Ropes & Gray’s podcast series Talkin’ Trade explores the world of Section 337 unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Historically, challenges to patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act have been rare at the ITC, as the Commission’s Section 337 proceedings necessarily involve tangible, physical goods. But recent changes in the case law from the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court have led to a noticeable uptick in the numbers of times the Commission and its ALJs have been forced to grapple with patent eligibility issues.
Ropes & Gray attorneys Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, and Brendan McLaughlin discuss how Section 101 challenges have evolved over time at the ITC, and how this issue may be litigated differently before the Commission than in district court patent litigation. They also provide an update on recent proposed litigation that may affect Section 337 proceedings.
Transcript:
Matt Rizzolo: Welcome back to Talkin' Trade, the podcast where we explore the ins and outs of Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. We're back after a brief late summer recess. I'm Matt Rizzolo, and with me today are my fellow Ropes & Gray IP attorneys, Matt Shapiro and Brendan McLaughlin. How's everyone doing today?
Matt Shapiro: Doing great, Matt.
Brendan McLaughlin: Doing well.
Matt Rizzolo: All right. Glad to have everyone here, and congratulations to Brendan's Buffalo Bills on their latest win over the Chiefs on their way to what Brendan hopes is a Super Bowl, I am sure.
Brendan McLaughlin: What Brendan knows is a Super Bowl.
Matt Rizzolo: We shall see. So on the last episode, we discussed the interplay of the ITC and the PTAB as patent validity plays a key role in many Section 337 investigations. Today we're going to look at patent validity from another angle, specifically how to commission deals with the ever-changing and ever-confounding state of patent eligibility under Section 101. Before we get into that, Brendan, what's new with the commission?
Brendan McLaughlin: Thanks, Matt. First, ITC legislation has been introduced—or I should say re-introduced—in the House of Representatives. Last month representatives Suzan DelBene and David Schweikert introduced H.R. 5184, the Advancing America's Interests Act. Most notably, this bill endeavors to inhibit NPEs from bringing ITC complaints. For example, the bill would require a complainant attempting to establish DI through his licensing activities to demonstrate that those activities led to the creation of a product, and it would no longer permit the complainant to rely upon an unwilling licensee for its domestic industry. But this legislation is nothing new. An identical bill was introduced by the same representatives during the last Congress, in August 2020. And very similar bills, such as the Trade Protection Not Troll Protection Act, have been introduced in previous Congresses and have died in committee. While some in the business community have expressed support of the AAIA, it remains to be seen whether it will finally gain any traction this Congress.
Matt Rizzolo: And Brendan, I think it's funny, you know, we saw the AAIA get introduced. We also saw the RAIA, the Restoring the America Invents Act, get introduced by Senator Leahy in the last couple of weeks. And while that doesn't really address issues directly related to the commission—it's more focused on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—it would, if enacted, decrease the discretion that the director has to deny institution. And it would encourage district courts to stay more patent litigations pending parallel PTAB proceedings. Both of those changes could have the effect of driving more patent litigants into the ITC. So that's something to stay aware of on the legislative front as well.
Brendan McLaughlin: And we'll stay up to date, and update the audience if there's any movement with those bills. So now turning to the commission, it looks like complainants took a summer vacation. There were no complaints filed for about a month and a half beginning in early August. But as the calendar turned to fall, we saw five new complaints in the span of a week, ranging from baseball and softball bats to barcode scanners and vaping cartridges.
Following up on our previous update regarding the early disposition program, ALJ McNamara in the 1263 investigation recently denied complainant’s motion for entry into the program. During the Markman hearing, the ALJ ordered an oral order, stating “merely because claim 5 of this patent may or may not be indefinite still doesn’t eliminate the rest of the case, and so it’s not truly dispositive of the case. It’s dispositive of one claim and one patent. And we have a pretty heavy-duty schedule this fall and winter, but it may very well be that there needs to be more argument.” In the 1269 investigation, the motion for entry into the program still seems to be pending before the ALJ.
