Litigating a Section 337 Investigation at the ITC: A Practical Guide

Summary. How to run a Section 337 case at the pace the Commission actually keeps.

The organizing principle

Everything about Section 337 practice follows from one fact: the Commission does not extend deadlines.

An investigation under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 proceeds to a target date, and the administrative law judge builds a schedule backward from that date. Discovery opens on the day of institution. Responses are due in days. Ground rules govern exhibit formats, deposition hours, and motion practice, and they are enforced.

The consequence for a complainant is that the case must be substantially built before the complaint is filed. The consequence for a respondent is that the first thirty days determine the rest of the investigation. Neither side gets the luxury, familiar from district court, of a year to find out what the case is about.

PART ONE: THE COMPLAINANT, BEFORE FILING

Step 1 — Decide whether the ITC is the right forum

Run this analysis honestly, because a Section 337 complaint that fails the domestic industry test is an expensive way to lose.

Do you have a domestic industry? Not a domestic presence — a domestic industry relating to articles protected by the asserted intellectual property. Under § 337(a)(3), this means significant investment in plant and equipment, significant employment of labor or capital, or substantial investment in engineering, research and development, or licensing.

Can you prove the technical prong? Identify a specific domestic product and confirm it practices at least one asserted claim. If your only domestic articles are made by a licensee, confirm the licensee will cooperate — you will need its technical documents and its witnesses.

Is there importation? Section 337 requires importation, sale for importation, or sale in the United States after importation. A domestically manufactured accused product is outside the statute.

Is exclusion what you actually want? The Commission awards no damages. If your objective is money, file in district court — and probably file both.

Is speed valuable to you? If your product cycle outruns district court, the ITC's schedule is worth its cost. If not, it may not be.

Step 2 — Build the domestic industry record first

This is the step complainants underestimate, and it takes longer than complaint drafting.

The technical prong. Prepare a claim chart mapping a specific domestic product against a specific asserted claim, element by element, supported by engineering documents, schematics, source code, or test data. Confirm that the constructions you will need to reach the accused imports also cover your own product — respondents attack this asymmetry relentlessly.

The economic prong. You need investments allocated to the protected articles, not to the company. Most companies do not maintain data this way. Expect to build:

• Facility costs allocated by square footage or line utilization
• Headcount by function, with time allocation for employees who work across products
• Equipment dedicated to the protected articles, with acquisition cost and depreciation
• R&D expenditures traceable to the asserted technology, from engineering time systems
• Licensing expenditures, distinguishing patent-based licensing from litigation-driven settlement activity

Use contemporaneous records. An allocation built from the company's own accounting and time systems survives cross-examination. One reconstructed by counsel from estimates does not. Start with the controller and the engineering time system, not with a spreadsheet.

Identify your witnesses now. The controller, an engineering manager, and a business executive will testify. Confirm they will be available for depositions and a hearing in Washington on the Commission's schedule.

Step 3 — Build the importation evidence

You must prove the accused articles were imported. Acceptable proof includes:

• Purchase of accused products in the United States, with invoices and shipping documents showing foreign origin
• Product packaging and markings identifying country of origin under 19 U.S.C. § 1304
• Publicly available import data
• Marketplace listings showing shipment from abroad
• Respondent websites and marketing describing foreign manufacturing

Make the purchases yourself and document the chain of custody. Investigators should photograph packaging, retain shipping labels, and preserve the article itself. This evidence goes into the complaint and it will be tested.

Step 4 — Draft the complaint

The ITC complaint is far more substantial than a district court complaint. Under 19 C.F.R. Part 210, it must contain a detailed statement of the facts, claim charts, and extensive supporting exhibits. Contents include:

1. The parties, including a description of the complainant's business and domestic operations
2. The intellectual property asserted, with certified copies of the patents and assignment records
3. The accused products, identified specifically
4. Importation evidence
5. Claim charts for infringement, claim by claim, element by element
6. Domestic industry showing, both prongs, with supporting financial and technical exhibits
7. Related litigation, including any district court cases and PTAB proceedings
8. Licensing history
9. The remedy sought — limited exclusion order, general exclusion order, cease and desist orders
10. A public interest statement
11. Proposed respondents and their addresses for service

File the district court complaint at the same time if you want damages. The respondent will obtain a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, which is fine; the district court case waits, and the ITC record builds it.

