Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal of a Sanctions Decision Unrelated to Any Final Determination on Exclusion for Lack of Jurisdiction

In Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC, No. 23- 1187 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2025), the Federal Circuit dismissed Realtek’s appeal of the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) denial of its motion for sanctions against Future Link Systems, LLC for lack of jurisdiction.

Future Link filed a complaint against Realtek at the ITC, and Realtek moved for sanctions, contending Future Link had improperly filed suit pursuant to a license agreement. But the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied Realtek’s motion for insufficient evidence of misconduct, finding, among other things, that the agreement “played no role in Future Link’s decision to file the present Complaint.” Shortly thereafter, Future Link informed Realtek it had resolved the underlying dispute through third party settlement and withdrew its ITC complaint. Realtek then petitioned the Commission to review the ALJ’s order denying sanctions. But the Commission declined, so Realtek appealed.

The Federal Circuit held the Commission’s sanctions determination was not a “final determination” on the merits as under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c), which is a decision “excluding or refusing to exclude articles” from import. Because the determination was not “tied to the entry of articles,” the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction.

The opinion rejected Realtek’s argument that the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction because 1337(h) states Commission sanction determinations “shall also be reviewable in accordance with section 706 of title 5.”  The Court first noted the statute “expressly lists which subsections give rise to final determinations, and subsection (h) is not included.”  The Court next found that “shall also be reviewable” referred to the standard of review, not the court that may hear an appeal.

And although the Court reasoned it may have jurisdiction to hear “associated matters” that “clearly affect or are directly related to the propriety of a final determination,” the Court concluded that review of standalone sanctions decisions must proceed, if at all, in the district court.