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

Federal Circuit IP Blog

En Banc Review Denied: Digital Transfers Off Limits at ITC!

April 01, 2016

Authored and Edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Carlos J. Rosario, Lauren J. Dreyer

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit denied a request for en banc rehearing in a case of first impression involving the importation of digital files. The case stems from a decision last November in ClearCorrect v. ITC, where a panel held that the ITC’s authority to limit the importation of infringing “articles” only extended to “material things,” and not to electronic files (3D printable files of teeth aligners, in this case). Of note, the denial of the en banc petition included 1-page per curiam order, 4-page concurrence, and a 21-page dissent. The lone dissenter (Judge Newman) argued that the panel’s decision was at odds with precedent, including the en banc court’s opinion in Suprema v. ITC, and that various unfair practices in imports statutes make no distinction between digital and tangible products. In responding to the dissent, the concurrence (authored by Chief Judge Prost and Judge O’Malley, joined by Judge Wallach) disagreed, stating that “when Congress want[s] to bridge the gap between the non-digital world and the digital world, it [will do] so affirmatively.”

Tags

infringement, International Trade Commission (ITC)

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Lecture

2026 Donald R. Dunner Endowed Lecture

October 27, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

WTR Live: Brand Strategy Summit USA 2026

October 13-14, 2026

New York

Articles

California Court Considers CIPA’s Application to Online Tracking as New Law Limits Private Actions

October 7, 2026

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Federal Court Orders Rebel Creamery to Redesign Packaging and Disgorge $23.8 Million in Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Case

October 7, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Distinguishes Patent Eligibility Among Different Communications Systems Claims

October 5, 2026

Seminar

As Congress Intended: Restoring the ITC’s Statutory Function Through Funding Transparency and Substantive Reforms

October 1, 2026

Washington, DC

Articles

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update, March 2026

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: August 2026

September 29, 2026

Virtual Seminar

2026 Fall WALA Creative Entrepreneurs Series

September 22, 2026

Virtual

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