Expect a pre-institution review. The Commission's Office of Unfair Import Investigations reviews the complaint for sufficiency and may request supplementation before institution. A complaint with thin domestic industry exhibits will draw questions and delay.

PART TWO: THE RESPONDENT, IN THE FIRST THIRTY DAYS

Step 5 — Triage immediately

Institution occurs about thirty days after filing. The answer is due twenty days after institution. Discovery opens at institution.

Day one: build the calendar. Get the ALJ's ground rules, the procedural schedule, and the target date. Work backward. Identify every deadline for the next nine months and staff to them.

Day one: preserve. Issue a litigation hold covering the accused products, the design history, communications with the complainant, importation records, inventory, and sales data.

Week one: assess jurisdiction. Is there importation? Is the accused product actually yours? Have you been misidentified? Jurisdictional defects are worth raising early because they are dispositive.

Week one: assess domestic industry. This is the complainant's burden and often its weakest point. Serve targeted discovery on the allocation methodology, the identity of the domestic articles, and whether licensing expenditures are patent-based.

Week two: evaluate the 100-day program. If domestic industry or standing is genuinely weak, request expedited adjudication of that issue. A dispositive ruling at day 100 saves a year of expense.

Week two: decide about the district court stay. The 28 U.S.C. § 1659 stay is available as of right. Take it unless you have an affirmative reason to prefer district court — a strong invalidity case with a jury, for example.

Week three: calendar the IPR deadline. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) gives you one year from service of a district court complaint to petition for inter partes review. The ITC complaint does not trigger the bar, but the parallel district court complaint does. This deadline is absolute.

Week four: start the design-around. The remedy is prospective. A redesign that clears the claims neutralizes an exclusion order. Engineering work started in month two can be complete before the order issues; work started after the determination cannot.

Step 6 — Decide whether to appear

A respondent may default. The consequences are significant: a defaulting respondent is subject to relief, and defaults support the "pattern of violation" and "difficulty identifying the source" findings that justify a general exclusion order binding everyone.

A respondent with no United States business and no intention of returning may rationally default. A respondent with a United States market should appear, if only to contest the scope of relief.

PART THREE: DISCOVERY

Step 7 — Work the compressed schedule

Serve on day one. Discovery opens at institution. Requests served in the first week get answers while there is still time to use them.

Know the ground rules. Each ALJ issues ground rules governing deposition hours, document formats, expert disclosure, motion length, meet-and-confer requirements, and exhibit numbering. Violations draw real consequences. Read them before serving anything.

Use the shortened response times. ITC responses are generally due in ten days rather than thirty. Build a document review capacity that can operate at that pace from the start.

Prioritize ruthlessly. There is no time for comprehensive discovery. Complainants need: importation, infringement, inventory (for cease and desist orders), and the respondent's non-infringement and invalidity theories. Respondents need: domestic industry allocation, technical prong documents, prior art, and the complainant's licensing history.

Use subpoenas for third parties. The Commission issues subpoenas for documents and testimony, enforceable in district court. Downstream customers, component suppliers, and licensees are frequent targets. Start early — third-party discovery takes longer than party discovery and the schedule does not accommodate it.

Manage the confidentiality regime. ITC protective orders are strict, and the Commission is serious about breaches. Access is typically limited to outside counsel and retained experts, with in-house counsel excluded or admitted only on specific terms. Set up the document handling protocol before production begins.

Step 8 — Expert work

Experts are needed for infringement, validity, domestic industry (technical), domestic industry (economic), and often public interest and bond.

