Berkeley Law School professor Peter Menell has published a new essay in the Patently-O Patent Law Journal that discusses the Section 337 authority of the International Trade Commission (ITC).
|
The ITC now conducts more full patent adjudications on an annual basis than any district court in the nation. The ITC’s six Section 337 administrative law judges (ALJs) focus almost exclusively upon patent investigations, making the ITC the only specialized trial-level patent adjudication forum in the nation. Given the importance of international trade to high technology markets, the ability to exclude goods at the border provides a valuable strategic option for patent owners. Consequently, all patent litigators and in-house patent counsel should be familiar with the ITC’s Section 337 authority. This article summarizes its key elements and calls attention to an upcoming conference – The ITC Comes to Silicon Valley (May 18, 2010) in San Jose – and the development of a comprehensive, up-to-date treatise: Section 337 Patent Investigation Management Guide. |
The essay also includes a useful table comparing differences in rights and procedures between district court patent adjudication and ITC patent investigations.
Documents:
- Read the Essay: Peter S. Menell, The International Trade Commission’s Section 337 Authority, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 79.
- Conference: The ITC Comes to Silicon Valley (May 18, 2010).
- ITC Guide: Section 337 Patent Investigation Management Guide.
licensing technology is different from licensing patents?
Not if the technology is claimed in the patents.
IANAE, licensing technology is different from licensing patents? What is ITC law here?
I find that very strange. I always thought you had to show domestic industry to get an exclusion order.
Or do you mean “companies who license the technology to domestic industry”, which aren’t really non-practicing entities at all?
Does anyone find it strange that the ITC can only issue exclusion orders, and NPE licensing entities are entitled?
Comments are closed.