Finally, and most significantly, the ITC announced last month that it has appointed Monica V. Bhattacharyya as the sixth ALJ. Judge Bhattacharyya has a unique background. She joins the bench after years as an investigative attorney with OUII. And before that she worked as an IP litigator for more than 12 years of private practice. Matt, do you have any thoughts on Judge Bhattacharyya's appointment?
Matt Rizzolo: Yeah, I think Judge Bhattacharyya will bring a new and interesting perspective to the bench. The ITC has generally appointed ALJs who have served in an administrative law judge capacity with other administrative agencies. But Judge Bhattacharyya doesn't have that experience. Instead, she's the first one who has previously worked as a staff attorney with the commission's Office of Unfair Import Investigations. She's well known to the ITC bar and highly regarded by many there. And I know we're all looking forward to seeing how she presides over and manages her cases.
So thanks for the update, Brendan. We've got a doozy today—as I mentioned, Section 101 in the ITC. Really no issue in the patent space has bedeviled patent owners, patent practitioners, PTO, district courts, the federal circuit, and the Supreme Court, frankly, like patent eligibility has over the last decade.
For our listeners who may be unfamiliar with Section 101, can you lead us through a bit of the history and explain how we've gotten to where we are today?
Speaker: The language of Section 101 itself is very straightforward. Unfortunately, it's been application of 101 by the courts, the patent office, and the ITC that has been anything but straightforward. And that's where all the confusion comes from.
So, 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that, "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore." Of course, subject to other requirements of the patent statute.
Now, historically Section 101 was construed broadly, with the Supreme Court acknowledging even in the 1980s that Congress intended Section 101 to extend to, quote, "Anything under the sun that is made by man." That's pretty broad. In other words, the Section 101 inquiry was always a threshold test; even if an invention qualifies as a process, machine, or composition of matter, in order to actually get a patent the invention still must satisfy the requirements of Sections 102, 103 and 112. And for a long time, federal circuit law generally reflected this, allowing patents for business methods, software, and most any inventions.
Now, during this time, there rarely seemed to be a question that an apparatus itself was patent-eligible. And for processes, for methods, the federal circuit generally applied what was called the “machine or transformation test” on eligibility. And this test simply looked at the process, whether it was a method of doing a business or a software method, and allowed the patent if the claim steps were tied to a machine or if they transformed an article into a different state or a thing. And as you can imagine, that's a fairly broad task that would have allowed most any process that uses even a generic computer.
Matt Rizzolo: Right. I remember in law school, Section 101 was basically an afterthought in any patent class that I took because it was rarely ever an issue, right? It was a coarse filter, and that was that. So what changed?
Speaker: That's right. And generally the federal circuit's permissive trend continued largely into the 21st century, up until a series of cases by the Supreme Court, which culminated with the 2014 decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, a case that even those outside of patent law might be familiar with and might have heard about.
Let's step back for a moment. In 2010, the Supreme Court issued its Bilski v. Kappos decision, where it expressly rejected that the machine or transformation test is the only test for eligibility. And they held that a patent on hedging risk was ineligible, because, and I quote, "Hedging is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce." But importantly, at this point, although the Supreme Court recognized that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are not patent eligible, they still had not yet set forth any rules for determining eligibility.
Now, two years later the Supreme Court started to articulate its test in a case known as Mayo. That case generally dealt with laws of nature. But the court there first explained the test was to determine whether the patent claim is directed to the law of nature itself, and then to look at whether there's a patent-eligible application of that law.
Now we fast forward two more years to 2014 and the Supreme Court's Alice decision, which essentially codified the tests first articulated in Mayo. There, the Supreme Court reiterated that eligibility under Section 101 always contained “an important implicit exception—laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable.” And the Alice court also set forth a two-part test for determining whether or not claims are eligible. First, we need to determine whether the claims are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, either abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena. And the courts have interpreted this first step as looking at the focus of the claims, or the reality behind the technical jargon of the claims. Then second, if the claim is found directed to an ineligible subject matter at step one, we next look to see whether there is what the Supreme Court calls an “inventive concept” in the claims. And the Supreme Court has explained this inventive concept is “something more” in the claims that “transforms the claim to abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Now, in applying that second step of the Alice framework, the Supreme Court noted that generic computer hardware and functionality would be insufficient to provide an inventive concept as that amounts to nothing more than an instruction to perform the abstract idea using a computer, which itself would not be patent eligible.