The economic domestic industry expert is distinctive. This witness explains whether the complainant's investments are "significant" or "substantial" in context — a qualitative judgment informed by industry comparison, company size, and the relationship of the investment to the protected articles. Respondents attack the allocation methodology; complainants defend it with contemporaneous records.

Expert reports come fast. Typically around month five or six, with expert depositions closing a few weeks later. An expert retained in month four is already behind.

Step 9 — Summary determination

The ITC analogue to summary judgment is a motion for summary determination. It is available but granted sparingly, and the ALJ will often prefer to take evidence at the hearing rather than resolve issues on paper given the compressed schedule.

Best candidates: importation (undisputed), standing, domestic industry where the complainant's own evidence fails, and clear-cut claim construction consequences.

PART FOUR: THE HEARING AND AFTER

Step 10 — Prepare for the evidentiary hearing

The hearing occurs around month eight to ten and typically lasts three to seven days. It is a bench trial before the ALJ, with OUII Staff participating.

Prehearing statements and briefs are consequential. Most ALJs require detailed prehearing submissions identifying every issue, every witness, and every exhibit. Issues not raised in the prehearing brief are waived. This rule is enforced strictly and is the single most common source of forfeiture at the Commission.

Witness statements may substitute for direct examination. Many ALJs require written direct testimony submitted in advance, with live examination limited to cross and redirect. This changes preparation entirely: the direct case is written, not performed, and it must be complete.

Exhibit protocols are exacting. Numbering conventions, exchange deadlines, objections, and the treatment of confidential business information all follow the ground rules. Assign someone to own compliance.

Prepare for Staff. OUII counsel will examine witnesses and file its own post-hearing brief. Staff's position often signals the ALJ's thinking and carries weight with the Commission. Treat Staff as a party to be persuaded, not an observer.

Step 11 — Post-hearing briefing

Post-hearing briefs are extensive and highly structured, typically with proposed findings of fact keyed to record citations. The ALJ's Initial Determination often tracks the prevailing party's proposed findings closely, which makes the quality of this submission disproportionately important.

Brief the remedy. Do not treat remedy as an afterthought. The record on general exclusion orders, cease and desist orders, bond, and the public interest is made here.

Step 12 — Initial Determination and Commission review

The Initial Determination issues around month twelve. Petitions for review are due twelve days later — a genuinely short window.

The Commission's review is discretionary and may be full or partial. It reviews de novo the issues it takes up. Practically, this means an ID adverse on a dispositive issue is worth petitioning, and an ID favorable on all issues still requires a response to the other side's petition.

The Commission then issues a Final Determination around month sixteen to eighteen, together with any remedial orders.

Step 13 — Remedy, bond, and presidential review

Remedy briefing addresses:

• Whether a limited or general exclusion order is warranted
• Whether downstream products should be covered, under the nine-factor framework
• Whether cease and desist orders should issue, which requires evidence of commercially significant domestic inventory
• Carve-outs for service, repair, warranty replacement, and existing contracts
• The public interest factors

Bond. During the sixty-day presidential review period, the respondent may import upon posting a bond set to offset the competitive advantage. The Commission commonly uses a price differential between complainant and respondent products, or a reasonable royalty where price comparison is unworkable. This is worth litigating: the range runs from zero to 100% of entered value.

Presidential review runs sixty days, delegated to the United States Trade Representative. Disapproval is rare and is a policy decision. During the period, prepare enforcement.

PART FIVE: AFTER THE ORDER

Step 14 — Enforcement at the border

An exclusion order is administered by Customs and Border Protection, which was not a party to the investigation and does not know your technology.

Engage CBP's Exclusion Order Enforcement branch immediately. Provide:

• A plain-language description of covered articles
• Physical identification criteria: markings, part numbers, packaging, visual characteristics
• Sample articles where possible
• Known importers, brand names, and shipping patterns
• A technical contact who can answer questions in real time

Monitor. Watch import data, marketplaces, and the trade press. Orders erode when nobody is watching.

