直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

ITC Section 337 Investigations and Trials

About

An important forum for IP disputes

Once a relatively unknown niche forum for resolving trade disputes involving intellectual property (IP) rights, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has become a key destination for both domestic and foreign IP litigants. Many of the highest profile IP disputes now include proceedings before the ITC. Since ITC cases go to trial faster than cases tried in almost any other forum in the world, they can be the first to be resolved in multiforum disputes and often spearhead resolution of the other related cases. Finnegan was litigating IP cases at the ITC long before it became the popular forum it is today, and we have continued to litigate there every day.

Complex technology, law, and procedures

The ITC handles IP cases involving imported goods under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Ninety percent of Section 337 cases involve patent infringement disputes, and most of them concern complex technology. Section 337 cases can keep imported goods out of the U.S. market or preserve an importer’s continued access to U.S. consumers.

Litigating in the ITC presents a unique challenge—litigating a technologically complicated case in a short period of time, in a pressure-packed forum that can make or break the commercial success of the products at issue. Like U.S. district court patent infringement actions, Section 337 cases require a command of IP law. And since the vast majority of cases involve patent infringement, lawyers must have the scientific or technical background needed to efficiently and knowledgeably evaluate and present arguments on the key technological and legal issues that will drive the case. Further, a thorough understanding of the patent prosecution process that produced the patent(s) at issue is necessary.

Section 337 cases are not district court cases, and litigating Section 337 cases is not like litigating a jury case. Attorneys need a working knowledge of international trade law, the Administrative Procedure Act, the ITC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Customs procedures, and the prior decisions of the ITC and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit related to these kinds of disputes. Domestic industry, importation, and remedy issues play no part in a district court case, but they are crucial in an ITC case. ITC cases have expedited schedules almost unprecedented in the United States, with the entire case—from the complaint, discovery, pretrial hearings, trial, and post-trial briefs to subsequent review by the Commission—typically happening within about 18 months. Presentation of evidence can be very different from district court, and what may persuade in one forum will fall flat in another. Finnegan attorneys have the critical combination of IP law experience, technical training, and specific ITC expertise that results in highly effective representation in these high-stakes specialized proceedings.

Unmatched experience

When competing to represent a client in a district court patent case, many lawyers tout their jury trial experience. And yet, less than five percent of district court patent cases go to trial; district court cases are more often won during the Markman and summary judgment proceedings. In contrast, at the ITC, summary determination is rare, and approximately 45 percent of Section 337 cases go to trial, all in front of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), not a jury. So when choosing a firm to litigate in the ITC, trial experience in the ITC is of paramount importance. ITC trials are different from district court jury trials in many ways, and the most experienced lawyers not only know about those differences, they exploit them to the client’s advantage.

In the past ten years, Finnegan attorneys have been involved in 11 percent of Section 337 cases. Over 120 of the firm’s attorneys have litigated at the ITC. During the past two years, more than half of all ITC cases have involved electrical and IT-related technologies and semiconductors. Finnegan has more than 80 lawyers and over 20 professionals who have at least one degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or some other related form of specialized technology, and many of them have ITC experience. Finnegan also has practitioners with ITC experience in the chemical, pharmaceutical, and mechanical fields. Our attorneys have even tried ITC cases involving design patents and trademarks.

Of course, large-scale litigation often involves multiple proceedings. The patents at issue in ITC proceedings are often asserted in counterpart district court actions, where we call on our jury trial lawyers. The patents are also attacked in post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Ex parte reexamination (EPR) and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings are regularly handled by our attorneys, who have extensive experience representing both patent owners and petitioners. And many ITC patent-related decisions are appealed. Finnegan’s trial teams are backed by one of the country’s leading appellate practices. Our attorneys have briefed and argued hundreds of cases before the Federal Circuit, quite possibly more than any other law firm.

Global capabilities

ITC Section 337 cases involve the full range of formal discovery, motions, trial, and appeals, but with the added challenge of involving one or more international parties. Located in some of the world’s leading technology and business centers—London, Munich, Seoul, Shanghai, Taipei, and Tokyo—Finnegan’s international offices serve as valuable resources during multinational litigations, such as Section 337 investigations. We work with clients in real time, both around the clock and around the globe. We have dozens of professionals who are multilingual and have working knowledge of foreign cultures and business practices. Collectively, we have proficiency in nearly 30 languages, with particular fluency in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, French, German, and Spanish. Our ITC practice draws on these resources every day: documents are reviewed in their native language, depositions take place around the world, and our attorneys prepare witnesses for testimony that will be translated at trial.

  • Nearly 90 percent of Section 337 cases involve patent infringement disputes; most involve complex technology.
  • 18 months is the average time to reach a resolution, including complaint, discovery, pretrial hearings, trial, post-trial briefs, judge’s decision, and the ITC decision.
  • The ITC provides unique types of injunctive relief: “exclusion orders” that direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop infringing products from entering the United States and “cease and desist” orders against named importers.
  • 120+ Finnegan lawyers have litigated at the ITC; many have litigated multiple cases.
  • Approximately 45 percent of ITC cases go to trial.
  • Finnegan attorneys have been involved in 11 percent of Section 337 cases filed in the past ten years.