Matt Rizzolo: So real simple. Everyone got that? All right, this was a huge shift in the law, because in the years since Alice, we've seen the Section 101 pendulum swing from that permissive coarse filter toward what's a real issue for patent owners, given how the federal circuit has interpreted Alice. And this has provided a really valuable defense for many defendants seeking to get out from a patent infringement action.
Speaker: That's right, Matt. Initially, many post-Alice cases, like the pre-Alice cases on eligibility, focused on computer-based claims relating to financial instruments like the intermediated settlement found abstract in Alice, or on claims relating to general business practices—such as advertisement-based content distribution—or generic computer data manipulation. But within that series of cases, the Supreme Court developed a number of themes when looking to see whether the claims were in fact directed to an abstract idea. And as we'll discuss more in a bit, the fed circuit has extended those themes and extended Alice beyond mere business methods and generic computer data manipulation to cover real, physical articles. Importantly, however, the fed's circuit is quite split over this extension of Alice, with many of the judges actively vocalizing their frustration with the current state of the law. Some of my favorite commentary, frankly, comes from Judge Plager, who has described the court's 101 case law as "useless,” “an abstract (and indefinable) doctrine,” “unworkable,” an “intellectual morass,” and frankly just “incoherent."
Matt Rizzolo: That's a pretty shocking rebuke from a sitting judge. I think it's also pretty telling when you see Chief Judge Moore saying that the federal circuit is, quote, "At a loss on how to apply Section 101 and later guidance from the Supreme Court." And many of the court's other judges have explicitly pleaded with Congress in some of their opinions to step in, and for the Supreme Court to take up another case to try to provide further clarity. So given the divergent opinions on Section 101 at the federal circuit, Matt, how has the commission, whose appeals go to the federal circuit, dealt with patent eligibility?
Matt Shapiro: Well, luckily for the commission itself, the agency structure and its ability to decide cases on other dispositive issues has allowed it to avoid weighing in on Section 101 very often. So far, the commission has only opined on Section 101 in a select few cases. For example, in the 1088 investigation, the commission reviewed an initial determination on summary determination, and affirmed the ALJ's holding that the claims at issue were directed to an abstract idea and failed to recite an inventive concept. But the opinion there was not even unanimous. Commissioner Schmidtlein filed a dissenting opinion in which she stated that she finds the claims not directed to an abstract idea, but instead, quote, "To an improved paving machine." Then in the 944 investigation, the commission reviewed and reversed the ID's findings of 101 in validity, with respect to one asserted patent. But the commission dodged another 101 argument because it found that assignor estoppel applied to the respondent.
In other investigations, when confronted with 101 issues, the commission has avoided them completely when possible. In most instances, this has entailed ruling on a separate case dispositive issue and saying that it need not reach the 101 issue. So, for example, in the 1131 investigation, the commission determined to review the ID's findings with respect to 101, but then took no position. And the commission in the 1016 investigation determined to review the ID's findings with respect to 101, but then it vacated and took no position on the ID's 101 analysis, after finding no violation on other grounds. In other words, it just didn't need to reach the 101 issue there. And the 979 investigation, the commission determined to review the ID's 101 findings, but again, took no position on the ID's findings. And in the 1190 investigation, the commission did not disturb the ID's findings, but the claims of one asserted patent are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Matt Rizzolo: So while the ITC, the commission itself, is able to avoid ruling on 101 issues in at least some situations, there's no real similar escape for the ALJs who have to deal with 101 challenges as they're presented by respondents. How do respondents typically end up raising 101 issues in Section 337 proceedings? I know in many district courts this really gets raised at the motion to dismiss stage right off the bat.