Handle redesigns. When a respondent redesigns, the coverage question can be resolved through a CBP ruling request, a Commission advisory opinion, or a modification proceeding. Each has different timing and different participation rights; choose deliberately.

Enforce violations. A violation of a cease and desist order carries civil penalties of the greater of $100,000 per day or twice the domestic value of the articles, pursued through a Commission enforcement proceeding and collectible in district court.

Step 15 — Return to district court

Once the ITC determination becomes final, the § 1659 stay lifts. The district court case proceeds with an extraordinary head start: a complete evidentiary record, deposition transcripts, expert reports, and a fully developed technical story.

Remember what does not carry over. ITC determinations have no preclusive effect on patent validity or infringement in district court. The evidence is useful; the ruling is not binding. A respondent who lost at the Commission may still win before a jury, and should not assume otherwise.

A worked example, from the respondent's chair

Nordvale Instruments GmbH manufactures ultrasonic flow meters in Bavaria and sells about $23 million a year into the United States through a Chicago-based distributor. In March, Nordvale's United States distributor forwards a Section 337 complaint filed by Cassiopeia Metering Corp. of Tulsa, asserting two patents on a signal-processing method.

Nordvale's managing director, Anke Riedl, calls outside counsel Bernard Osei-Tutu on a Friday. The Commission institutes the following month.

Week one. Bernard's first act is not to read the patents. It is to build the calendar. He obtains the ALJ's ground rules — which cap depositions at 25 hours per side, require written direct testimony, and impose a two-page limit on discovery motions — and lays every deadline from institution through the target date onto a single sheet. He issues a litigation hold covering the accused meters, the design history, importation records, United States inventory, and all communications with Cassiopeia.

He also asks Anke one question that turns out to matter: how much accused inventory sits in the United States right now? The answer — about $2.9 million at the Chicago warehouse — means a cease and desist order is a live threat, not a theoretical one.

Week two. Bernard's associate, Ilse Marchetti, reads the complaint's domestic industry exhibits with a skeptical eye. Cassiopeia's economic prong rests almost entirely on subsection (C): "substantial investment in the exploitation of the patent, including engineering, research and development, or licensing." The exhibits show $4.6 million in "licensing program expenditures" over four years.

Ilse pulls Cassiopeia's litigation history. Of the seven licenses in the program, six were executed as settlements of patent infringement suits Cassiopeia filed. That pattern matters: expenditures driven by litigation to extract settlements generally do not establish a domestic industry, and the Commission has repeatedly required that licensing investment be patent-based and directed at exploiting the technology rather than at monetizing litigation.

Week three: the 100-day request. Bernard requests that the Commission designate the economic prong for expedited adjudication under the 100-day program. The request is supported by Cassiopeia's own public litigation record. The Commission grants it in part, directing the ALJ to issue an early Initial Determination on domestic industry.

This changes the economics of the case entirely. Nordvale is now litigating one issue for one hundred days rather than five issues for eighteen months.

Week four: parallel tracks. Bernard also:

• Moves to stay the parallel district court case under 28 U.S.C. § 1659. Granted as of right.
• Calendars the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year deadline running from service of the district court complaint, and instructs PTAB counsel to have petitions on file by month eight.
• Directs Nordvale's engineering team in Bavaria to begin a design-around. The signal-processing method is implemented in firmware; a modified algorithm can be validated and shipped in about five months.

Days 30–90: the expedited fight. Discovery is narrow and brutal. Ilse deposes Cassiopeia's CFO and its licensing director. The licensing director concedes that the licensing program has no employees, that the "expenditures" consist principally of outside counsel fees, and that Cassiopeia has never provided technical support or engineering assistance to a licensee.

Cassiopeia's economist argues that litigation-related licensing still exploits the patent. OUII Staff files a brief siding with Nordvale on the ground that the record shows no nexus between the expenditures and any articles.