Contacts

Smith R. Brittingham IV
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4158
Email
Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2778
Email
Mareesa A. Frederick
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4383
Email
Eric J. Fues
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4245
Email
Forrest A. Jones
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4019
Email
J. Preston (J.P.) Long, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4347
Email
Gary C. Ma
Partner
Taipei
+886 2 2712 7001
Email
Luke J. McCammon
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4273
Email
Jennifer H. Roscetti
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4150
Email
Aidan C. Skoyles
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2319
Email
Charles H. Suh
Partner
Seoul
+82 2 6454 7301
Email
Ningling Wang
Partner
Shanghai
+86 21 6194 2005
Email
Qingyu Yin
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4213
Email
Naoki Yoshida
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 6057
Email
Smith R. Brittingham IV
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4158
Email
Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2778
Email
Mareesa A. Frederick
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4383
Email
Eric J. Fues
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4245
Email
Forrest A. Jones
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4019
Email
J. Preston (J.P.) Long, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4347
Email
Gary C. Ma
Partner
Taipei
+886 2 2712 7001
Email
Luke J. McCammon
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4273
Email
Jennifer H. Roscetti
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4150
Email
Aidan C. Skoyles
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2319
Email
Charles H. Suh
Partner
Seoul
+82 2 6454 7301
Email
Ningling Wang
Partner
Shanghai
+86 21 6194 2005
Email
Qingyu Yin
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4213
Email
Naoki Yoshida
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 6057
Email

Everyone in this practice

Experience

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing the Same

Achieved a comprehensive victory for respondent Innoscience, a global leader in gallium nitride (GaN) power devices, in a high-profile patent dispute before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC’s Final Determination confirms that Innoscience avoided all patent claims asserted by Infineon.

337‑TA‑1414, ITC, Judge Moore

In Re Certain Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts and Articles Containing Same

Secured a decisive victory for client US Synthetic Corp. (USS) at the ITC. After a full hearing, the ALJ found that respondents infringed multiple claims of USS’s patent and that the claims were valid and supported by a domestic industry, but an initial Commission ruling under § 101 temporarily prevented a finding of violation of Section 337. The Federal Circuit reversed the § 101 ruling, and on remand the ITC found a violation and issued a limited exclusion order barring infringing polycrystalline diamond products from entry into the United States, securing final relief for USS.

337-TA-1236, ITC, Judge Elliot

Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software

Represented LG Electronics in Investigation concerning certain media technologies in smartphones and televisions, home theater systems, Blu-ray disc players, and tablets. Following trial, all four asserted patents were found not infringed and/or invalid.

337-TA-882, ITC, Judge Shaw

Certain Drug Products Containing C-Type Natriuretic Peptide Variants, and Components Thereof

Representing respondent Wacker Biotech GmbH in a rare section 337 ITC investigation involving drug products containing C-type natriuretic peptide variants.

337-TA-1447, ITC, Judge Cheney

Part 177 Ruling Request regarding General Exclusion Order in Certain Luxury Vinyl Tile and Components Thereof

After the ITC issued a general exclusion order, Finnegan obtained a formal U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ruling in favor of client VILOX Sweden AB, determining that vinyl floor panels imported by VILOX’s licensees do not infringe certain Mohawk Industries Inc. patents and, therefore, are not subject to the exclusion order and can be imported into the United States.

Inv. No. 337-TA-1155, ITC

Represented a multinational corporation and technology company in two International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, asserting multiple patents related to audio players and voice control against an audio equipment manufacturer*

Represented a multinational corporation and technology company in two International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, asserting multiple patents related to audio players and voice control against an audio equipment manufacturer.

ITC

More

Insights

Conference

2026 American Bar Association-Intellectual Property Law Section Annual Meeting

April 15-16, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

5th Intellectual Property Industry Forum

March 31-April 2

Hangzhou

Articles

Assignment of “Continuations” Found Not to Include “Continuations-In-Part”

March 5, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Rinsed at the PTAB: Director Pulls the Plug on a Late‑Stage IPR After ITC Validity Findings

March 5, 2026

Articles

AI and Section 337 Investigations

February 2026

Articles

Section 337 After Lashify: Practical Implications for Non-U.S. Companies: What the Federal Circuit’s March 2025 Decision Means for Those Who Can Credibly Bring an ITC Case

November/December 2025

More

News

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Earns Top Rankings in 2026 IAM Patent 1000 Guide; Nearly 60 Attorneys Ranked

May 28, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Decisive ITC Victory for Innoscience in Final Determination

May 11, 2026

Commentary

ITC Bars Import of Innoscience Chips Made Before Redesign

May 8, 2026

Commentary

How Litigation Funding Disclosure Could Affect ITC Cases

May 7 , 2026

Commentary

Patent Cases Down 64% YOY at PTAB, up 70% at ITC in Q1 2026

April 15, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Wins “Americas Firm of the Year” and “ITC Firm of the Year” at the 2026 Managing Intellectual Property Americas Awards

April 10, 2026

More

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP