直 Japanese PDF Font
  • 我们的专业人员
  • 服务
  • 我们的见解
  • 办公室
  • 事务所
  • 人才招聘
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
    • 生命科学
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • 经验

美国国际贸易委员会337调查与审判

Patent_Litigation_image

About

知识产权纠纷的重要法庭

美国国际贸易委员会(U.S. International Trade Commission,ITC)曾经只是一个相对小众、用于解决涉及知识产权(IP)的贸易纠纷的机构,如今已发展成为美国国内外知识产权权利人和被控侵权方解决纠纷的核心战场之一。当前,许多最受关注、影响最大的知识产权纠纷,都会同时或优先在 ITC 展开。由于 ITC 案件的审理速度远快于全球几乎所有其他司法或行政机构,其裁决往往成为多地并行诉讼中最早作出的实质性判断,并在很大程度上主导或推动其他相关案件的整体解决。飞翰律师事务所在 ITC 尚未成为主流诉讼论坛之前,便已长期参与 ITC 的知识产权诉讼,并持续深耕该领域至今。

复杂的技术、法律与程序体系

ITC 依据《1930 年关税法》第 337 条(Section 337)行使职权,受理涉及进口产品的知识产权侵权案件。约 90% 的 337 调查案件涉及专利侵权,且绝大多数案件均围绕高度复杂的技术展开。337 调查的结果,可能直接导致相关产品被排除在美国市场之外,或决定进口商能否继续向美国消费者提供产品。

ITC 诉讼的独特挑战在于:在极短时间内,于高度专业、节奏极快、结果高度商业化的环境中处理复杂技术争议。与美国地方法院的专利侵权诉讼类似,扎实的知识产权法功底是基础;但由于绝大多数案件涉及专利侵权,律师还必须具备相应的科学或工程技术背景,能够高效、准确地理解和呈现关键技术问题,并深入掌握涉案专利的申请和授权历史。

同时,337 调查并非地方法院案件,其程序和审理方式也与陪审团审理存在根本差异。律师需要熟悉国际贸易法、《行政程序法》、ITC 的实务和程序规则、美国海关程序,以及 ITC 和美国联邦巡回上诉法院在相关领域的判例。国内产业、进口行为及救济措施等问题,在地方法院案件中并非核心考量,却在 ITC 案件中具有决定性意义。

ITC 案件的审理周期在美国司法体系中几乎没有先例可比:从立案、证据开示、庭前听证、庭审、庭后陈述,到委员会复审,通常在约 18 个月内完成。证据呈现方式及说服逻辑亦与地方法院显著不同,在一个论坛中有效的策略,在另一个论坛中可能完全失效。飞翰律师兼具知识产权法律经验、深厚技术背景与成熟的 ITC 实战经验,能够在此类高风险、高强度的专门程序中为客户提供卓有成效的代理。

无可比拟的 ITC 诉讼经验

在地方法院专利诉讼中,许多律所会强调陪审团庭审经验。然而,不足 5% 的地方法院专利案件真正进入庭审阶段,多数案件在 Markman 听证或简易判决阶段即已解决。与之形成鲜明对比的是,在 ITC,简易裁决极为罕见,约 45% 的 337 调查案件会进入庭审,且全部由行政法官(ALJ)审理,而非陪审团。

因此,在选择代理 ITC 诉讼的律师事务所时,ITC 实际庭审经验具有压倒性的重要性。真正经验丰富的 ITC 律师,不仅了解 ITC 庭审与地方法院陪审团审理之间的差异,更能够主动利用这些差异,为客户创造战略优势。

在过去十年中,飞翰律师参与了约 11% 的全部 Section 337 调查案件。超过 120 名飞翰律师曾在 ITC 出庭或深度参与诉讼,其中许多人多次代理 ITC 案件。近两年来,超过一半的 ITC 案件涉及电气、信息技术及半导体相关技术。飞翰拥有 80 余名律师及 20 余名专业人员,至少拥有电气工程、计算机科学或其他相关技术领域的学位,并在 ITC 案件中积累了丰富经验。同时,飞翰亦在化学、制药、机械领域,以及外观设计专利和商标相关的 ITC 案件中拥有成熟实践。

大规模知识产权纠纷通常涉及多个并行程序。ITC 案件中的专利,往往同时在地方法院被主张;同时,这些专利也经常在美国专利商标局(USPTO)遭遇授权后程序(post‑grant proceedings)的挑战,包括单方复审(Ex Parte Reexamination, EPR)和双方复审(Inter Partes Review, IPR)。此外,许多 ITC 专利相关裁决还会被上诉至美国联邦巡回上诉法院。

飞翰的 ITC 诉讼团队,与本所强大的陪审团庭审团队、授权后程序团队及上诉团队无缝协作。飞翰律师在联邦巡回上诉法院已代理并辩论数百起案件,数量可能超过任何其他律所,为客户在多层级、多程序的复杂争议中提供全方位支持。

全球化协同能力

ITC 337 调查不仅涵盖完整的证据开示、动议、庭审及上诉流程,还经常涉及多个国际当事方。飞翰在伦敦、慕尼黑、首尔、上海、台北和东京等全球主要技术与商业中心设有办公室,在跨国 337 调查中发挥关键支撑作用。

我们与客户保持全天候、跨时区的实时沟通,拥有数十名精通多国语言、熟悉不同国家文化与商业实践的专业人员。飞翰团队整体具备近 30 种语言的工作能力,其中在中文、日文、韩文、法文、德文和西班牙文方面尤为突出。在 ITC 实务中,我们以原文审阅证据材料,在全球范围内开展证据调查,并协助证人准备需在庭审中同步翻译的证词。

  • 近90%的337条款案件涉及专利侵权纠纷;大多数涉及复杂技术。
  • 337调查平均时限是18个月,从提出诉状、证据开示、审前听证会、审讯、审后案情陈述、法官判决、到ITC最终判决。
  • ITC提供独特的禁令救济:“排除令”和“禁售令”。排除令命令美国海关和边境保护局阻止侵权产品进入美国境内。禁售令禁止被告进口商继续进口和销售。
  • 120多名飞翰律师事务所律师具有ITC诉讼经验;许多人处理过多起ITC诉讼。
  • 大约45%的ITC案件进入庭审。
  • 过去十年参与约11%的全部337案件

Everyone in this practice

经验

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

专业见解

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Redesigns Done Right at the ITC: Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Determination of Noninfringement of Redesigned Products

June 26, 2026

Lecture

Latest Developments in U.S. Section 337 Investigations and Response Strategies

June 12, 2026

Dongguan

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

More

新闻

Commentary

Zync Fights Block of ITC Trade Secret Case Against BMW

June 24, 2026

Press Release

BMW Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Zync; Federal Court Orders Zync to Halt ITC Trade Secret

June 23, 2026

Commentary

BMW Secures Injunction Forcing Zync to Seek Stay of ITC Trade Secret Case

June 23, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Earns Top Rankings in the 2026 Legal 500 U.S. Guide

June 10, 2026

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

More

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

  • 隐私
  • 免责申明
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

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