Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act empowers the International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission) to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. Under the ITC's pleading requirements, a Section 337 complaint filed at the ITC must "[d]escribe specific instances of alleged unlawful importations or sales." 19 CFR §210.12 (a)(3). In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint. In several recent cases, however, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation. This article surveys those decisions and offers advice for parties filing an ITC complaint and those opposing institution of an investigation with respect to importation allegations.
A well-pled ITC complaint should adequately describe specific instances of importation or sales and provide exhibits supporting those allegations. Typically, importation can be readily established by submitting photographs of the accused products purchased in the United States, clearly showing the labels indicating foreign manufacture (e.g., "Made in China"). Receipts and other documents reflecting the purchase of the products in the U.S. should also be included. For certain products, such as semiconductor chips incorporated into electronic devices, a teardown of the device may be necessary to take photographs of the chips hidden inside.
As the ITC's recent decisions reveal, failure to include such evidence in a complaint can lead to a denial of institution.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
A novel legal self-help technique to secure artificial intelligence data and programs is known as Poisoning AI. This technique involves modifying the AI algorithm to intentionally produce specific erroneous results.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether purchasing market competitors’ search engine keyword terms, known as “conquesting,” constitutes trademark infringement.
The DOJ has proposed a rule that would regulate certain transactions involving bulk sensitive personal data. The rule would implement a complex regulatory framework, with civil and criminal enforcement, that is similar to sanctions and export licensing regimes. It also implicates federal cybersecurity requirements, government contracting and CFIUS actions.
The legal industry is at an inflection point, grappling with challenges that range from rising client demands to technological disruption. There are five critical areas where firms can take a proactive, strategic approach, including actionable insights and recommendations for navigating 2025 and beyond.
The Second Circuit’s decision is notable in that it signals a reversal of the recent trend of dismissals of VPPA claims in courts across the country and could trigger a significant increase in VPPA lawsuits. Although organizations have grappled with VPPA claims for several years, this decision is another red flag to organizations to take immediate steps and ensure compliance with privacy laws to mitigate the risks of VPPA claims.