Vastfame Camera v. International Trade Commission, et al. (Fed. Cir. 2004)
In the ITC, Fuji was granted a general exclusion order based in its patented disposable camera technology. Fuji then sought to enforce the order through the ITC against specific violators.
On appeal to the Federal Circuit, one alleged violator, VastFrame, questioned the ITC’s statutory authority to conduct enforcement proceedings against specific companies based on a general exclusion order. In its decision, the Appellate Panel found that there was no explicit statutory authority for enforcement proceedings, but that such authority was implied in Section 1337(b).
VastFrame next argued that Commission violated § 1337 in not allowing VastFame to present any invalidity defense. Based on statutory language, this time the Court agreed with VastFrame.
Because we hold that the Commission erred by not allowing VastFame to present its invalidity defense based on the clear language of § 1337(c), we do not reach the issue of whether VastFame’s due process rights were violated in this case.
Vacated and Remanded