Day 98: the Initial Determination. The ALJ finds that Cassiopeia has not established a domestic industry under subsection (C). Because Cassiopeia manufactures nothing and relies on no licensee article, subsections (A) and (B) are unavailable.

Commission review. Cassiopeia petitions. The Commission affirms with modified reasoning at month seven and terminates the investigation.

What it cost. About $780,000 — roughly a fifth of what a full investigation would have cost. Nordvale never had to prove non-infringement or invalidity.

What Nordvale did anyway. It finished the design-around, because the district court stay would lift and Cassiopeia's damages claim survived the ITC's jurisdictional ruling. And it filed the IPR petitions, because the patents were still assertable. The ITC win was a jurisdictional win, not a merits win — a distinction Bernard explained to the board twice, because it is genuinely counterintuitive.

What the complainant should have done differently

The instructive part of that example is not Nordvale's defense. It is Cassiopeia's filing decision.

The domestic industry analysis should have come first. Cassiopeia's counsel treated it as an element to be pleaded rather than a case to be proved. A candid pre-filing assessment would have identified that six of seven licenses were litigation settlements and that no licensee article had been identified.

A licensee article was available. One of Cassiopeia's licensees, a small Ohio manufacturer, did make a product practicing the patents. Securing that company's cooperation — technical documents, a witness, a claim chart — would have supported a technical prong and possibly an economic prong under (A) or (B) through the licensee's activities. It would have required months of negotiation with a third party that had no incentive to help, which is exactly why it was not done.

The alternative was district court. Cassiopeia's real objective was money. The ITC awards none. A district court case would have been slower but would have avoided the jurisdictional trap entirely.

The general lesson: the ITC is not a better version of district court. It is a different remedy with a different gate, and complainants who cannot pass the gate should not be at the Commission.

Managing the confidential business information regime

ITC protective orders are stricter than most district court orders, and violations are treated seriously by an agency that handles competitively sensitive trade data as a matter of course.

Access tiers. Confidential Business Information is typically available to outside counsel and retained experts only. In-house counsel are often excluded entirely or admitted subject to a prosecution bar. Confirm who on the client side may see what, in writing, before production begins.

Prosecution bars. Many ITC protective orders bar individuals with access to CBI from participating in patent prosecution or acquisition in the relevant technology for a defined period. This has real consequences for firms that handle both prosecution and litigation for the same client. Screen before anyone signs.

Filing. Every submission requires a confidential version and a public version with CBI redacted. The public versions are filed on a schedule and are genuinely public. Redaction errors are permanent.

Third-party CBI. Documents produced by subpoenaed third parties carry their own restrictions. Track the source of every designated document; a bulk designation applied without regard to source creates problems later.

At the hearing. Portions of the hearing are closed when CBI is discussed. The logistics — clearing the room, sealing the transcript, managing exhibits — consume real hearing time. Plan the examination order so that closed sessions are consolidated rather than scattered.

A working calendar

Staffing and budget

Complainant team: lead counsel; two to three associates on discovery and briefing; a dedicated domestic industry team working directly with the client's controller and engineering managers; technical experts for infringement and technical prong; an economist for the economic prong and public interest; and Washington counsel familiar with the assigned ALJ's practice.

Respondent team: lead counsel; discovery associates; a technical team including engineers working on the design-around; invalidity experts; and, if IPR is filed, a coordinated PTAB team.

Budget. Three to six million dollars per side through final determination is typical for a single-patent, three-respondent investigation. Complex multi-patent investigations run higher. The spend is front-loaded and continuous; there is no quiet period in which to catch up on billing.

The client's time. Complainants are frequently surprised that the most burdensome discovery is directed at them. Domestic industry proof requires the client's financial records, engineering documentation, and executive witnesses. Set that expectation at the outset.

Mistakes that recur

Filing before the domestic industry record exists. The Commission will not wait while you build it.

Allocating investments by estimate rather than from contemporaneous records. Cross-examination destroys reconstructed allocations.

