helped staff this Investigation while he was inside the ITC employed in the Office of General Counsel and the previously assigned attorney went on extended leave. He drafted memoranda to the Commissioners and decisions and notices of the ITC and advised the Commissioners on their decisions. The Investigation involved allegations of common law gray market goods trademark infringement. The ITC issued an exclusion order and cease and desist order.
• Asian Style Kamaboko Fish Cakes (337-TA-378): Our attorney handled this Investigation while he was inside the ITC employed in the Office of General Counsel, drafted memoranda to the Commissioners and decisions and notices of the ITC and advised the Commissioners on their decisions and determinations in the case. The Investigation involved allegations of common law and registered trademark infringement. The ITC issued an exclusion order and cease and desist order. 
• Neodymium-Iron-Boron Magnets, Magnet Alloys, and Articles Containing Same (337-TA-372): Our attorney handled this Investigation while he was inside the ITC employed in the Office of General Counsel, drafted memoranda to the Commissioners and decisions and notices of the ITC and advised the Commissioners on their decisions and determinations in the case. The Investigation eventually also resulted in an enforcement proceeding. The Investigation involved allegations of patent infringement. The ITC issued consent orders excluding accused products based on consent order stipulations signed by the Respondents.
• Salinomycin Biomass and Preparations Containing Same (337-TA-370) (temporary exclusion order (TEO) proceeding): Our attorney helped staff this Investigation during the TEO proceeding while he was inside the ITC employed in the Office of General Counsel. The motion for TEO was withdrawn shortly before the TEO hearing. In the full proceeding, the Commission found no violation of section 337 and, therefore, issued no relief. 
• Bulk Bags and Process for Making Same (337-TA-338): While serving as Attorney-Advisor in the ITC’s Office of General Counsel, our attorney was assigned to this case, drafted memoranda to the Commissioners and decisions and notices of the ITC and advised the Commissioners on their decisions and determinations in the case.
• Certain Integrated Circuit Telecommunication Chips and Products Containing Same Including Dialing Apparatus (337-TA-337): Represented Complainant SGS-Thompson Microelectronics in patent infringement suit against 12 Respondents in Taiwan, Hong Kong and the United States - prevailed in showing a violation of Section 337 through infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,446,436. The ITC issued exclusion orders and cease and desist orders against the infringing Respondents.
• Translucent Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets (337-TA-332): While serving as Attorney-Advisor in the ITC’s Office of General Counsel, our attorney was assigned to this case, drafted memoranda to the Commissioners and decisions and notices of the ITC and advised the Commissioners on their decisions and determinations in the case.