Section 337 Investigations at the ITC: Exclusion Orders, Domestic Industry, and Speed

Summary. The border forum where patent cases move fast and the remedy is a wall.

A different kind of remedy

Imagine you hold a patent and a foreign competitor is flooding the United States with infringing product. In district court, you file a complaint, spend two to four years, and if you win you get money — and, if you are lucky and you compete directly, an injunction that binds the defendants you actually sued.

Now imagine a forum where the case is tried in nine months, where the remedy is an order directing United States Customs to stop the product at the border, and where in the right circumstances the order applies to everyone, including importers who were never named and never appeared.

That forum is the United States International Trade Commission, and the statute is 19 U.S.C. § 1337, universally called Section 337.

The trade-off is equally stark. The ITC awards no damages. Not a dollar. Its jurisdiction is in rem — over the articles, not the parties — and its remedies are prospective and exclusionary. And it is open only to complainants who can prove they have a domestic industry in the United States relating to the intellectual property at issue. That requirement is the single most litigated issue at the Commission, and it is where cases are won and lost.

What Section 337 prohibits

The statute declares unlawful the importation, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of articles that:

• infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent, registered trademark, registered copyright, or registered mask work or vessel hull design — where a domestic industry exists or is in the process of being established; or
• involve other unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in importation, the effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry, prevent its establishment, or restrain or monopolize trade.

The first category — the statutory intellectual property claims — accounts for the overwhelming majority of investigations, and patents dominate. The second category is broader in theory: trade secret misappropriation occurring entirely abroad has supported Section 337 relief, as have false advertising and trade dress claims. But the second category requires proof of injury to a domestic industry, which the statutory IP claims do not, and that additional burden makes it far less traveled.

Two structural features distinguish the ITC from every other forum:

It is an administrative agency, not a court. Investigations are conducted by administrative law judges under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 C.F.R. Part 210. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply, though the ITC rules resemble them. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply only as a guide.

There is a third party at the table. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations — "OUII," or "the Staff" — participates in many investigations as an independent party representing the public interest. Staff takes positions, examines witnesses, and files briefs. Its views carry weight with the ALJ and the Commission, and persuading Staff is a genuine strategic objective.

The domestic industry requirement

This is the gate. Under § 337(a)(2), an IP-based complaint requires that "an industry in the United States, relating to the articles protected by the patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design concerned, exists or is in the process of being established."

The requirement has two prongs, and both must be satisfied.

The technical prong

The complainant must show that its own domestic activities relate to articles protected by the asserted intellectual property. For a patent, this generally means proving that a domestic product practices at least one claim of the asserted patent.

This is essentially an infringement analysis run against your own product, and it is more dangerous than it sounds. A complainant that reads its claims broadly enough to cover the accused imports must read them broadly enough to cover its own product — and a construction broad enough to do both may be broad enough to be invalid. Respondents attack the technical prong precisely because it forces the complainant into a bind.

Licensing-based complainants face a harder version: they must identify a licensee's article that practices the patent, which requires cooperation from a third party that may not want to provide it.

The economic prong

Section 337(a)(3) provides that a domestic industry exists if there is, with respect to the protected articles:

• (A) significant investment in plant and equipment;
• (B) significant employment of labor or capital; or
• (C) substantial investment in the exploitation of the patent, including engineering, research and development, or licensing.

Any one suffices. The prongs are stated qualitatively — "significant," "substantial" — which means there is no dollar threshold and every case is contextual. The Commission compares investments to the size of the company, the nature of the industry, and the relationship of the investment to the protected articles.

Subsection (C) is the battleground. It opened the ITC to entities whose only domestic activity is research or licensing rather than manufacturing. The Commission and the Federal Circuit have since narrowed it considerably. Licensing investments must be patent-based rather than driven by litigation settlement; expenditures on litigation to extract settlements generally do not count. Research and development must relate to the asserted patent, not to the company's business generally. And the investments must relate to articles protected by the patent — an important limitation that has defeated complainants whose licensing programs were not tied to identifiable products.

Practical consequences. Building the domestic industry case requires financial data most companies do not maintain in the necessary form: expenditures allocated to specific products, engineering hours attributable to specific technologies, facility costs apportioned to specific lines. This data collection should begin before the complaint is filed, because the ITC will not wait.

Pace: the defining feature

The Commission sets a target date for completing an investigation, historically 16 to 18 months from institution, with the evidentiary hearing usually around month nine or ten. Compared to the three-to-four-year median in district court patent litigation, this is a different sport.

A representative schedule:

What this pace actually means. Discovery begins the day the investigation is instituted, and responses are due in days rather than weeks. Ground rules set by individual ALJs govern everything from deposition hours to the format of exhibits, and they are strictly enforced. Extensions are rare. A respondent that treats the first two months as a period for getting organized will be behind for the rest of the case.

It also means the ITC is expensive per unit of time. The total cost of a Section 337 investigation often approaches that of a district court patent case, compressed into a third of the duration.

The remedies

Limited exclusion orders

A limited exclusion order (LEO) directs Customs and Border Protection to exclude from entry the infringing articles of the named respondents. This is the standard remedy and the one most often issued.

LEOs are limited in the sense that matters most to respondents: they bind the parties. A competitor who was not named may continue importing until separately pursued. But an LEO may also reach downstream products — articles containing an infringing component — where the Commission finds it appropriate under a nine-factor analysis derived from the Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories investigation, weighing among other things the value of the infringing component relative to the downstream product and the burden on legitimate trade.

General exclusion orders

A general exclusion order (GEO) excludes all infringing articles regardless of source or manufacturer. It is the most powerful remedy in United States intellectual property law, and the statute makes it correspondingly hard to obtain. Section 337(d)(2) permits a GEO only where:

• (A) it is necessary to prevent circumvention of a limited exclusion order; or
• (B) there is a pattern of violation and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products.

GEOs are most often granted in cases involving diffuse networks of small foreign manufacturers selling through online marketplaces — the counterfeiting and knock-off context — where naming respondents is a game of whack-a-mole. They are rarely granted against established manufacturers whose identity is obvious.

Cease and desist orders

An exclusion order stops goods at the border. It does nothing about inventory already in the United States. A cease and desist order (CDO) fills the gap, directing a respondent to stop selling, marketing, distributing, or warehousing infringing articles already imported.

CDOs require a showing of commercially significant domestic inventory — which is why complainants serve discovery on inventory levels early. Violations of a CDO carry civil penalties of the greater of $100,000 per day or twice the domestic value of the articles, enforceable in district court, which makes CDOs the sharpest deterrent the Commission has.

What the ITC cannot do

• No damages. Not past, not future, not enhanced.
• No attorney fees.
• No personal jurisdiction requirement, but also no ability to reach conduct with no import nexus.
• No preclusive effect on validity in district court. ITC determinations are not binding in later district court litigation on patent validity or infringement, a rule confirmed in Federal Circuit case law and reflecting the ITC's status as an administrative body whose determinations serve trade purposes.

That last point is important and counterintuitive: a respondent who wins at the ITC may still lose in district court, and vice versa.

The public interest and presidential review

Section 337 is a trade statute, not purely an IP statute, and two features reflect that.

The public interest factors. Before issuing a remedy, the Commission must consider the effect on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the United States economy, (3) production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and (4) United States consumers. In practice the Commission has denied relief on public interest grounds only a handful of times in its history — most memorably where excluded products were medical devices with no adequate substitute. But the factors are briefed in every case, and the ALJ may be delegated to take evidence on them.

Presidential review. Under § 337(j), a Commission remedy is transmitted to the President, who has 60 days to disapprove it for policy reasons. The authority has been delegated to the United States Trade Representative. Disapprovals are extraordinarily rare — the 2013 disapproval of an exclusion order involving standard-essential patents is the modern example — but the review period is real. During it, the respondent may continue importing upon posting a bond set by the Commission, calculated to offset the competitive advantage of continued importation. Bond rates are litigated and can range from zero to 100% of entered value.

Enforcement at the border

Winning an exclusion order is not the end. Customs and Border Protection must actually apply it, and CBP is not a party to the investigation.

How it works. After an order issues, CBP's Exclusion Order Enforcement branch works with the complainant to develop enforcement guidance: what products are covered, how to identify them, what markings or characteristics distinguish infringing from non-infringing articles. Complainants who provide clear technical identification criteria get better enforcement than those who provide a claim chart.

