Court / venue
U.S. International Trade Commission
77 tracked cases.
Court overview
International Trade Commission (ITC) Patent Litigation Profile
Court Overview: The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) is an independent, quasi-judicial federal agency in Washington, D.C. While not a traditional federal court, its Section 337 investigations are a major venue for patent disputes, focusing on unfair competition related to imported goods. The ITC's patent docket is substantial, and it adjudicates a high volume of patent cases annually, often involving complex technologies. Unlike district courts, the ITC has in rem jurisdiction over the accused imported products themselves, not personal jurisdiction over the parties. All appeals from ITC patent decisions are heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Patent Docket Reputation: The ITC is widely known as a "rocket docket" for its extremely fast-paced proceedings. An investigation from complaint to a final determination typically takes 16 to 18 months, with an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) often occurring within 8 to 10 months. This accelerated timeline is a key reason patent holders choose the ITC. The primary remedy is an exclusion order, which directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to block the importation of infringing goods—a powerful form of injunctive relief not subject to the same stringent tests as in district courts. The ITC cannot award monetary damages. Due to its structure and powerful remedies, the forum is often considered advantageous for complainants. All trials are bench trials before an ALJ; there are no jury trials.
Local Rules and Procedures: ITC patent litigation is governed by Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission's own Rules of Practice and Procedure. Key procedural distinctions include a mandatory "domestic industry" requirement, where the complainant must prove significant investment or activity in the U.S. related to the asserted patent. Each of the ITC's six ALJs also maintains their own set of "Ground Rules" that govern the specifics of an investigation. The Commission has a pilot program for early disposition, allowing an ALJ to issue a decision on a potentially dispositive issue—such as standing or domestic industry—within the first 100 days of an investigation to increase efficiency.
Notable Cases and Rulings: The ITC frequently handles high-stakes technology disputes. One prominent recent example involved Masimo's patent infringement complaint against Apple, which resulted in the ITC issuing an exclusion order barring the importation of certain Apple Watch models, demonstrating the Commission's power to affect major market players. Tracked cases at this site include Promotion In Motion Inc v. New Cibo Vita LLC et al. and the terminated matter Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. et al. A significant portion of ITC investigations run in parallel with district court litigation involving the same patents.
Judges: Patent investigations at the ITC are presided over by its Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The ITC's ALJs are specialists, with many having backgrounds in patent litigation and focusing almost exclusively on these complex investigations. The public record shows six active ALJs who handle these Section 337 investigations.
Judges
No judge data recorded for the 77 cases in this court yet. Cases picked up via the patent-ingest cron sometimes land without a presiding judge; the field fills in when structured docket data arrives.
Filing activity
Cases (77)
- Align Technology, Inc. v. ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.2012-03-01· terminated/no violation
- Align Technology, Inc. v. ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.2012-03-01· resolved by termination agreement
- Align Technology, Inc. v. ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.2012-05-01· ITC found violation; on appeal
- Align Technology, Inc. v. ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd. et al.2012-03-01· terminated with finding of no violation
- Align Technology, Inc. v. OrthoClear, Inc.2006-01-11· terminated by consent order/stipulation
- AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone et al. v. Fitbit, Inc. et al.2015-07-07· terminated / no violation
- Alliacense (TPL Group) v. Multiple Defendants· ongoing
- Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.2014-05-05· terminated - no violation
- Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al.2010-10-29· terminated - no violation
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.2011-07-05· final determination
- Apple v. Samsung
- ArcelorMittal of Luxembourg v. VinFast Auto Ltd. of Hai Phong City, Vietnam et al.2024-04-17· Terminated
- BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Ascendis Pharma, Inc. et al.2025-04-02· settled/dismissed
- Bissell Inc. v. Multiple parties· Filed
- Bissell Inc. v. Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.· Decided
- Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. et al.2022-04-25· Terminated
- Certain Hydrodermabrasion Systems and Components Thereof II2024-09-10· Terminated without prejudice
- Certain Samsung Display / BOE ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-3661· not verified
- Corning Incorporated v. HKC Corp et al.2025-01-31· Pending before Commission (Initial Determination issued)
- Corning Incorporated v. TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co Ltd et al.2024-12-18· ongoing
- Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al. v. Amphenol Corporation et al.2025-03-13· Terminated
- Daedalus Prime LLC v. Avnet, Inc. et al.2022-08-23· terminated
- DivX, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.2020-09-10· terminated/settled
- DivX, LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corp. et al.2021-11-24· terminated based on settlement
- Epson Portland Inc. et al. v. Dongguan Ocbestjet Digital Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ocbestjet et al.2025-05-13· terminated; violation found
- Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Garmin Ltd. et al.2013-09-23· settled
- Furuno Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Honeywell International Inc. et al.2011-09-30· settled
- Global Locate, Inc. et al. v. SiRF Technology, Inc. et al.· Complainants prevailed; violation found; limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders; investigation terminated.
