ITC Section 337

Accolades for Our ITC Section 337 Team

• In May 2017, Alston & Bird won the largest civil penalty award in ITC history against a multinational wearable technology corporation.
• In the 2025 edition of Chambers Global, our ITC practice is recognized in Band 2 for International Trade: Intellectual Property – Section 337.
• In the 2025 edition of Chambers USA, our ITC practice is recognized in Band 2 for International Trade: Intellectual Property – Section 337.
• Named U.S. Firm of the Year – International Trade Commission at the Managing IP Awards in 2022.

• Secured a large settlement for a major telecommunications company that resolved global litigation between our client and a major competitor. The settlement was finalized overnight after four days of simultaneous trials in the Eastern District of Texas and International Trade Commission.
• Obtained a favorable result for a consumer electronics company before the International Trade Commission that accused our clients of violating Section 337 by allegedly infringing two of a competitor’s patents on remote control technology imports. The ITC ruled in favor of our clients and concluded that there was no violation of Section 337 because both asserted patents were invalid and the competitor lacked a domestic industry.
• Defended a major technology company in its first ITC case. A holding company attempted to exclude all our client’s load control switches and its smart thermostats with demand response.
• Represented Mexico’s largest pharmaceutical company in a first-of-its-kind gray-market goods case.
• Represented two home products and systems companies against a smart-home energy company in its attempt to exclude our client’s Wi-Fi-enabled smart thermostats.
• Represented a smart fleet logistics company by presenting strong non-infringement and invalidity defenses against a major health technology company based on its failure to comply with FRAND obligations.
• Represented a major technology company in an ITC patent infringement investigation and parallel district court case involving four patents related to content protection. The complainant, a multinational consumer electronics company, claimed the patents cover a certain content-protection scheme.
• Represented a major technology company against a multinational consumer electronics company in a case involving high-definition displays. We won the final determination, keeping our client undefeated at the ITC.
• Represented a global manufacturing services company in an investigation filed by an industry giant. Our client won across the board and was even awarded attorneys’ fees – a rarity at the ITC.
• Represented a telecommunications company against a major technology company in a matter involving as many as 29 patents pending ITC litigation. Before the initial ITC hearing, the case settled favorably for our client with a global patent license agreement.
• Represented a smart home technology provider in an ITC case against a television streaming company, which led to the administrative law judge issuing an initial determination recommending an exclusion order. This was the first time the streaming company was found to infringe a patent.
• Defended a consumer electronics company in a four-patent case brought by a health and consumer electronics company asserting infringement against our client’s entire line of wearables and smartwatches, one of the most important and profitable segments for our client. During the ITC’s first remote trial, we secured a significant victory when the administrative law judge ruled that the accused devices did not infringe either remaining patent, that neither patent was directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and that one of the patents was invalid.
• Represented a leading lighting manufacturer in three separate ITC investigations involving as many as seven patents owned by a competitor. The group of investigations represented the largest ITC case in size in recent history.
• On behalf of a major flooring manufacturer and related entities, filed a complaint with the ITC concerning the unlawful importation of flooring products. The administrative law judge recommended a general exclusion order (GEO) for the asserted patents based on our motion for summary determination. We won the grant of a rare GEO, the highest form of ITC relief.
• After obtaining a landmark win at the ITC against a major consumer electronics company, we represented our client once again in an enforcement proceeding against the same consumer electronics company. As a result of our strong advocacy, the administrative law judge recommended the largest civil penalty in ITC history ($37 million). We also won a favorable ruling at Customs and Border Protection banning additional infringing products. The parties later settled favorably for our client.
• Represented a consumer products company in an investigation brought by a major competitor concerning razor cartridges. After our client filed an early summary judgment on no violation, the case quickly settled.
• Obtained a rare delay-of-institution decision from the ITC through a noninstitution request for an industrial automation respondent involving allegations of unfair competition and antitrust claims.
• Represented an industrial automation complainant in an investigation against 15 gray-market respondents alleging trademark, copyright, and unfair competition claims.
• Represented two telecommunication equipment respondents in an investigation involving subsea telecommunication equipment.
• Represented a diversified technology and manufacturing complainant and related entities in an investigation against a business consulting and services company, which involved patents related to bar code scanning technology. We first obtained a consent order barring many of the respondent’s products, and the case later settled with the respondent paying our client a significant lump-sum payment along with annual royalties. The consent order remains in place, preventing the respondent from reverting to certain designs.
• Counsel for several integral third parties in an investigation relating to importing and selling mobile electronic devices.
• Represented a major telecommunications company as a complainant against an industry leader in one of largest investigations in ITC history, involving eight patents and well over 200 claims. After winning several key motions, the matter settled early and quite favorably for our client.
• Represented China’s largest private steel entity as a respondent in a highly publicized investigation brought by a major steel manufacturing company for antitrust, trade secret misappropriation, and false designation of origin (FDO) allegations. Obtained a landmark early dismissal of FDO and antitrust claims.
• Represented a financial and retail technology company in an investigation brought by an ATM manufacturing company. Three of the four asserted patents were knocked out of this investigation before trial, and a design-around was blessed by Customs.
• Represented a baby products complainant against a major competitor, leading to early resolution.
• Represented a financial and retail technology company in an offensive action instituted against an ATM manufacturing company. Our client alleged infringement of five U.S. patents related to an automatic depositing apparatus and the transfer of paper media and ATMs. This investigation concluded favorably for our client in finding that the respondent infringed two of our client’s patents and rejected the respondent’s claims that the patents were invalid.
• Represented a major technology company in an investigation brought by an audio technology company involving five patents related to adaptive interference and noise-canceling technology. The ITC determined not to review the initial determination terminating the action against our client – the last respondent in the case – based on the complainant’s withdrawal of the complaint. This matter is important because it was only the second investigation to use the 100-day program, which the ITC introduced in June 2013.
• Represented several lighting technology companies in an investigation brought by a competitor. The complaint alleged patent infringement of eight U.S. patents related to lighting methods and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The case settled favorably.