The design-around problem. Respondents redesign. The question then becomes whether the redesigned product is covered by the order, and there are three routes to an answer:

• A ruling under 19 C.F.R. Part 177. The importer asks CBP whether the redesign is covered. These proceedings were historically ex parte, disadvantaging complainants; they now provide for inter partes participation in exclusion order contexts.
• A modification or advisory proceeding at the Commission. Either party may ask the ITC to interpret or modify its order.
• An enforcement proceeding. The complainant alleges a violation and seeks civil penalties.

The practical lesson: an exclusion order is a living instrument requiring ongoing management. Complainants who file, win, and walk away find their orders eroded within a year.

The parallel district court case

Most Section 337 complainants file a district court action on the same patents. There is a specific statutory mechanism for this: 28 U.S.C. § 1659 permits a respondent who is also a district court defendant to obtain a mandatory stay of the district court case as to those claims until the ITC determination becomes final.

The resulting sequence is a familiar one:

1. Complainant files at the ITC and in district court simultaneously.
2. Respondent moves to stay the district court case; the stay is granted as of right.
3. The ITC investigation runs to completion in 16–18 months.
4. The stay lifts, and the district court case proceeds — now with a complete evidentiary record, a full transcript, and an ITC determination that, while not preclusive, is highly informative.
5. The complainant seeks damages in district court that the ITC could not award.

Why complainants do this. Speed and leverage at the ITC; money in district court. An exclusion order entered at month eighteen creates settlement pressure that a district court case at month eighteen simply does not.

Why respondents should think carefully about the stay. It is available as of right and usually taken. But a respondent with a strong invalidity case might prefer a district court forum where the burden of proof, the standard of review, and the availability of a jury are all more favorable — and where the ITC's compressed schedule does not apply.

There is also the PTAB to consider. Inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 proceeds on its own timeline, and the ITC does not stay investigations for IPR. A respondent may therefore be litigating the same patent in three forums at once, on three schedules, with three different claim construction standards in play — although the ITC and the PTAB both apply the Phillips framework now, which has reduced one source of inconsistency.

Who should use the ITC, and who should not

Good candidates:

• A domestic manufacturer facing imported infringing products, particularly from respondents with limited United States assets against whom a damages judgment would be hard to collect.
• A complainant facing a diffuse set of foreign sellers where a general exclusion order is realistic.
• A patentee whose product cycle is short enough that a three-year district court case is worthless.
• A trade secret owner whose secrets were misappropriated abroad and used to make imported products — a claim available at the ITC and often difficult to bring anywhere else.

Poor candidates:

• A licensing entity with no domestic articles practicing the patent. The economic prong under subsection (C) has narrowed substantially, and litigation-driven licensing expenditures do not qualify.
• A complainant whose real objective is money. The ITC awards none.
• A complainant with weak validity positions. The compressed schedule punishes cases that need time to develop.
• A complainant facing a respondent that manufactures domestically. There is no importation, and therefore no jurisdiction.

A worked example

Calder Photonics, Inc. manufactures laser diode drivers in Rochester, New York. It employs 140 people, holds three patents on a thermal compensation circuit, and sells about $58 million a year, mostly to industrial laser integrators.

Beginning in 2024, three Shenzhen-based manufacturers — Wenhai Optoelectronics, Ruilan Photonic, and a company trading as "LumeCore" whose corporate identity Calder cannot determine — begin selling drivers into the United States at roughly 45% of Calder's price. Teardowns show the thermal compensation circuit reproduced almost exactly, down to a component placement quirk that has no functional purpose.

Calder's general counsel, Theodora Ruiz, evaluates the options.

District court. Suing all three requires service abroad under the Hague Convention, which will take six to twelve months. Two of the three have no United States assets. LumeCore's actual identity is unknown. Even a favorable judgment in 2029 collects nothing, and the market for this product generation ends in 2028.

The ITC. Section 337 jurisdiction is in rem. Service is straightforward. The remedy is a wall at the border, not a judgment against an entity that may not exist by the time it issues. And the facts — a pattern of copying by multiple diffuse foreign sellers, at least one of whom cannot be identified — are exactly the profile that supports a general exclusion order under § 337(d)(2)(B).

Building the domestic industry case. Theodora's outside counsel, Ephraim Cardoza, starts here rather than with infringement, because this is where Calder could lose.