- GoPro, Inc. v. Arashi Vision Inc. d/b/a Insta360 et al.2024-03-29· terminated
- GoPro, Inc. v. Insta360 (Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a Insta360)2024-05-06· No violation found for 9550052
- Hewlett-Packard Company et al. v. MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. et al.2010-05-25· Violation found; general exclusion order issued; investigation terminated
- Hewlett-Packard Company v. Microjet Technology Co., Ltd. et al.2000-12-22· terminated
- Hewlett-Packard Company v. MicroJet Technology Co., Ltd. et al.2010-03-05· Instituted; '817 inclusion probable but unverified
- HTC Corp. et al. v. Apple Inc.2011-08-16· terminated as to '849; settled overall
- Inv. No. 337-TA-12082020-07-01· Terminated
- Juul Labs Inc. v. Altria et al.2025-09-12· No Violation Found
- Longitude Licensing Limited et al. v. Apple Inc. et al.2025-02-18· Ongoing
- LSI Corporation et al. v. Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al.2012-03-12· terminated
- Macronix International Co., Ltd. et al. v. Spansion, Inc. et al.2013-12-27· terminated by settlement
- Macronix International Co., Ltd. et al. v. Toshiba Corporation et al.2017-03-07· settled; remedial orders rescinded
- Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Coates Signco Pty Limited· Terminated; no violation found
- Marlin Semiconductor et al. v. TSMC et al.· Ongoing
- Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.· unknown
- Maxell, Ltd. v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd.) et al.2024-08-22· terminated (settlement)
- Maxell, Ltd. v. VIZIO, Inc.2022-09-15· settled/terminated
- Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al. v. Klein Tools, Inc.· unconfirmed
- Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al. v. Unknown2024-05-23· Terminated
- Netlist, Inc. v. Google, Inc. et al.· Active
- Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.2025-09-30· pending
- Nokia v. Amazon· Active (review stage)
- Nokia v. HP, Inc. et al.2023-12-06· active
- ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Sony Corporation et al.· Active
- Promotion In Motion Inc v. New Cibo Vita LLC et al.2026-08-04· Open
- Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group et al.· terminated
- Shoals Technologies Group, LLC v. Voltage, LLC2025-01-09· Active
- SiRF Technology, Inc. v. Global Locate, Inc. et al.2007-02-08· terminated
- SkyBell Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. et al.2020-12-18· terminated
- Skyworks Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Grand Chip Labs Inc. et al.2024-07-16· Pending Before the Commission
- Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Metro (Suzhou) Technologies Co., Ltd. et al.· initial determination on violation issued
- Technology Properties Limited LLC et al. v. Acer et al.2012-07-23· no violation found
- Technology Properties Limited LLC et al. v. Acer Inc. et al.2012-07-24· no violation; investigation terminated
- Trina Solar v. Adani Green Energy Ltd. et al.2024-09-30· active
- Trina Solar v. Canadian Solar defendants2024-10-23· active
- Untitled case
- Untitled case· Case filed
- Untitled case· Critical
- Untitled case· Critical
- Untitled case· Critical
- Untitled case· Litigation
- Untitled case· Critical
- Untitled case· Critical
- Untitled case· filed
- Untitled case· Litigation
- Untitled case· Critical litigation
- Untitled case· Critical
- Untitled case· unverified
- Zodiac Pool Systems LLC et al. v. Wybotics Co. Ltd. d/b/a Winny Pool Cleaner2022-07-29· instituted