Proposing claim constructions that reach the imports but not your own product. The technical prong requires both.

Missing the prehearing brief. Issues not raised there are waived, and ALJs enforce it.

Treating OUII Staff as an observer. Staff is a party and its position matters.

Ignoring the ground rules. Format and deadline violations draw consequences that would be overlooked elsewhere.

Starting the design-around after the determination. Two months of engineering in month two is worth more than any brief.

Winning an order and walking away. Orders require active enforcement, or they erode.

Assuming the ITC result binds the district court. It does not.

Briefing the remedy: what actually persuades

Remedy briefing is where inexperienced teams underperform, because they treat it as a conclusion rather than a case.

For a limited exclusion order, the question is scope. Which articles? Described how? Covering downstream products containing the infringing component? The nine-factor downstream analysis weighs the value of the component relative to the downstream product, the identity of the downstream manufacturers, the burden on legitimate trade, and the practicality of enforcement. A complainant seeking downstream coverage must show why component-level exclusion is inadequate, and should propose language CBP can actually administer.

For a general exclusion order, the statutory predicates under § 337(d)(2) are specific and must be proven, not asserted:

• Circumvention (subsection A): evidence that respondents have shifted manufacturing among affiliated entities, changed corporate names, or used shell importers.
• Pattern of violation and difficulty identifying sources (subsection B): evidence of numerous sellers, marketplace listings from unidentifiable entities, defaults, foreign manufacturers with no traceable United States presence, and prior enforcement attempts that failed.

Build this record in discovery and through investigators. The most persuasive GEO records include test purchases from a dozen sellers, none of whom can be served.

For cease and desist orders, prove commercially significant domestic inventory. Serve interrogatories and document requests on United States warehouse levels early, and follow up close to the hearing so the evidence is current. A respondent that has drawn down inventory by hearing time has a real argument against a CDO.

On the public interest, address all four statutory factors even if none is close. Complainants should show that domestic supply is adequate — often by demonstrating their own capacity. Respondents seeking denial or tailoring should build a third-party record: declarations from hospitals, utilities, or downstream manufacturers explaining the consequences of exclusion. Carve-outs for warranty service, repair parts, and existing contracts are commonly granted and worth requesting even when full denial is unrealistic.

On bond, the Commission typically uses the price differential between the complainant's and respondent's comparable products, expressed as a percentage of entered value. Where products are not comparable, a reasonable royalty may be used. Where the record is insufficient, the Commission has set a 100% bond — the outcome a respondent most wants to avoid. Put in evidence of comparable pricing, or of an appropriate royalty, before the record closes.

When the investigation ends without a decision

Many investigations never reach a final determination, and the exit paths differ in their consequences.

Settlement and consent orders. A consent order terminates the investigation as to a respondent and is enforceable by the Commission with civil penalties. It functions like a negotiated cease and desist order and is usually paired with a license. Consent orders are public in substance, which matters to companies that do not want a public acknowledgment.

Withdrawal of the complaint. A complainant may move to terminate. The Commission generally grants it, but will consider whether termination is in the public interest, particularly where other respondents remain or where a general exclusion order was requested.

Arbitration agreements. Where the parties have an arbitration clause covering the dispute, the Commission may stay or terminate under its rules. This arises with some frequency in disputes between former licensing partners.

Default. A respondent that does not appear is subject to relief on the complainant's showing, and its default supports a general exclusion order. Foreign entities with no United States business sometimes default deliberately; those with United States customers rarely should.

Preparing witnesses for an ITC hearing

The hearing format is unusual enough that witnesses prepared for a district court trial will be prepared for the wrong thing.

Written direct testimony changes everything. Where the ALJ requires it, the witness's direct examination is a document drafted in advance, served on the other side, and admitted at the hearing. The witness takes the stand and is immediately cross-examined. There is no warm-up, no chance to establish rapport with the fact-finder, and no opportunity to correct a weak passage in the written statement.