Technical prong. Calder's DR-900 driver must be shown to practice at least one claim of an asserted patent. Ephraim has an engineer prepare a claim chart mapping the DR-900 against claim 1. This is straightforward but consequential: the constructions Calder needs to cover the imports must also cover the DR-900, and Ephraim stress-tests every construction against both.

Economic prong. Calder qualifies easily under subsections (A) and (B) — a Rochester plant, 140 employees, $6.2 million in equipment. But the ITC requires the investment to be tied to the protected articles, not to the company generally. Calder's accounting system tracks costs by department, not by product. Ephraim's team spends six weeks with Calder's controller building a product-level allocation: square footage of the DR-900 line, headcount by function, equipment dedicated to that line, and R&D hours from the engineering time system. This work is unglamorous, it costs about $190,000, and it is the reason the case will survive.

The complaint. Filed with a detailed showing on all elements, including proposed respondents, importation evidence (purchase records, customs data, marketplace listings), and a request for a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The Commission institutes 31 days later.

Discovery. Two respondents appear through United States counsel. LumeCore does not appear at all and is later found in default. Discovery opens immediately; Ephraim's team serves requests the week of institution. The ALJ's ground rules cap depositions at 30 hours per side and require exhibit exchange in a specified format two weeks before the hearing.

The domestic industry fight. Respondents' principal defense is not non-infringement — the copying is too obvious — but the economic prong. They argue that Calder's investments relate to a product line that includes non-practicing models, and that the allocation is arbitrary. Calder's controller testifies for two days. The allocation methodology holds because it was built from contemporaneous records rather than reconstructed for litigation.

The hearing. Month nine, five days, in Washington. OUII Staff supports Calder on domestic industry and takes no position on the general exclusion order.

The Initial Determination. Month twelve. The ALJ finds violation as to all three respondents, finds the domestic industry requirement satisfied under subsections (A), (B), and (C), and recommends a general exclusion order plus cease and desist orders against the two appearing respondents, who hold United States inventory.

Commission review and final determination. Month seventeen. The Commission affirms with modified reasoning, issues the GEO and the CDOs, and sets a bond of 32% of entered value during the presidential review period.

Presidential review. Sixty days. No disapproval. The order takes effect.

Enforcement. Ephraim's team works with CBP's Exclusion Order Enforcement branch to develop identification criteria: the specific component footprint, package markings, and electrical signature that distinguish covered drivers. Within four months, two new sellers appear with a redesigned circuit. Calder files for an advisory opinion at the Commission and a ruling request at CBP. The redesign is found to be covered as to one seller and not the other.

What it cost, and what it bought. About $4.1 million over eighteen months. No damages. But by month twenty, Calder's price had recovered and its unit volume had returned to 2023 levels — worth roughly $14 million a year in margin. In district court, the same case would have been unresolved, uncollectible, and irrelevant.

The respondent's playbook

Defending a Section 337 investigation is a distinct discipline, and the moves that matter happen early.

Week one: triage the calendar. Answers are due twenty days after institution. Discovery opens immediately. Build the schedule backward from the target date and staff accordingly. The single most common respondent failure is treating the first month as organizational time.

Attack domestic industry first. It is the complainant's burden, it is often the weakest link, and it is the only issue that disposes of the case regardless of the merits. Serve targeted discovery on how investments are allocated, whether the identified articles actually practice the claims, and whether licensing expenditures are patent-based or litigation-driven.

Consider the 100-day program. If domestic industry or standing is genuinely weak, request expedited adjudication at institution. A dispositive ruling at day 100 saves a year of cost.

Assess the importation nexus. Section 337 requires importation, sale for importation, or post-importation sale. A respondent whose accused products are manufactured domestically is outside the statute. So, sometimes, is a respondent whose foreign sales are made abroad on terms that transfer title before importation — though the Commission construes its jurisdiction broadly and this argument rarely wins outright.

Design around early. Because the remedy is prospective, a redesign that clears the claims moots the practical effect of an order. The best time to start is month two, not after the determination. Consider seeking a CBP ruling or a Commission advisory opinion on the redesign before the order issues.

Decide on the district court stay deliberately. The 28 U.S.C. § 1659 stay is available as of right, but it is not automatically desirable. A respondent with a strong invalidity case and a jury-friendly story may prefer the district court forum. Consider also whether to file an inter partes review, which the ITC will not stay for.

