Insights: Alerts U.S. International Trade Commission Persists with Remedy for PTAB-Invalidated Patent
The patents, asserted by Cisco Systems, Inc. in an ITC complaint filed in 2015 against networking devices and software offered by Arista Networks, Inc., were challenged by Arista in Inter Partes Review proceedings instituted by the PTAB during the pendency of the ITC investigation. The Commission nonetheless found that Arista’s products infringed the challenged patents and, on May 4, 2017, issued a limited exclusion order barring their importation and sale in the U.S. Three weeks later on May 25 and June 1, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the IPR proceedings that the asserted patents are invalid. Arista immediately sought relief from the Commission’s exclusion order on the grounds that the PTAB decisions invalidating the patents constituted a “changed circumstance” under 19 C.F.R. § 1337(k) and 19 C.F.R. § 210.76.
The Commission denied Arista’s request for relief from the exclusion order. In holding that the PTAB decisions did not constitute a changed circumstance under § 1337(k), the Commission noted that the legal status of the patents would not change until the USPTO issued a certificate cancelling the claims following the exhaustion of appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, then perhaps to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Commission’s decision therefore keeps Arista’s products out of the U.S. market for at least a year while Cisco appeals. Arista thus lamented, as reported by Law360 on August 7, 2017, that it was “deeply disappointed” in the decision, describing it as an “unfortunate departure from precedent and from the core premise of the AIA” legislation that established PTAB proceedings in 2012.
Indeed, the decision deepens the Commission’s precedent against delaying its patent investigations for PTAB validity proceedings. By 2016, a quarter of patents asserted in the ITC were subject to such PTAB challenges, yet no investigation to date has been stayed pending a PTAB validity determination. In Certain Laser-Driven Light Sources (337-TA-983) for example, stay was denied in March 2016 where an IPR ruling was expected after the investigation’s evidentiary hearing, but before its target date.
The closest the Commission has yet come to delaying for a PTAB determination was in Certain Three-Dimensional Cinema Systems (337-TA-939). There the Commission stayed remedial orders, but only as to the single PTAB-invalidated patent; remedial exclusion of products from the U.S. proceeded as to the other two asserted patents.
This most recent Commission decision thus highlights the ITC’s independence in handling patent infringement matters, and stands in stark contrast to litigation in federal district courts, where infringement actions are commonly stayed pending patent office validity proceedings and determination. Unlike the years of delay patent owners often face in district court litigations where IPR proceedings are instituted against their asserted patents, the ITC has demonstrated yet again that it will provide prompt and powerful relief against infringing activity despite challenges to patents at the USPTO, further contributing to the ITC’s popularity as a venue for enforcing patent rights in today’s global economy.
U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-945
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.