Practical consequences: the written direct must be complete, because omissions cannot be filled at the hearing; every sentence in it will be a cross-examination topic; and the witness must know the document cold, because being unable to explain one's own testimony is the worst possible start.

The audience is an expert. ALJs at the Commission hear technology cases constantly. Explanations pitched at a lay jury are inefficient and occasionally condescending. Witnesses should be prepared to engage at a technical level and to answer the judge's questions directly — ALJs interrupt and ask, and the answer matters more than the planned examination.

Staff will cross-examine. OUII counsel examines witnesses independently and often asks the question neither party wanted asked. Prepare witnesses for a third, non-adversarial-but-not-friendly examiner.

Domestic industry witnesses are not technical witnesses. The controller who testifies about cost allocation is often the least experienced witness on the stand and faces the most methodical cross. Prepare that witness as carefully as the technical experts: know the source system for every number, know why each allocation basis was chosen, and be able to say plainly what was estimated and what was measured.

Closed sessions. When confidential business information is discussed, the room is cleared. Witnesses should know in advance which topics are confidential so they do not disclose CBI in open session — an error that is embarrassing and occasionally consequential.

Frequently asked questions

Does the ITC construe claims the same way district courts do? Yes. The Commission applies the Phillips framework, the same standard used in district court and, since 2018, at the PTAB. Constructions are not binding across forums, but consistency across three proceedings is a practical necessity and inconsistency is a gift to the other side.

What happens to an exclusion order if the patent expires? It ends with the patent. Orders are frequently obtained late in a patent's life, which is one reason respondents sometimes prefer to litigate rather than settle: an order with two years to run is worth far less than one with twelve.

Can a complainant add respondents after institution? Only by amending the complaint, which requires Commission approval and is disfavored once the schedule is set. Identify every respondent before filing; the diffuse-seller problem is what general exclusion orders exist to solve.

What discovery is available against a foreign respondent? The Commission's rules apply to appearing respondents regardless of location, and the ALJ can impose sanctions including adverse inferences and default for non-compliance. This is a significant practical advantage over district court, where foreign discovery often requires the Hague Evidence Convention.

How long do I have to respond to a complaint? Twenty days after institution, which is roughly fifty days after the complaint was filed. Discovery is already running.

Can the schedule be extended? Rarely, and only for good cause shown well in advance. Assume it cannot.

What is the 100-day program? A procedure by which the Commission designates a potentially dispositive issue for resolution within 100 days of institution. Request it at institution if domestic industry or standing is genuinely vulnerable.

Do I need Washington counsel? Not formally, but familiarity with the assigned ALJ's ground rules and with OUII practice has real value, and the differences among judges are meaningful.

Can I settle? Yes. Consent orders terminate the investigation as to a respondent and function like a negotiated cease and desist order, enforceable by the Commission. Settlement licenses are also common. Complainants should preserve the general exclusion order request if other respondents remain.

What happens if the PTAB cancels the claims? The exclusion order must be rescinded once cancellation becomes final. This is the principal reason respondents pursue inter partes review even though the ITC will rule first.

Can I get attorney fees? No. The Commission has no fee-shifting authority.

Is there a jury? No. The evidentiary hearing is before an administrative law judge.

Related documents

• Section 337 Investigations at the ITC: Exclusion Orders, Domestic Industry, and Speed
• ITC Section 337 Checklist: A Practical Checklist
• ITC Section 337 Toolkit: Complaints, Domestic Industry Proof, and Remedy Briefing
• Preparing for a Markman Hearing: A Practical Guide
• Patent Post-Grant Proceedings: IPR, PGR, and Reexamination at the PTAB
• Stopping Gray Market and Counterfeit Imports: A Practical Guide
• Trade Secret Misappropriation Litigation Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act: A Practical Guide
• Cross-Border IP Litigation and Service Toolkit
• Government Contracting Basics: The FAR, Bid Protests, and Compliance Obligations