Manage the public interest record. If exclusion would create a genuine supply problem — medical devices, critical infrastructure, components with no alternative source — build that record with third-party declarations. The Commission rarely denies relief on public interest grounds, but it does tailor remedies, and carve-outs for service parts, existing contracts, and repair are regularly granted.

Plan for the bond. During presidential review the respondent may continue importing on a bond set to offset its competitive advantage. Litigating the bond rate is worth real effort: the difference between a 3% bond and a 100% bond is the difference between continuing to sell and stopping.

How the ITC and the PTAB interact

A respondent facing a Section 337 investigation will usually consider an inter partes review, and the interaction is awkward because the two forums run on incompatible clocks.

The ITC does not wait. The Commission has consistently declined to stay investigations pending IPR. An investigation instituted in January will reach an Initial Determination around the following January; an IPR petition filed in January will not reach a final written decision until roughly eighteen months later. The ITC will usually finish first.

The statutory bar still runs. A petition must be filed within one year of service of a district court complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). An ITC complaint does not trigger that bar, but a parallel district court complaint does — and complainants almost always file both. Respondents therefore have a hard one-year deadline that begins running on the district court service date.

Estoppel operates in district court, not at the ITC. Section 315(e) estoppel attaches to district court and ITC proceedings by its terms, and the Commission has applied it. Grounds raised or reasonably available in an instituted IPR may not be re-litigated.

A cancelled claim ends everything. If the PTAB cancels the asserted claims and the cancellation becomes final, the exclusion order must be rescinded. This has happened, and it is the strategic reason respondents pursue IPR even when the ITC will rule first: the ITC's order is not durable if the patent is not.

Non-patent Section 337 claims

Patents dominate the docket, but the statute is broader, and the non-patent claims have distinctive advantages.

Registered trademarks and copyrights. These follow the statutory IP track: no injury showing required, but a domestic industry must exist relating to articles protected by the registration. Counterfeit goods cases fit naturally, and general exclusion orders are more attainable here than anywhere else because the sellers are numerous, foreign, and hard to identify.

Trade secrets. This is the sleeper claim. Trade secret misappropriation proceeds under the "unfair methods of competition and unfair acts" prong, which requires proof of injury to a domestic industry — a real additional burden — but which has a jurisdictional reach that district courts often lack. The Federal Circuit's decision in TianRui Group Co. v. International Trade Commission, 661 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011), held that Section 337 reaches misappropriation occurring entirely in a foreign country where the resulting articles are imported. For a company whose process technology was taken by a former joint venture partner abroad, the ITC may be the only effective forum, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act claim in district court can run in parallel.

False advertising, trade dress, and passing off. Available under the same unfair acts prong, with the injury requirement. These claims are uncommon but occasionally decisive where the product is not patented.

Antitrust and other unfair acts. Theoretically available; practically almost never used, because the injury and causation burdens are heavy and the Commission's remedial tools are ill-suited.

The strategic point: a complainant with a marginal patent case and a strong trade secret case should evaluate both, because the domestic industry analysis differs and because trade secret claims are harder to design around than patent claims.

Cost, staffing, and the realities of the schedule

Cost. A fully litigated Section 337 investigation through final determination typically runs $3 million to $6 million per side, with complex multi-respondent investigations exceeding that. The cost is front-loaded and relentless: there is no quiet period.

Staffing. The compressed schedule means the team must be larger than a district court team of equivalent complexity, because the same work happens in half the time. A typical complainant team includes lead counsel, two to three associates on discovery, a dedicated domestic industry team working with the client's finance function, technical experts, and an economist for the domestic industry and public interest issues.

The client's burden. This is underappreciated. Domestic industry proof requires the complainant's own financial and engineering records, its own witnesses, and its own executives on the stand. Companies that have never been through a Section 337 investigation are frequently surprised that the most intensive discovery is directed at them, not at the respondents.

Washington counsel. Familiarity with the individual ALJs' ground rules and with OUII practice is genuinely valuable. The rules differ meaningfully judge to judge, and a mistake in exhibit formatting or a missed prehearing deadline is not forgiven the way it might be elsewhere.

Settlement. A large share of investigations settle, most commonly after the Initial Determination when the outcome is known but the order has not yet issued. Consent orders and license agreements terminate the investigation as to the settling respondent. Complainants should structure settlements to preserve the general exclusion order request if other respondents remain.

