Litigation

ArcelorMittal of Luxembourg v. VinFast Auto Ltd. of Hai Phong City, Vietnam et al.

Terminated

337-TA-1402

Filed
2024-04-17
Terminated
2025-09-18

Patents at issue (1)

Defender signal. Patent 10961602 has had claims invalidated at PTAB. Those final written decisions are public record and a ready-made § 102 / § 103 ground in district court. See IPR estoppel for what carries over.

10961602PTAB: claims invalidated

Summary

ArcelorMittal filed a complaint with the ITC, initiating an investigation against VinFast entities concerning US patent 10961602. The investigation was terminated on September 18, 2025, following an Initial Determination on Violation and a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

ArcelorMittal, a Luxembourg-headquartered multinational steel and mining company specializing in various steel products including those for the automotive industry, initiated a patent infringement investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against VinFast Auto Ltd., a Vietnamese automotive manufacturer known for its electric vehicles. The complaint, filed on April 17, 2024, alleged that VinFast's imported "Certain High-Strength Aluminum or Aluminum Alloy-Coated Steel, and Automotive Products and Automobiles Containing Same" infringe on ArcelorMittal's intellectual property. This includes various VinFast electric SUV models such as the VF 3, VF 6, VF 7, VF 8, and VF 9.

The asserted patents in this investigation, 337-TA-1402, are U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602 and U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227. While specific one-line technical sketches for these patents were not readily available in the search results, the overarching technology at issue involves high-strength aluminum or aluminum alloy-coated steel, crucial components in modern automotive manufacturing. The case was heard at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under Investigation No. 337-TA-1402. Although the Chief Administrative Law Judge assigns the case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the specific ALJ's name was not consistently highlighted in the public search results. The ITC is a critical venue for patent holders seeking swift remedies against imported infringing goods, as it can issue exclusion orders to block such products from entering the U.S. market, rather than monetary damages awarded by federal courts.

This case is notable due to its direct impact on the burgeoning electric vehicle market, pitting a global steel giant against a relatively new entrant in the automotive sector that aims to establish a significant presence in the U.S.. The dispute highlights the importance of materials technology in EV manufacturing and underscores the proactive stance taken by established industrial players to protect their innovations. Furthermore, a parallel patent infringement lawsuit filed by ArcelorMittal against VinFast in a U.S. District Court in California was stayed, pending the outcome of the ITC investigation, showcasing the strategic importance of the ITC's faster resolution process and its unique ability to impose import bans. The investigation was terminated on September 18, 2025, following an Initial Determination on Violation and a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

The patent infringement litigation between ArcelorMittal and VinFast, designated as ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1402, involved claims of patent infringement related to high-strength aluminum or aluminum alloy-coated steel and automotive products. The investigation was terminated on September 18, 2025.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024):

    • On April 17, 2024, ArcelorMittal of Luxembourg filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), initiating Investigation No. 337-TA-1402. The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 due to the unlawful importation and sale of certain high-strength aluminum or aluminum alloy-coated steel, and automotive products containing the same, by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602 ("the '602 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 11,326,227 ("the '227 patent").
    • Supplements to the complaint were filed on April 24 and May 1, 2024.
    • The ITC formally instituted the investigation on May 20, 2024.
    • ArcelorMittal also initiated a parallel lawsuit against VinFast in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-03128) on April 16, 2024, alleging patent infringement related to its VF 8 vehicle.
    • VinFast entities filed their answer to the ITC complaint by June 28, 2024.

  • Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2024):

    • On June 26, 2024, VinFast filed a joint stipulation to stay the parallel district court case (2:24-cv-03128) pending the final determination of the ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1402.
    • The district court granted the joint stipulation, and the case was stayed on July 1, 2024, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659, until the ITC investigation became final.

  • Discovery & Evidentiary Hearing (2025):

    • ArcelorMittal engaged Ocean Tomo to provide expert opinions regarding the economic prong of the Domestic Industry (DI) requirement under Section 337. This involved extensive discovery, interviewing ArcelorMittal personnel, and touring facilities.
    • The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that ArcelorMittal satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
    • An evidentiary hearing for the ITC investigation took place from March 3-7, 2025.

  • Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2025):

    • A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding, POSCO CO. LTD. v. ARCELORMITTAL, related to U.S. Patent No. 10,961,602, was underway. In a document from March 6, 2025, concerning this IPR, the Patent Owner (ArcelorMittal) argued for discretionary denial of institution under the Fintiv factors. The argument highlighted the advanced stage of the parallel ITC Investigation (337-TA-1402), noting that the evidentiary hearing in the ITC was concluding on March 7, 2025, and the ITC's target date for completion was October 23, 2025. The PTAB's statutory deadline for a final written decision was March 24, 2026, which was more than five months after the ITC's target date.
    • The information available indicates the IPR was at the stage of considering institution based on Fintiv, but the final decision on institution or the ultimate outcome of that specific IPR for the '602 patent is not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets beyond the arguments for discretionary denial.

  • Final Disposition (2025):

    • On July 18, 2025, an Initial Determination on Violation was issued, and the matter became pending before the Commission.
    • On August 1, 2025, a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding was issued by the ALJ.
    • The ITC formally terminated Investigation No. 337-TA-1402 on September 18, 2025. The provided information does not explicitly state whether the Initial Determination found a violation or not, only that it was issued and contributed to the subsequent termination. No unfair import orders were issued in this investigation.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

ArcelorMittal's patent litigation against VinFast, encompassing both a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation (337-TA-1402) and a parallel lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (2:24-cv-03128), drew attention from trade and general news outlets primarily at the outset of the ITC probe. ArcelorMittal initiated the ITC complaint and district court suit in April 2024, alleging that VinFast violated its patents related to high-strength aluminum and aluminum alloy-coated steel used in imported vehicles. The complaint specifically targeted VinFast's VF 8 vehicle, with ArcelorMittal stating it believed the VF 3, VF 6, VF 7, and VF 9 models also infringed its patents. The ITC formally launched its investigation in May 2024, following ArcelorMittal's complaint.

According to reports, ArcelorMittal had initially informed VinFast of potential patent violations in November 2022, but VinFast did not seek a license. As part of its legal action, ArcelorMittal purchased a VinFast VF 8 in May 2023 for testing. VinFast, which began delivering its VF 8 SUVs in California in 2023 and plans to open a North American manufacturing plant in North Carolina in 2025, did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment regarding the ITC probe. However, Yieh Corp Steel News reported that VinFast denied the claims, asserting it sourced materials from a reputable supplier and was indemnified for any infringement damages. The district court case was stayed pending the final determination of the ITC investigation.

The ITC investigation was officially terminated on September 18, 2025, following an Initial Determination on Violation and a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued on July 18, 2025. While specific details of the violation finding and recommended remedy are not broadly reported in mainstream or trade press, Ocean Tomo, an economic expert firm retained by ArcelorMittal, confirmed its involvement in the ITC case. Ocean Tomo provided opinions on the economic prong of the Domestic Industry (DI) requirement, and its efforts contributed to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finding that ArcelorMittal satisfied this requirement. One Reddit discussion, from April 2024, offered an analyst's perspective, characterizing VinFast as a "bug" in a larger "four-way war" between steel giants (ArcelorMittal, Nippon Steel, Posco Steel, and Baosteel), suggesting that ArcelorMittal's action might be aimed at drawing VinFast's supplier, Baosteel, into broader patent disputes. This speculative take suggested that even a settlement might necessitate a recall of VinFast vehicles, potentially serving as a "death sentence" for the automaker. However, this interpretation is not corroborated by other news outlets.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

ArcelorMittal of Luxembourg was represented by attorneys from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in the ITC investigation 337-TA-1402.

