Defendant
10 cases as defendant.
The International Trade Commission (ITC) is not a company but an independent, quasi-judicial federal agency of the United States government. Officially named the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), it was established by Congress on September 8, 1916, as the U.S. Tariff Commission and was renamed in 1974. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the agency is led by six commissioners nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for nine-year terms. The ITC's mission is to administer U.S. trade remedy laws, provide independent analysis on trade matters to the President and Congress, and maintain the U.S. tariff schedule.
The ITC's primary function is to investigate and adjudicate matters of international trade. This includes determining the impact of imports on U.S. industries and directing actions against unfair trade practices. A significant part of its work involves "Section 337 investigations," which address claims of intellectual property infringement, such as patent and trademark infringement, by imported goods. If a violation is found, the ITC can issue powerful remedies, most notably exclusion orders that direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to block the infringing products from entering the United States, and cease and desist orders against the sale of infringing goods already imported.
As a quasi-judicial body, the ITC acts as a forum for litigation rather than as a plaintiff or defendant in the traditional sense. In the provided data, the ITC is listed as a defendant in one case, Bissell Inc. v. International Trade Commission. This posture reflects the standard process for appealing the agency's final decisions. Parties dissatisfied with an ITC ruling in a Section 337 investigation, like Bissell, can appeal the determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, naming the ITC as the defending agency in the appeal.
The noted case, Bissell Inc. v. International Trade Commission, stemmed from a Section 337 complaint Bissell filed against manufacturer Tineco for patent infringement related to wet-dry floor cleaners. The ITC issued a limited exclusion order for some of Tineco's products but found that redesigned products did not infringe. Bissell's appeal to the Federal Circuit challenged the ITC's finding on the redesigned products. The Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the ITC's decision. This case highlights the ITC's central role as an adjudicator in import-related intellectual property disputes and the subsequent appellate review process where it becomes the named defendant.
Consolidated Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 2013-1240 and 2013-1363) arising from the ITC enforcement proceeding and the 337-TA-562 Consent Order that covered U.S. 6,685,469 among the patents-in-suit.
An appeal of an ITC ruling in which the court affirmed the Commission's decision. The court found that Tineco's redesigned products, featuring a firmware update, do not infringe on Bissell's patent. Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. was an intervenor.
Centripetal appealed the ITC's no-violation determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-1314. Centripetal did not appeal the Commission's invalidity/non-infringement findings on the '526 patent, so the appeal concerned the other asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,193,917 and 9,264,370.
LSI's appeal of the Commission's 337-TA-837 determination on the domestic-industry requirement. The Federal Circuit rejected LSI's challenge and affirmed the Commission in a non-precedential opinion.
Pending Federal Circuit appeal of the ITC matter (Inv. No. 337-TA-1351), listed on the ’578 patent record. The appeal is likely affected by the Nov. 2025 BOE settlement.
Federal Circuit appeal by SiRF and other respondents from the ITC's final determination in 337-TA-602, with Broadcom as intervenor. The court affirmed in all respects, upholding standing, infringement, and patent-eligibility of method claims of the '801 and '187 patents; '801 was held valid, enforceable, and infringed.
Appeals to the Federal Circuit from the ITC enforcement proceeding (Inv. No. 337-TA-562 Enforcement), with ClearCorrect intervening. The '070 patent appears via recitation of the 2006 Consent Order's patent list. The court reversed the ITC's determination that it could review the ALJ's order denying termination, vacated, and remanded.
Appeal from the ITC's ClearCorrect enforcement proceeding. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded on procedural grounds, holding the ITC exceeded its authority by reviewing an ALJ's order denying a motion to terminate. The narrative treats the '840 patent connection as family-level and unconfirmed; the enforcement dispute is described as involving the 2006 Consent Order and the '880 and '511 patents.
En banc Federal Circuit decision, 810 F.3d 1283, holding that the ITC's Section 337 jurisdiction does not extend to the electronic transmission of digital data. The appeal arose from the ClearCorrect enforcement proceeding tied to the 337-TA-562 Consent Order that covered U.S. 6,685,469.
Cisco appealed the ITC's finding that Arista's accused products do not infringe the '597 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's non-infringement determination, as reported at 873 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2017).