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

Out of the ITC in 100 Days

May/June 2022

IP Litigator

By Alexander E. Harding; Mareesa A. Frederick; Erika Harmon Arner; Daniel C. Cooley

A few months ago, we explored ideas for defendants who wished to quickly dispense with lawsuits involving patents directed to patent ineligible subject matter like abstract ideas or laws of nature. With this edition, we turn to specialized strategies for defendants to fend off patent disputes involving these patents in the US International Trade Commission (ITC).

It is no secret that the ITC has seen an explosion in patent litigation in recent years. The ITC provides advantages over district courts that make it desirable for patentees, including an accelerated procedure for investigating complaints and unique remedies in the form of exclusion orders. Known as “Section 337” investigations, these proceedings at the ITC involve allegations that goods imported into the US constitute an unfair act such as infringing a US patent, trademark, or copyright (whether registered or common law). For those who find themselves defending an ITC investigation, the “100-day” program provides one possible route to quickly end investigations involving patents to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.

Read "Out of the ITC in 100 Days"

Tags

subject matter eligibility, International Trade Commission (ITC)

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

ITC Section 337 Investigations and Trials

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Alexander E. Harding
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4324
Email
Mareesa A. Frederick
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4383
Email
Erika Harmon Arner
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 571 203 2754
Email
Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2778
Email

Reprinted with permission from the IP Litigator, published by Wolters Kluwer. 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

Charitable

TopGolf for the Troops 2026

June 11, 2026

Ashburn

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

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

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

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

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