Frequently asked questions

Can a complainant file at the ITC without also filing in district court? Yes, and some do — particularly where the objective is purely exclusionary and the respondents are judgment-proof. But filing both preserves the damages remedy at almost no incremental cost, since the district court case will be stayed under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 while the ITC case runs.

Who bears the burden on the public interest factors? The Commission considers them on the record before it, and there is no formal burden allocation. As a practical matter, a respondent seeking denial or tailoring of a remedy must build the record, usually with third-party declarations from customers, hospitals, or downstream manufacturers who would be affected.

Can a general exclusion order be obtained against a respondent who defaults? Yes, and default is one of the classic predicates. Where respondents fail to appear, the Commission may find a pattern of violation and difficulty identifying sources, which is the statutory basis for a GEO under § 337(d)(2)(B).

Can the ITC award damages? No. The remedies are exclusion orders, cease and desist orders, and civil penalties for violating a CDO. Damages require a district court action.

Does the ITC apply eBay to exclusion orders? No. The four-factor equitable framework of eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) governs district court injunctions under 35 U.S.C. § 283. The ITC's remedies are statutory, and the Federal Circuit has held that eBay does not apply. This is one of the ITC's principal attractions for patentees who could not obtain a district court injunction.

How long does an exclusion order last? Until the patent expires, unless modified or rescinded. Orders can outlive the companies that obtained them.

What is the "100-day program"? The Commission may designate a potentially dispositive issue — commonly domestic industry or standing — for expedited resolution within 100 days of institution. It is used sparingly but can end a weak case very quickly.

Do the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply? No. The Commission's rules at 19 C.F.R. Part 210 govern, supplemented by each ALJ's ground rules. They are similar in structure but differ in important details, particularly on discovery timing and expert disclosure.

Can a respondent settle by consent order? Yes. Consent orders are common and function like a negotiated cease and desist order, terminating the investigation as to that respondent. They are enforceable by the Commission with civil penalties.

Is the ITC available for trademark and copyright claims? Yes, for registered marks and copyrights, with the same domestic industry requirement. Unregistered trade dress and common law marks can be pursued under the broader "unfair acts" prong, which additionally requires proof of injury.

What happens if the President disapproves? The order has no effect. Disapproval is rare and is a policy decision, not a legal ruling; it does not disturb the Commission's findings.

A closing thought on why the forum exists

Section 337 descends from the Tariff Act of 1930, and its logic is protective rather than compensatory. Congress was not trying to give patentees a better damages remedy; it was trying to keep unfairly traded goods out of the country. Everything distinctive about the Commission follows from that origin: the in rem jurisdiction, the absence of damages, the presidential review, the public interest factors, and the participation of a government office representing interests neither party represents.

Understanding that origin explains things that otherwise look like quirks. The domestic industry requirement is not an arbitrary hurdle — it is the statutory expression of the idea that the remedy protects American production, not merely American patents. The refusal to apply eBay is not an oversight — the Commission is not sitting in equity between two private parties; it is administering a trade statute. And the absence of preclusive effect in district court reflects that the Commission's determinations serve a border-control function rather than a final adjudication of private rights.

For practitioners, the operational takeaway is that arguments framed in trade terms tend to land better at the Commission than arguments framed purely in patent terms. A complainant explaining what the imports are doing to a domestic workforce is speaking the statute's language. A respondent explaining that exclusion would disrupt an American supply chain is doing the same. Both do better than a party that treats the ITC as district court with a shorter calendar.

Related documents

• Litigating a Section 337 Investigation at the ITC: A Practical Guide
• ITC Section 337 Checklist: A Practical Checklist
• ITC Section 337 Toolkit: Complaints, Domestic Industry Proof, and Remedy Briefing
• Gray Market Goods and the First Sale Doctrine: Parallel Imports, Exhaustion, and Border Enforcement
• Customs, Tariffs, and Country of Origin: Classification, Valuation, and Forced Labor Enforcement
• Patent Damages: Reasonable Royalties, Lost Profits, Apportionment, and Enhancement
• Counterfeiting, Seizure Orders, and Schedule A Litigation: Fighting Fakes in Federal Court
• Cross-Border IP Litigation and Service Toolkit
• Trade Secret Misappropriation Litigation Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act: A Practical Guide