Tag Archive for ITC

Qualcomm: Inconsistent With Respect To Facts, Its Own Actions

Qualcomm v. Apple Jury Verdict Form

In the wake of Qualcomm’s loss in front of the full International Trade Commission (ITC) yesterday, Qualcomm released a statement that doesn’t match up with the facts. Here’s what Qualcomm had to say: The implication is that the jury found the patent valid, which would be inconsistent with the ITC’s finding—but that’s not what happened.…

Guest Post: Should the Federal Circuit Care about Limits to the ITC’s Agency Authority? A Recap of the Comcast v. ITC Oral Argument

Charles Duan is Director of Technology & Innovation Policy for the R Street Institute.  We are pleased to republish this post, first published on the ITC Policy Blog. This morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard an oral argument in the case Comcast v. International Trade Commission. Though the case itself involves niche matters of patent law, the argument revealed to me a concerning lack…

ITC Review of Qualcomm-Apple Decision Is Normal Practice

Last week, the International Trade Commission (ITC) decided to review the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the Qualcomm v. Apple case at the ITC.  Unfortunately, news reports have characterized this as Qualcomm persuading the ITC to review the initial decision, as if it were unusual. It isn’t unusual at all.  The Commission…

CCIA Files Additional Comments In Qualcomm ITC Case

Last June, CCIA filed comments on the public interest issues implicated by Qualcomm’s ITC complaint against Apple.  (The ITC is required to take into account whether the public interest would be harmed by exclusion.)   Last month, the ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agreed with our comments, determining that an exclusion order was not in…

ITC: No Public Interest In Excluding Qualcomm Competitors

Over a year ago, I filed comments at the International Trade Commission (ITC).  Those comments explained why it went against the public interest to exclude Qualcomm’s competitors products from the U.S. market based on Qualcomm’s patent infringement allegations. Last week, the ITC administrative law judge in charge of the case agreed. What’s At Stake? About…

ITC Institutes An Investigation… Based On An NPE’s Complaint

Yesterday, the International Trade Commission (ITC) instituted an investigation based on a complaint filed by an apparent non-practicing entity (NPE), SIPCO.  The ITC, as Patent Progress has covered in the past [1][2], is intended to protect American manufacturers from unfair foreign competition. So why did the ITC institute an investigation of American companies filed by…

ITC Remedies Don’t Have To Be All-Or-Nothing

The International Trade Commission’s (ITC) basic function is to protect American industry against unfair foreign competition by prohibiting the importation of unfairly produced trade goods.  That includes preventing the importation of goods that infringe a valid U.S. patent through what are called “exclusion orders.” But that function is limited by the second part of its…

Using A Trade Court To Avoid Antitrust And FRAND: Qualcomm At The ITC

The first Apple/Qualcomm International Trade Commission (ITC) case is about to kick into high gear, with the prehearing conference scheduled for Friday and the hearing (essentially the equivalent of a trial in the ITC) opening next week.  Qualcomm has already dropped several patents from this case and in a companion European case admitted that some…

Why Is The ITC Instituting Investigations On Expiring Patents?

Yesterday, the ITC published the Federal Register notice of the initial determination of an ITC administrative law judge (ALJ).  The ALJ determined that the investigation, instituted in January based on a complaint filed last year, shouldn’t go further forward and terminated the case for good cause. I’m going to totally set aside the merits of…