Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Limited Exclusion Orders at the ITC
The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has the authority to stop unfair trade practices, including the importation of products found to infringe a valid U.S. patent. But does that authority automatically extend to downstream products incorporating a relatively insignificant infringing component ' such as an automobile that happens to include an infringing light-emitting diode? And is the ITC required to balance the parties' interests and consider factors such as the value of an infringing component compared to the overall value of the imported downstream product? This article examines a current split in authority answering those questions.
Background
For nearly 20 years, the ITC applied a nine-factor test to determine whether to exclude products that incorporate an infringing component after finding a violation of Section 337. See Certain Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memories, Inv. No. 337-TA-276, Pub. No. 2196, 1989 WL 1716252, *88 (U.S.I.T.C. May 1989) (EPROMs). These nine factors are referred to as EPROMs factors, from the investigation where they were first articulated. Over the last few years, administrative law judges (ALJs) have questioned whether the EPROMs factors remain viable in the wake of a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the scope of the ITC's authority to issue limited exclusion orders (LEOs) against non-respondents (non-parties) in ITC investigations. This has created a split at the ITC, with some of the ALJs concluding that the EPROMs factors are no longer relevant and others concluding they still apply.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.