Accolades for Our ITC Section 337 Practice

• In May 2017, Alston & Bird won the largest civil penalty award in ITC history against multinational corporation Garmin.
• Alston & Bird was named the 2015 “International Trade Commission Firm of the Year” by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. The firm was selected from among eight law firm finalists. The award recognizes the significant level of activity of Alston & Bird’s ITC practice, which has handled numerous high-stakes Section 337 cases before the commission.
• Alston & Bird ranked 4th in total representations before the ITC on the LegalMetric “Firms in Sec. 337 USITC Investigations” Special Report, handling more than 40 cases in the previous five years (October 2014).
• Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Professionals has listed Alston & Bird as a “Recommended” ITC litigation firm for seven consecutive years. “With its combination of strong IP credentials, a proficient customs practice and public policy know-how, the firm maintains an excellent platform for ITC work and has a great deal of credibility at the commission.”
• Corporate Counsel’s “ITC Survey 2012: A Niche with Staying Power” ranked Alston & Bird’s ITC Section 337 practice 8th among the top 20 ITC practices in the nation. This designation was based on the most new Section 337 investigations (2011/2012).

• Represented complainant Playtex against Munchkin, leading to early resolution. Certain Diaper Disposal Systems and Components Thereof, Including Diaper Refill Cassettes, Inv. No. 337-TA-986 (Judge Lord).
• Representing complainant Diebold Inc. in this offensive action instituted against Nautilus Hyosung Inc. Diebold alleges patent infringement of five U.S. patents related to automatic depositing apparatus and the transfer of paper media and ATMs. This investigation concluded favorably for our client in finding that the respondent infringed on two Diebold patents and rejected Hyosung’s claims that the patents were invalid. Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-972 (Judge Lord).
• Represented respondent Dell in this investigation brought by complainant Andrea Electronics Corporation involving five patents related to adaptive interference and noise-canceling technology. In May 2016, the commission determined not to review the Initial Determination terminating the action against Dell – 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 utilize the 100-day program, which the ITC introduced in June 2013. To date, there have been only three cases to have taken part in this program. Certain Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-949 (Judge Pender).
• Represented Feit Electric Company Inc., Feit Electric Company Inc. (China), Unity Microelectronics Inc., and Unity Opto Technology Co. Ltd. in this investigation brought by Cree Inc. The complaint alleged patent infringement of eight U.S. patents related to lighting methods and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The case settled favorably. Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-947 (Judge McNamara).
• Represented respondent Robstep Robot Co. Ltd. in this investigation brought by Segway Inc. and DEKA Products Limited Partnership. The complaint alleged patent infringement of four U.S. patents and a U.S. copyright registration regarding personal transport vehicles. This investigation settled favorably to our client. Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof, and Manuals Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-935 (Judge Lord).
• Represented respondents Sinowell (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., Sinohydro, Ltd., Groco Enterprises LLC, and inSun LLC in this investigation brought by Sunlight Supply Inc. and IP Holdings LLC. The complaint alleges patent infringement of four U.S. patents that relate to light reflector technology, trademark infringement of two U.S. trademarks, and claims of false advertising. Certain Light Reflectors and Components, Packaging, and Related Advertising Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-924 (Judge Bullock).
• Represented complainants Navico Inc. and Navico Holding AS in this investigation brought against Garmin. The asserted patents relate to the sonar technology that drives Navico’s revolutionary high-definition DownScan and SideScan products. Obtained an exclusion order against Garmin in a landmark ITC decision holding that the domestic industry requirement can be met through investments in discontinued products. Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-921 (Judge Shaw).
• Representing respondents AmTran Logistics Inc. and AmTran Technology Co. Ltd. in this investigation brought by Freescale Semiconductor Inc. The complaint alleges patent infringement of six U.S. patents that relate to integrated circuit technology. Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-920 (Judge Lord).
• Represented complainants Navico Inc. and Navico Holding AS in this investigation brought against Raymarine’s marine electronics products. The two U.S. patents asserted relate to the sonar technology that drives Navico’s revolutionary high-definition DownScan products. The investigation was settled favorably for our clients. Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-898 (Judge Essex).