The counsel of record identified for the plaintiff includes:

  • Benjamin Hershkowitz
    • Role: Lead Attorney
    • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
    • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP has multiple offices globally, and Hershkowitz is identified as a lead attorney for the complainant in this U.S. ITC investigation.
    • Relevant Experience: Hershkowitz is noted as a lead attorney in this ITC investigation, which involved patent infringement claims concerning high-strength aluminum or aluminum alloy-coated steel and automotive products. His involvement indicates experience in Section 337 investigations at the ITC, which typically involve asserting patents against allegedly infringing imported goods.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defendants' counsel of record for ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1402.

I found the respondent's counsel list. Let me verify it and check for additional counsel (district court, other firms).

Now let me get details on individual Fish & Richardson attorneys and check for additional counsel (district court, other firms).

Defendants' counsel of record — ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1402

Bottom line: All five respondents — VinFast Auto Ltd., VinFast Auto, LLC, VinFast USA Distribution, LLC, Vingroup USA, LLC, and VinFast Trading and Production JSC (collectively "VinFast"/"Respondents") — were represented jointly by a single firm, Fish & Richardson P.C., out of its Washington, D.C. office (with two Atlanta attorneys also appearing). No separate "local counsel" appears in the ITC record, which is consistent with ITC practice (there is no local-counsel requirement at the Commission, unlike district court). The OFIUI (ITC Staff) did not participate.

Counsel roster

The clearest primary source is the consolidated caption/cover page of the ITC proceeding listing "For Respondents VinFast Auto Ltd., VinFast Auto LLC, VinFast USA Distribution, LLC, Vingroup USA, LLC, and VinFast Trading and Production JSC," reproduced verbatim in a PTAB/IPR exhibit, and the signature block of Respondents' pre-hearing brief (dated Jan. 29, 2025), both signed in the same configuration.

Name Role Firm & office Note on experience
Michael J. McKeon Lead trial counsel Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. (1000 Maine Ave. SW) Fish principal; DC Bar No. 459780. >25 years IP trial work. Named a 2025 NLJ "Winning Litigators" finalist; led the Jan. 2025 E.D. Tex. jury verdict of non-infringement defeating a $1.95B demand, and led two ITC trial teams in 2025 that obtained findings of no violation of Section 337 — one of which was this VinFast investigation. Long-time trial counsel for Samsung; also Lenovo/InterDigital (337-TA-1373) and LG Energy Solution.
Joseph V. Colaianni Co-lead / lead signatory on Respondents' briefs Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. The named signatory (/s/ Joseph V. Colaianni) on Respondents' pre-hearing brief. Deep ITC bench: 337-TA-855 (Harman, lead counsel), 337-TA-790 (Mitsubishi Gas Chemical — finding of no infringement after trial), 337-TA-776 (Pass & Seymour, lead), 337-TA-839/-843/-827/-735 (Samsung), 337-TA-699, -698, -663, -634, -631, -598, -531, -474 (Philips patent-misuse win), -449 (3M), -431 (Rambus), -392.
Linhong Zhang Team Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. Listed on Respondents' briefs and hearing caption; technical/ITC patent litigation practice. (Specific prior matters not independently verified in this run.)
Sangki Park Team Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. Listed on Respondents' briefs and hearing caption; registered-patent-attorney track, electrical/technical litigation background. (Prior matters not independently verified here.)
April Sunyoung Park Team Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. Listed on Respondents' briefs and hearing caption.
Jack R. Wilson Team Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. Listed on Respondents' briefs and hearing caption.
Daniel Y. Lee Team Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. Listed on Respondents' briefs and hearing caption.
Irene Hwang Team Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. Listed on Respondents' briefs and hearing caption.
John Thuermer Team Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C. Listed on Respondents' briefs and hearing caption.
Ashley Bolt Team (Atlanta) Fish & Richardson, Atlanta (1180 Peachtree St. SE, Ste. 2100) Listed on Respondents' briefs and hearing caption.
Brian P. Boyd Team (Atlanta) Fish & Richardson, Atlanta Listed on Respondents' briefs and hearing caption; Fish Atlanta litigator.

