ITC Section 337

Requiring not only aptitude in patent litigation, successful Section 337 representation requires specialized skills unique to practicing before the International Trade Commission (ITC). The team at Alston & Bird provides a comprehensive solution to companies in all industries and technologies. We are consistently ranked among the top five Section 337 practices in the country due to both our level of activity and experience. Our track record for success has garnered us a significant reputation in this increasingly popular patent hotbed: our lawyers have appeared in over 75 separate 337 investigations, and a 2011 Corporate Counsel survey ranked us second in the country for the most new ITC cases.

Alston & Bird’s Section 337 team is comprised of seasoned intellectual property trial lawyers, many of whom have advanced degrees in the electronic, chemical, mechanical and biotech arts, skilled in the ITC’s procedures. Led by Jamie Underwood, an executive committee member of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association, the team is capable of handling Section 337 investigations of any magnitude and in virtually any technology; whether serving as counsel for complainants, respondents, interveners or third parties.

• Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-898 (Judge Essex). We represented complainants Navico, Inc. and Navico Holding AS in this investigation brought against Raymarine’s marine electronics products. The two U.S. patents asserted related to the sonar technology that drives Navico’s revolutionary high-definition DownScan products. The investigation was settled favorably to our clients in March 2014.
• Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-892 (Judge Shaw). We 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 The investigation terminated when the complaint was withdrawn.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 Reduced Folate Nutraceutical Products and L-methylfolate Raw Ingredients Used Therein, Inv. No. 337-TA-857 (Judge Essex). We represented complainants South Alabama Medical Science Foundation, Merck & Cie and Pamlab LLC in this investigation involving L-methylfolate. The investigation was settled favorably to our clients.
• Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, 337-TA-822 (Judge Essex). We currently represent respondent AmTran Technology Co., Ltd. and AmTran Logistics, Inc. in an investigation brought by Freescale Semiconductor.
• Certain Products Containing Interactive Program Guide And Parental Controls Technology, 337-TA-820 (Judge Bullock). We currently represent respondent Haier Group Corp. in an investigation brought by Rovi Corporation and Gemstar Development Corporation.
• Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, 337-TA-800 (Judge Shaw). We currently represent respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in an investigation brought by Interdigital Communications LLC.
• Certain Microprocessors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-781 (Judge Shaw). We currently represent complainant X2Y Attenuators, LLC in an investigation brought against Intel, Apple and HP.
• Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof, 337-TA-777 (Judge Rogers). We represented respondents Blackpowder Products Inc. and Dikar Sociedad Cooperativa Limitada in an investigation brought by Thompson Arms. The investigation was settled favorably to our clients.
• Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones, Mobile Tablets, Portable Music Players, and Computers, and Components Thereof 337-TA-771 (Judge Charneski). We 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 Mobile Telephones and Modems, 337-TA-758 (Judge Bullock). We represented third-party Nokia Inc., on whom complainant Sony relies for its domestic-industry allegations.
• Certain Automated Media Library Devices, 337-TA-746 (Judge Bullock). We represent respondent Dell. The case went to trial in September 2011 and settled thereafter.
• Certain Components for Installation of Marine Autopilots with GPS or IMU, 337-TA-738 (Judge Luckern / Judge Bullock). We represent the Navico respondents. The case settled before trial.
• Certain Flash Memory Chips, 337-TA-735 (Judge Rogers). We represented respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in a patent dispute regarding NAND and NOR flash memory. The investigation settled before trial.
• Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, 337-TA-726 (Judge Gildea). We represented respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. in a camera-related patent dispute brought by Flashpoint. The investigation was settled before trial.
• Certain Electronic Paper Towel Dispensing Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-718 (Judge Gildea). We 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.