• Represented respondents Shandong Yongtai Chemical Co. Ltd., Hong Kong Tri-Ace Co. Ltd., and Doublestar Dongfeng Tyre Co. Ltd. in this general exclusion order investigation brought by several Toyo Tire entities. The complainant alleged infringement of six U.S. design patents related to tires. The commission granted motions terminating the investigations into two of our clients and determined not to review the initial determination terminating the investigation into the third. Certain Tires and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-894 (Judge Bullock).
• Represented respondents AmTran Logistics Inc. and AmTran Technology Co. Ltd. in this investigation brought by Straight Path IP Group Inc. The complaint alleged patent infringement of three U.S. patents that relate to network and streaming media technology. The investigation terminated when the complaint was withdrawn. Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-892 (Judge Shaw).
• Represented complainant Nokia in this offensive investigation brought against HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. The six U.S. patents asserted covered a range of technologies used in portable communication devices. Due to a finding of infringement on two Nokia patents in Inv. No. 337-TA-847, this investigation led to a global settlement between the parties. Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-885 (Judge Essex).
• Represented respondent AmTran Technology Co. Ltd. in this investigation brought by Graphic Properties Holdings Inc. The complaint alleged patent infringement of three U.S. patents that relate to digital display technology. The investigation was settled favorable to our clients. Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, Inv. No. 337-TA-884 (Judge Gildea).
• Represented respondent Nokia in this investigation brought by three InterDigital companies, all of which are nonpracticing entities. InterDigital alleged infringement of seven U.S. patents that cover a range of wireless communication technology. The ALJ preliminarily determined that Nokia did not violate any of the patents at issue, which the commission affirmed. Certain Wireless Devices With 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-868 (Judge Essex).
• Represented respondents Mellanox Technologies Inc. and Mellanox Technologies Ltd. in this investigation instituted by Avago Technologies. Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-860 (Judge Essex).
• Represented complainants South Alabama Medical Science Foundation, Merck & Cie, and Pamlab LLC in this investigation involving L-methylfolate. The investigation was settled favorably for our clients. Certain Reduced Folate Nutraceutical Products and L-methylfolate Raw Ingredients Used Therein, Inv. No. 337-TA-857 (Judge Essex).
• Represented respondents Integrated Magnetics, Yantai Zhenghai, Ningbo Jinji, and Anhui Earth Panda in this investigation instituted by complainant Hitachi. The investigation was settled favorably for our clients. Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-855 (Judge Essex).
• Represented complainant Nokia in this offensive action against HTC regarding accused infringement of Nokia patents that cover technology related to power consumption, data synchronization, signal compatibility, illumination, and other device features and functionality. The ALJ ruled that multiple HTC products infringed two of Nokia’s patents, leading to a favorable settlement for Nokia. Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-847 (Judge Pender).
• Represented respondent AmTran Technology Co. Ltd. and AmTran Logistics Inc., Taiwanese entities, in an investigation brought by Freescale Semiconductor. Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-822 (Judge Essex).
• Represented respondent Imaging Resources LLC in an investigation brought by Canon Inc. that alleged the infringement of two U.S. patents related to toner cartridges and printing technology. Since our client no longer sold the allegedly infringing article, based on our advice, the client ceased defending the case and a default judgment was entered against our client as well as numerous other respondents. This was a positive outcome for our client because it did not have to pay for the defense of an article they no longer sold. Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-829 (Judge Shaw).
• Represented respondent Haier Group Corp. in an investigation brought by Rovi Corporation and Gemstar Development Corporation. Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide and Parental Controls Technology, Inv. No. 337-TA-820 (Judge Bullock).
• Represented Nokia Inc., a nonparty entity to this case, when the court issued a subpoena to obtain evidence, which was requested by Apple. Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-808 (Judge Gildea).
• Representing respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in an investigation brought by Interdigital Communications LLC. The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s determination that Nokia does not infringe any of the patents asserted against it. We continue to represent Nokia in the federal circuit appeal of that determination. Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-800 (Judge Shaw).
