Website_Capabilities_070-White-Collar-and-Corporate Crime

At the intersection of litigation and international trade

With expedited timelines and powerful, decisive remedies, the ITC is an important forum for high-stakes, global disputes, and we’re at the forefront. Since 2020, our team has appeared in more ITC investigations than any other firm, helping respondents and complainants succeed with our technically-savvy, business-minded, no-nonsense approach to ITC litigation.

Cases move quickly at the ITC – discovery is fast, deadlines are short, and initial rulings can happen within 12 months of filing a complaint. We leverage our experience handling 75+ Section 337 cases since 2000 to stay one step ahead of the unique rules, procedures, and requirements of the ITC and to avoid surprises. And because we delivered favorable outcomes to clients in 24 of the last 26 initial determinations we were involved in, we know how succeed in this dynamic forum.

Our team has its finger on the pulse when it comes to the most sophisticated and complex technologies – bridging the gap between technical knowledge and legal strategy. We speak the language and craft legal strategies informed by both legal knowhow and technological nuance.

“DLA Piper is a fantastic ITC firm.”

– client, Chambers USA 2022

While patent infringement matters account for most Section 337 matters, our ITC litigation team also includes leading trademark, trade secret, and antitrust and competition lawyers to navigate any issue covered by Section 337. When parallel proceedings threaten to divert critical resources, we have the support of a deep bench of ITC experienced litigators across the country to deliver a fully coordinated and effective strategy.

Our practice includes lawyers who previously worked at the ITC on Section 337 matters in the most influential offices at the agency, including the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Office of Unfair Imports Investigations (i.e., “ITC Staff”), and the Office of the General Counsel. This experience involved trying cases before the ITC’s Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), advising the ALJs on how to decide their cases, advising the Commissioner on how to craft its final determination, and briefing and arguing Federal Circuit appeals from ITC final determinations. Our lawyers leverage this experience in every case to develop creative strategies to help our clients with the most challenging matters.

Legal, administrative, and political nuances all play a role in ITC investigations. Our integrated team features leading IP litigators working side-by-side with government affairs advisors to deliver solutions to tackle ITC investigations from all angles.

Awards and recognition

Experience

  • Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. DENSO, Kioxia, Silicon Laboratories (represented DENSO, Kioxia, and Silicon Laboratories in ITC Investigation No. 1342)
  • Daedalus Prime LLC v. NXP (represented NXP in ITC Investigation No. 1332)
  • Ampt LLC v. SolarEdge (representing SolarEdge in ITC Investigation No. 1327)
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Lenovo & Motorola (representing Lenovo & Motorola in ITC Investigation No. 1324)
  • Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Kioxia, NVIDIA (represented Kioxia and NVIDIA in ITC Investigation No. 1319)
  • Maxell, Ltd. v. Lenovo & Motorola (representing Lenovo & Motorola in ITC Investigation No. 1312)
  • Arigna Technology Limited v. Microsoft, Lenovo, & Motorola (representing Microsoft, Lenovo, & Motorola in ITC Investigation No. 1308)
  • Zebra Techs. v. Honeywell (represented Honeywell in ITC Investigation No. 1307)
  • Zebra Techs. v. Honeywell (represented Honeywell in ITC Investigation No. 1306)
  • Future Link Systems v. HP, Lenovo, Motorola (represented HP, Lenovo, & Motorola in ITC Investigation No. 1295)
  • Honeywell v. Zebra Techs. (represented Honeywell in ITC Investigation No. 1285)
  • Sonrai Memory Limited v. Lenovo, LG, Motorola, Samsung (represented Lenovo, LG, Motorola, Samsung in ITC Investigation No. 1280)
  • Evolved Wireless v. Motorola (represented Motorola in ITC Investigation No. 1253)
  • Solas OLED v. BOE (represented BOE in ITC Investigation No. 1243)
  • Skybell v. Arlo Technologies (represented Arlo in ITC Investigation No. 1242, obtained ID of invalidity of all 7 patents in suit)
  • Philips v. Lenovo (represented Lenovo in ITC Investigation No. 1224, obtained favorable ID for all 4 patents in suit)
  • Solas OLED v. Motorola (represented Motorola in ITC Investigation No. 1225)
  • Neodron v. ASUS, Microsoft, Motorola (represented ASUS, Microsoft & Motorola in ITC Investigation No. 1193)
  • Neodron v. Microsoft Corp. and HP Inc. (represented Microsoft and HP in patent litigation involving touchscreen mobile devices in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1162)
  • Fisher & Paykel Healthcare v. ResMed (represented ResMed in Investigation No. 1136)
  • ResMed v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare (represented ResMed in Investigation No. 1136)
  • Walbro v. Home Depot (represented Home Depot in Inv. No. 1123, obtained favorable ID of invalidity of all 3 remaining patents in suit)
  • Broadcom v. DENSO, Panasonic, Toyota (represented DENSO, Panasonic, and Toyota in Inv. No. 1119, obtained favorable ID of invalidity and non-infringement of all patents in suit)
  • PureCircle v. Sweet Green (represented PureCircle in Inv. No. 1085)
  • Intellectual Ventures II v. BMW, DENSO (represented BMW & DENSO in Inv. No. 1073)
  • iRobot v. BISSEL, bObsweep, Hoover, Black & Decker (represented iRobot in Inv. No. 1057, obtained remedial orders against defendants)
  • Motorola v. Hytera (represented Motorola in Inv. No. 1053, obtained remedial orders against defendants)
  • Intellectual Ventures II v. BMW, DENSO (represented BMW & DENSO in Inv. No. 1052)

Contact