Matt Shapiro: Right, Matt. So, it's a little bit more complex at the ITC. In particular, the ITC does not have a procedural mechanism that's similar to a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which is one typical way that 101 issues are first presented at a district court. One way that some respondents have tried to raise Section 101 issues early in an investigation is through what's known as the 100-Day Early Disposition Program, or the 100-Day Pilot Program, where the commission instructs the ALJ to issue an ID on a particular case dispositive issue within 100 days of institution. However, most requests for entrance into the 100-day program are denied, and there has only been one request granted based on a Section 101 challenge. And that was the 994 investigation, where the ALJ issued an early initial determination finding the claims invalid under 101. And the commission then determined not to review that ID and terminated the investigation. So the one example of the 100-day program where 101 was at issue was actually pretty successful for the respondents.
Respondents have also attempted to raise Section 101 challenges in motions for summary determination. This would be the equivalent of a district court motion for summary judgment. And as 101 issues may be intertwined with claim construction, some ALJs will hear oral argument on a 101-based summary determination motion in connection with a Markman hearing. And this happened, for example, in the 1131 and 1200 investigations. And, of course, the respondent can still present Section 101 arguments at the hearing, including fact and expert witness testimony, and can address those arguments in post-hearing briefing.
Matt Rizzolo: As a general matter, do we have an idea of how Section 101 challenges have fared on the merits at the ITC as compared to those brought in district courts?
Matt Shapiro: Well, there's really two distinctions that we've been able to come up with for the difference between the ITC's handling of Section 101 versus district courts. And the first may have something to do with the quality and types of patents being asserted at the ITC. Generally, though, district courts are more receptive to 101 challenges than the ITC. For example, it's unlikely that the ITC will be asked to consider a patent that's directed to a financial instrument where that patent is much more likely to be asserted in the district court. And a second aspect really relates to the procedural posture. While motions to dismiss in summary judgment present good opportunities for 101 challenges at the district court, they have not been as successful at the ITC, particularly summary determination motions. For example, in the 973 investigation, the ALJ issued an ID on a motion for summary determination finding all asserted claims of three patents invalid under 101. But the commission then reviewed and vacated that ID for failing to view the evidence in light most favorable to the complainant, as would be required for the summary determination standard. The commission issued its opinion in September 2016, and since then ALJs have only rarely found a patent ineligible under 101 at the motion for summary determination phase.
Matt Rizzolo: I will say that even so, it may be a good idea for at least some respondents to consider filing a summary determination motion on 101 issues, if only to provide the ALJ with a preview of what might later be presented at the hearing. You know, and there have been some investigations where ALJs have denied summary determination motions only to later revisit 101 in the final ID and reverse earlier findings. Even a denial by an ALJ might provide the parties with guidance on how to further develop the factual record at the hearing to allow the ALJ to rule more substantively on 101 issues. So there may be some value in filing such a motion, even if it might have a low likelihood of success at the summary determination stage. Does anyone have a feel for how many times overall the ALJs and the commission have weighed in on 101 issues?
Brendan McLaughlin: Yeah. So I took a look at that, and over the last ten years there have been around 30 investigations where the merits of a Section 101 defense have been addressed. Though that's only about 6% of investigations over that time, it's been raised more and more in recent years, including an investigation involving road construction machines, LED lighting devices, and garage door openers. For those listeners tuning in through Apple Podcasts or some other podcasting app, check out the Ropes & Gray podcast page for this episode for a nice collection of 101 decisions at the ITC by ALJs and the commission.
Matt Rizzolo: Yeah, I think that will definitely be worth checking out, and thanks for pulling that together. I also think this is a critical point, that it wasn't really the Bilski case or Mayo or even Alice in 2014 that really caused the recent uptick in 101 challenges at the ITC. As we've discussed in previous episodes, because the ITC only has jurisdiction over physical imported articles, a lot of 101-vulnerable patents, like the financial instruments that Matt mentioned, simply aren't asserted at the ITC. But once we saw the federal circuit begin to interpret Alice to encompass claims directed to actual physical devices, 101 became much more of an issue and much more of a viable defense at the ITC.
