ITC Section 337 Swift Leverage
As an expedited alternative to federal litigation, the U.S. International Trade Commission has become an increasingly popular forum for blocking imports that infringe patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, or that otherwise constitute unfair trade. Ranked among the top five U.S. national firms practicing before the ITC, Kilpatrick Townsend’s ITC Team comes uniquely qualified to handle both ITC offenses and defenses, having successfully won or settled more than 32 ITC investigations, with 12 going to trial — in 2017 alone, we advocated for three complainants and nine respondents across nine investigations before the commission.
Our deep technical knowledge and patent litigation experience allow us to quickly understand complex technology and legal issues to provide effective advice and representation to clients lodging or facing ITC investigations. We serve as counsel for leading domestic and international companies, offering intimate familiarity with international business practices — particularly in Asia — impacted by the ITC’s far-reaching, business-critical investigations. To give our clients an extra advantage, our attorneys stay abreast of rapidly-evolving trends in the ITC, including non-practicing entities, standard-essential patents, domestic industry, and the ITC’s independent stance on patent validity challenges to the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board.
Our 15 dedicated ITC practitioners engage daily in a number of cutting-edge representations before the commission, and thoroughly understand the unique environment of the ITC — its critical distinctions from U.S. district courts, its practices and procedures, and how to successfully leverage its fast-paced environment.
U.S. national firms at the ITC by number of investigations
Docket Navigator Data (2016)
Managing Intellectual Property (2015-2017)
to win a consent order for Reebok halting infringing sneakers from China
defending and counter-attacking for Broadcom against Tessera in two ITC investigations
investigations In 2017 — four offenses and five defenses, including three through trial
Firm of the Year
shortlisted by Managing IP (2018)
Obtained complete victory for Reebok against RBX Active in a patent infringement and importation investigation related to athletic shoe sole functionality after all respondents ultimately agreed to cease importation of the accused products (Certain Athletic Footwear). Currently pursuing damages in Oregon district court.
Defended one of the world’s largest semiconductor companies Broadcom and its seven downstream customers — Technicolor, HTC, ASUS, Comcast, Arista, NETGEAR, and ARRIS — in patent infringement and importation investigation brought by Tessera Technologies related to semiconductor chip packaging technology. Prevailed in two of three asserted patents at trial and convinced the commission to review findings on the third patent (Certain Semiconductor Devices).
Asserted Broadcom’s patented streaming audio multimedia technology in investigation seeking to prevent the importation of wireless speakers and other audio systems by Tessera subsidiary DTS and eight of its downstream technology customers (Certain Wireless Audio Systems).
Defended ARRIS in patent infringement and importation investigation brought by Rovi and in related district court litigation, concerning on-screen programing guide technology, where the ALJ found no infringement by ARRIS. Commission review is pending (Certain Digital Video Receivers).
Obtained an exclusion order for Agere Systems and LSI Corp. banning the importation of accused products after a seven-day trial in an ITC investigation involving video compression (MPEG) and wireless technology against a respondent Japanese electronics company and two of its Taiwanese chip suppliers (Certain Audiovisual Components).
Obtained invalidation of all asserted claims of five standards patents and defeated the complainants’ standing for lack of a domestic industry for LSI Corp. and Seagate Technologies in an investigation involving external memory controllers and serializer/deserializer interfaces used in integrated circuits (Certain Semiconductor Chips).
Sought exclusion for Broadcom against LG Electronics televisions and other products infringing its patented technology for System-on-Chips that allow digital televisions and other devices to encode/decode multimedia streams, display and blend images, speed up or slow down video streams, and other features (Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products).
Secured a favorable settlement for ARRIS in a patent infringement and importation investigation brought by OpenTV/Nagra/Kudelski involving digital content and voice command technology as part of an aggressive patent licensing strategy against Comcast and its suppliers, which also included multiple district court litigations (Certain Digital Television Set-Top Boxes).
Represented Celanese in an ITC investigation against three Chinese manufacturers, and continuing to actively represent Celanese in other litigation matters, including five pending IPR proceedings, in which Celanese has challenged numerous overly-broad competitor patents relating to the production of acetic acid, a critically important commodity building block used to manufacture plastics, non-caloric sweeteners, filter products, paints, and adhesives (Certain High-Potency Sweeteners).
Favorably settled an ITC investigation for Levi Strauss & Co. in RevoLaze’s investigation against 17 jeans brands related to laser fading of denim. (Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments).
Prevailed against more than 20 respondents either at trial or during pre-trial settlements for complainants in an ITC investigation involving a single patent covering a fundamental innovation in semiconductor processing. Won all issues at trial except the construction of a single claim term, which became moot on appeal when its patent expired (Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization).
Insights View All
Meet The Team View All
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.