• Represented Dell Inc., a nonparty entity to this case, when the court issued a subpoena to obtain evidence, which was requested by two Samsung entities. Certain Flat Panel Display Devices, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-793 (Judge Essex).
• Represented complainant X2Y Attenuators LLC in an investigation brought against Intel, Apple, and HP. Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-781 (Judge Shaw).
• Represented respondents Blackpowder Products Inc. and Dikar Sociedad Cooperativa Limitada in an investigation brought by Thompson Arms. The investigation was settled favorably for our clients. Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-777 (Judge Rogers).
• Represented complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in large-scale patent litigation against Apple. The investigation was settled, resulting in a lump-sum payment as well as ongoing royalty payments from Apple to Nokia. Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, and Computers, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-771 (Judge Charneski).
• Represented third-party Nokia Inc., on whom complainant Sony relies for its domestic-industry allegations. Certain Mobile Telephones and Modems, Inv. No. 337-TA-758 (Judge Bullock).
• Represented respondent Dell. The case went to trial and settled thereafter. Certain Automated Media Library Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-746 (Judge Bullock).
• Represented the Navico respondents. The case settled before trial. Certain Components for Installation of Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU, Inv. No. 337-TA-738 (Judge Luckern / Judge Bullock).
• Represented respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in a patent dispute regarding NAND and NOR flash memory. The investigation settled before trial. Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-735 (Judge Rogers).
• Represented respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in a camera-related patent dispute brought by Flashpoint. The investigation was settled before trial. Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-726 (Judge Gildea).
• Represented complainant Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products against numerous manufacturers and importers of infringing dispensers. The commission decided this case in Georgia-Pacific’s favor, issued a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders, and imposed a 100 percent bond on all imports during the presidential review period. Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-718 (Judge Gildea).
• Represented complainant Elan Microelectronics in a patent dispute against Apple. Certain Electronic Devices with Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpads and Touchscreens, Inv. No. 337-TA-714 (Judge Luckern).
• Represented respondent Eastman Kodak Company in a litigation brought by Apple. The ALJ determined that Kodak did not infringe, and the commission affirmed and terminated the investigation. Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-717 (Judge Rogers).
• Represented Nokia in patent litigation brought by Apple against HTC and Nokia. The investigation was settled after trial, resulting in a lump-sum payment as well as ongoing royalty payments from Apple to Nokia. Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communication Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-710 (Judge Charneski).
• Represented respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in patent litigation brought by Apple. The investigation was settled after trial, resulting in a lump-sum payment as well as ongoing royalty payments from Apple to Nokia. Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-704 (Judge Bullock).
• Represented complainant Eastman Kodak Company in litigation against Apple and RIM relating to camera phones. Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-703 (Judge Luckern / Judge Pender).
• Represented complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in large-scale patent litigation against Apple. The investigation was settled after trial, resulting in a lump-sum payment as well as ongoing royalty payments from Apple to Nokia. Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Portable Music Players, and Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-701 (Judge Gildea).
• Represented complainant Richtek Technology Corp. in seeking relief for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation by former Richtek employees who started a competing company, uPI Semiconductor. Our team was proceeding full speed toward a trial on Richtek's behalf, but on the day before the trial was to start, uPI unilaterally filed for a consent order with the ITC, voluntarily agreeing to leave the U.S. market for 10 years. The commission approved the consent order. Our client Richtek then found uPI in violation of the agreed upon consent order and asked our team to take further action. The last iteration of this process came when the commission determined to adopt the ALJ’s Recommended Remand Determination Notice adjusting enforcement penalties against uPI. Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-698 (Judge Luckern).
• Represented respondent Zhuhai Gree Magneto-Electric Co. Ltd. in litigation brought by Hewlett-Packard. Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-691 (Judge Essex).
• Represented respondent The ESAB Group Inc. in a dispute involving welding wire brought by Lincoln Electric. The ALJ found in our client’s favor and the commission affirmed and terminated the investigation. We also represented ESAB Group in Lincoln Electric’s appeal at the Federal Circuit, which resulted in a Rule 36 affirmance in favor of our client. Certain Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire, Inv. No. 337-TA-686 (Judge Rogers).
• Represented respondents Hygieia Health Co. Ltd. and TSI Health Inc. The investigation was settled favorably very early in the litigation. Certain Non-Shellfish Derived Glucosamine and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-668 (Judge Rogers).
• Represented respondents Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corp. in an investigation brought by licensing entity Saxon Innovations. Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld Wireless Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-667 (Judge Rogers).
• Before joining Alston & Bird, one of our lawyers represented respondents Kenwood Corporation and Kenwood USA Corporation in this patent dispute against Honeywell International Inc. Certain Automotive Multimedia Display and Navigation Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-657 (Judge Essex).
• Represented respondent CryoCath Technologies Inc. in a bet-the-company litigation brought by its market rival CryoCor Inc. that settled favorably before trial. Certain Catheters, Consoles and Other Apparatus for Cryosurgery, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-642 (Judge Rogers).
• Represented Iberdrola Renewables Inc., the purchaser of respondent Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ wind turbines, in third-party practice. Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-641 (Judge Charneski).
• Represented Nokia Corp. and Unity Optoelectronics in responding to allegations that certain LEDs infringe a patent owned by a former university professor who sought exclusion of products containing those LEDs from the U.S. The investigation was settled favorably for our clients. Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640 (Judge Luckern).
• Represented complainants INEOS Fluor Americas LLC, INEOS Fluor Holdings Limited, and INEOS Fluor Limited in an investigation brought against SinoChem for infringement of a patented process of producing an ozone-friendly refrigerant. We obtained a consent order for our client, and later the remainder of the investigation was settled favorably for our clients, securing them the full remedy available at the ITC. Certain R-134a Coolant (Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluroethane), Inv. No. 337-TA-623 (Judge Luckern).
• We represented respondent Western Digital Corporation in an investigation brought against hard drives and computers that contain them. Complainant withdrew its case before trial. Certain Hard Disk Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-616 (Judge Essex).
• Represented complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in an investigation against Qualcomm on mobile telephone chips. The investigation was terminated pending arbitration, and the parties subsequently entered into a global settlement. Certain Wireless Communication Chips and Chipsets, and Products Containing Same, Including Wireless Handsets and Network Interface Cards, Inv. No. 337-TA-614 (Judge Luckern).
• Represented respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in a significant investigation brought by Interdigital Communications LLC. During the investigation, we obtained an injunction from the Southern District of New York against Interdigital’s pursuit of the case against Nokia due to an arbitration obligation. After the order was reversed on appeal, the ITC found that Nokia did not infringe any of Interdigital’s patents and terminated the investigation. Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-613 (Judge Luckern).
• Obtained a finding of no violation on behalf of respondent Cardinal Health Inc. and its affiliates in an investigation regarding medical examination gloves, which was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Certain Nitrile Rubber Gloves, Inv. No. 337-TA-612 (Judge Essex).
• One of our lawyers worked on this investigation for complainant Tessera, ultimately obtaining an exclusion order at the commission level and a landmark Federal Circuit ruling on injunctive relief. Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, Inv. Nos. 337-TA-605, -630, and -649 (Judge Essex).
• Won a final determination of no violation based on the invalidity of one patent and noninfringement of all asserted patents for Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in a large litigation brought by Qualcomm. Certain Mobile Telephone Handsets, Wireless Communication Devices, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-578 (Judge Luckern).
• Represented third party Nokia Corporation, a consumer of the accused devices, on remedy issues. No violation was found. Certain NOR and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-560 (Judge Bullock).
• Represented respondent Epistar in seeking modification of an exclusion order that extended to downstream products. Some of our lawyers represented Epistar in the underlying investigation before joining the firm. Certain High-Brightness Light Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-556.
• One of our lawyers represented complainant Toshiba before joining Alston & Bird. The investigation settled favorably. Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Such Devices and Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-552 (Judge Luckern).
• Defended respondent Keystone Automotive Inc. in an investigation brought by Ford on aftermarket automotive body parts. Early in the investigation, we found a key prior art reference that had not been considered by the patent examiner, which led to termination of the investigation in our client’s favor. Certain Automotive Grilles, Inv. No. 337-TA-540 (Judge Harris).
• Won a finding of noninfringement following trial for our client Dürr AG of Stuttgart, Germany, in a case involving paint robots. Certain Electric Robots and Component Parts Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-530 (Judge Luckern).
• One of our lawyers represented complainant TSMC before joining the firm. The investigation settled. Certain Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-525 (Judge Harris).
• Defended TrinTech Group of Dublin, Ireland, against a claim filed by a patent troll. Won a final determination that the ITC lacked jurisdiction over the TrinTech companies or their products. Certain Point of Sale Terminals and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-524 (Judge Bullock).
• Before joining Alston & Bird, one of our lawyers assisted third party Suntext Technology in participation in the evidentiary hearing. Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips and Chipsets and Products Containing Same, Including DVD Players and PC Optical Storage Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-506 (Judge Luckern).
• Before joining Alston & Bird, one of our lawyers represented complainants Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Safeskin Corporation in obtaining a general exclusion order against importers of non-latex protective gloves that infringed Kimberly-Clark’s COLOR PURPLE trademark. Certain Purple Protective Gloves, Inv. No. 337-TA-500 (Judge Terrill).
• Defended respondent Blue Rhino Corp. and related companies based in North Carolina and their supplier, Guangdong Dong Fang Import Export Co. of China. In a novel move, we succeeded in terminating the investigation into one of the patents and certain of the accused products during the discovery period without a hearing and without any findings of a Section 337 violation. We tried the remaining case and won a final determination that our clients’ products do not infringe. Certain Insect Traps, Inv. No. 337-TA-498 (Judge Harris).
• Before joining the firm, one of our lawyers represented complainant Eveready in obtaining a final determination of a violation of Section 337. Certain Zero-Mercury-Added Alkaline Batteries, Parts Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-493 (Judge Bullock).
• Lawyers in our Silicon Valley office represented Mstar Semiconductor in this investigation before joining Alston & Bird. Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-491 (Judges Terrill and Bullock).
• Before joining Alston & Bird, one of our New York lawyers obtained summary determination of invalidity for respondent Nemoto Kyorindo Co. on a patent involving power injection systems used to deliver contrast agents into the body during magnetic resonance imaging procedures. Certain Magnetic Resonance Injection Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-434 (Judge Luckern).
• One of our lawyers helped to settle this investigation for respondent Texas Instruments before joining Alston & Bird. Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-432 (Judge Harris).
• Represented complainants American Tool Companies and Petersen Manufacturing in an investigation that resulted in a settlement following trial under which the accused products were withdrawn from the market. Certain Bar Clamps, Bar Clamp Pads, and Related Packaging, Display and Other Materials, Inv. No. 337-TA-429 (Judge Harris).
• Before joining the firm, one of our lawyers represented respondents DIRECTV in an action involving integrated receivers/decoders for satellite television broadcasts. The ITC ruled in DIRECTV’s favor and the complainant subsequently dropped the complaint. Certain Digital Satellite System (DSS) Receivers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-392 (Judge Luckern).
• Before joining Alston & Bird, one of our lawyers represented Texas Instruments as a complainant in action involving TI’s semiconductor manufacturing patents. Certain Electronic Products, Including Semi-conductor Products, Manufactured by Certain Processes, Inv. No. 337-TA-381 (Judge Harris).
• Represented complainant Farrell Corp. in litigation that resulted in a finding of violation that was upheld on appeal to the Federal Circuit, as well as parallel arbitration. Certain Internal Mixing Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-317 (Judge Saxon).
• Before joining Alston & Bird, one of our lawyers represented complainant Bristol Myers Co. The commission found a violation during the permanent relief phase of the investigation and issued a cease and desist order in favor of our client. Certain Crystalline Cefadroxil Monohydrate, Inv. No. 337-TA-293 (Judge Saxon).
• Represented a respondent in the first Section 337 case granting invalidity on summary determination. Certain Knitting Machines and Throat Plates Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-28 (Judge Renwick).