Digital transmissions and the ITC
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Digital transmissions and the ITC

David Foster of Foster Murphy Altman & Nickel gave an overview yesterday of how the Federal Circuit's Suprema and ClearCorrect decisions last year have affected the International Trade Commission (ITC)

Both cases involve how the ITC interprets the statutory language "articles that infringe." In Suprema the issue was whether the ITC has jurisdiction over indirect infringement while in ClearCorrect the issue was whether the definition of an "article" includes digitally transmitted products.

The Federal Circuit en banc decision in Suprema reversed the finding that the infringing nature of the articles is determined at the time of importation. The court said the ITC can stop imports of articles that do not infringe until after the articles have entered the US.

Foster said this leaves some unanswered questions. "One question I find particularly interesting – that will have to be considered probably case by case – is whether there is any sort of minimum level of importance that you have to have with respect to the imported product entering the United States. How important does it need to be to the infringing device? Another issue left open by Suprema en banc relates to the software – the CAFC did not address whether, if the only importation was software, the Commission would be able to reach the importation infringement under Section 337."

In ClearCorrect, the Federal Circuit found the ITC's jurisdiction did not include the ability to bar digital imports and was limited to "material things." En banc rehearing of the case was denied in March this year, and the ITC did not seek cert. "This is a growing and important area of commerce," said Foster. "This is an area where issues of potential infringement will be increasingly litigated. He was asked by an audience member why the case was not petitioned to the Supreme Court. "The Solicitor General is rather careful with respect to what he brings up, and the issue could have been seen as important for the Commission but not in the grand scheme of things," he speculated.

In the same session, moderated by Russ Emerson of Haynes & Boone, Mansi Shah of Merchant & Gould gave an overview of the development of obviousness case law and Jerry Selinger of Patterson & Sheridan gave an update on the on-sale bar.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

CMS, which was told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later, has rowed back on claims about an IT error
The deal could help Rouse gain a foothold in Australia and New Zealand for the first time
With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
Gift this article