直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

ITC Breaks New Ground in IPR Decision

December 18, 2020

World Intellectual Property Review

By Smith R. Brittingham

Litigators sometimes question whether post-grant procedures at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can help companies facing patent infringement allegations in the US International Trade Commission (ITC).

The ITC does not typically stay cases in deference to USPTO proceedings, and the ITC usually reaches a decision before the USPTO can declare the patent invalid. So, why file a post-grant or inter partes review (IPR) petition when facing an ITC case? The ITC provided one answer: in the event that the USPTO invalidates the patent before the ITC case ends, your products will probably not be excluded—even if the ITC decides against you.

In Certain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Components Thereof, Inv. no. 337-TA-1133 (UAVs), the ITC issued orders preventing infringing imports and sales, but then suspended enforcement of those orders because the patent claims on which the orders rested were previously found unpatentable in an IPR final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). As a result, although the ITC found a violation of section 337, no products are being excluded.

Read the full article here.

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

ITC Section 337 Investigations and Trials

Related Industries

Transportation and Logistics

Aerospace, Aviation, and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Smith R. Brittingham
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4158
Email

Originally printed in World Intellectual Property Review on December 18, 2020. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

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