Source basis (verified): Respondents' pre-hearing brief, dated January 29, 2025, ends: "FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: /s/ Joseph V. Colaianni — Michael J. McKeon, Joseph V. Colaianni, Linhong Zhang, Sangki Park, April Sunyoung Park, Jack R. Wilson, Daniel Y. Lee, Irene Hwang, John Thuermer (Washington, D.C.) … Brian P. Boyd, Ashley Bolt (Atlanta) … Counsel for Respondents VinFast Auto Ltd., VinFast Auto, LLC, VinFast USA Distribution, LLC, Vingroup USA, LLC, and VinFast Trading and Production JSC." The identical roster appears in the ITC hearing caption/cover page reproduced in the PTAB record. Telephone numbers of record: D.C. (202) 783-5070; Atlanta (404) 892-5005.

Parallel district court case (stayed) — likely same defense team

In ArcelorMittal v. VinFast Auto LLC, et al., No. 2:24-cv-03128 (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 16, 2024), stayed on the parties' joint stipulation on July 1, 2024 under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 pending final resolution of the ITC investigation, Fish & Richardson also appears on the defense side: Law360's firm-attorney case page lists Tyler R. Train (Fish & Richardson, San Diego) as counsel on that docket. The C.D. Cal. docket also shows an attorney with the surname "Devkar" entering an appearance for VinFast Auto Ltd. and VinFast Auto, LLC. I could not verify "Devkar's" first name or firm — the docket text was truncated in the sources available to me, so treat this as an unconfirmed lead rather than a verified appearance.

Because the district court case is stayed (and was stayed before any substantive defense activity), the operative defense team for the dispute is the Fish & Richardson ITC team above.

Caveats and flags

  • No in-house counsel for VinFast is identified in the public ITC record; only outside counsel signed the filings I could retrieve. Vietnamese parent-company legal staff would not normally appear of record at the ITC.
  • Sealed filings: significant portions of the record (pre-hearing briefs, expert reports, the final ID discussion) are sealed or redacted; a handful of Fish attorneys who worked the matter may not appear on the public cover pages. The roster above is what appears on the public filings.
  • Contradiction with the case metadata and with the prior generated sections — patents at issue. The metadata lists only U.S. Pat. No. 10,961,602. The prior "Key legal developments" section lists both the '602 and '227 patents, and the Commission's own Federal Register notice confirms the complaint asserted both — expressly reciting claims 1–3, 5–10, 12, 20–22, 24–26, and 28 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,326,227, plus claims of the '602 patent (89 FR 45922-23 (May 24, 2024)). The single-patent metadata field is therefore incomplete.
  • Contradiction/clarification on the outcome. The prior section says an "Initial Determination on Violation" issued and the case terminated, without stating the result. In fact the July 18, 2025 final ID found no violation of Section 337, and on September 18, 2025 the Commission reviewed and affirmed the no-violation finding, terminating the investigation on the ground that complainant failed the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement (asserted domestic-industry claims invalid), while taking no position on infringement, economic prong, and other invalidity grounds. See Notice of Commission Determination, Inv. No. 337-TA-1402 (Sept. 18, 2025), 90 FR 46098 (Sept. 23, 2025), https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1402_notice09182025sgl.pdf. Respondents (through Fish) filed their own petition for review on August 1, 2025, and a response on August 11, 2025. Practically, this was a defense win for Fish & Richardson — consistent with McKeon's 2025 NLJ profile crediting him with two 2025 ITC no-violation findings.
  • Minor discrepancy: the prior section dates institution to May 20, 2024 (the Commission vote); the notice of investigation published at 89 FR 45922-23 on May 24, 2024.
  • ALJ identity (low confidence): a public docket extract appears to associate an order "Granting Respondents' Motion to Strike Certain Domestic Industry Contentions" (Jan. 27, 2025, Doc. 841799) with "Timothy Schelin, Administrative Law Judge." I could not corroborate that the presiding ALJ's name is Timothy Schelin, so I flag it rather than assert it — the prior section correctly noted the ALJ's name was not consistently identified in public sources.

Primary sources used