Speaker: That's right, Matt. The federal circuit’s decision in Electric Power Group, I think, represented a key point in this shift towards ineligibility. There, the court held that merely collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying the results of that analysis is abstract and ineligible. And within that holding, the federal circuit also noted that “the essentially result-focused, functional nature of claim language has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible under Section 101.” Now, those holdings, together with the Supreme Court's admonishment that generic computer components are not inventive, have provided patent challengers with a very powerful tool for invalidating all sorts of patents.
And since then, the federal circuit has begun finding ineligible more and more claims that recite generic components and use result-oriented functional language. And this trend has continued, and continues to the point where the federal circuit recently invalidated as abstract seemingly mechanical inventions such as a movable garage door, a driveline propeller shaft for an engine, and even a digital camera, all of which are directed towards physical articles commonly at issue in the ITC. Assuming the federal circuit continues down this path, Matt, it seems to be a safe bet that 101 will grow in prominence at the ITC.
Matt Rizzolo: I think that's right. And given the ITC's fast pace, we may also see ALJs increasingly start to grab ahold of 101 as a way to quickly dispose of cases, whether at the motion for summary determination stage, or even through entry into the new pilot program announced a few months ago that allows for the ALJs as opposed to the commission to designate certain issues for early disposition on the merits. No one has raised 101 as an issue for this pilot program yet. As Brendan mentioned earlier, there still have been only two requests. But I think it's only a matter of time before Section 101 gets raised as part of that pilot program.
To close out today's episode, can you provide us with some tips and tricks for litigating 101 issues at the ITC?
Speaker: Sure. My biggest piece of advice seems obvious, but it has been critical in our own recent cases: Stay up to date on the latest case law. The ground seems to be constantly shifting when it comes to Section 101, and it is critical to know federal circuit precedent. Knowing the latest has practical implications that can change the course of an investigation. As we all know, many seasoned practitioners who have litigated patents both in and out of the ITC long before the Mayo/Alice line of cases have had to completely recalibrate their understanding of eligibility under Section 101.
As I noted earlier, Section 101 was largely permissive until 2014, and frankly, I doubt whether many practitioners that have been around before that point would have ever considered a camera, for example, to be abstract. And the same is true for ALJs, some of whom were patent practitioners before Alice. For example, Brendan, you mentioned Judge Bhattacharyya has been an IP litigator for years before this. My guess is she's dealt with a lot of pre-Alice cases, and who knows, you know, to what extent she would look at a case for a camera and say, "Yes, that could be abstract."
If you continue to hammer home the fed circuit's change in precedent, and the fed circuit's shifting views here, then you can really start to change a judge's opinion on something that they might have predisposition in the opposite direction.
So when litigating 101 issues involving apparatus claims, it's important to continue to hammer home the idea that even claims directed to physical objects, such as a digital camera, can be abstract if the claims are ultimately result-oriented. And you can drive home that point, and drive home the result-oriented nature of a lot of claims that were filed during this permissive time period. And also, as Matt mentioned, just because an ALJ makes certain findings on summary determination doesn't mean that he or she will reach the same conclusion in a final initial determination. Indeed, in one of our most recent cases, we managed to turn the ALJ around on just this point, from a summary determination finding claims directed to a physical device were non-abstract to a final initial determination that the claims were indeed abstract. And this was largely by addressing the ALJ's findings at summary determination and demonstrating how the federal circuit has consistently gone the other way since Alice. Which is frankly a long way of saying don't ever quite give up on your 101 arguments. There may be a different way to frame the issue, and you never know what the federal circuit might say next to help you.
I would close out with one other example, Matt, that I think was a strong point. Even if you think that a summary determination motion could be a long shot on 101, it still is very helpful to frame the issues, as you noted, for the hearing, as it forces complainants to frame what they think the invention is, and, frankly, when they frame it that way but then don't present evidence at the hearing of actually having invented what they claim they invented at the 101 stage, the ALJ can turn against them, the court subsequently can turn against them. And we've seen that recently in the federal circuit, where a patent that was found eligible at the 101 stage because it was directed to a special spreadsheet, was then found unpatentable and not infringed at the trial, and on appeal, because the federal circuit looked and said, All the arguments you made about eligibility didn't actually carry through to how the patent was applied against the practicing product. So, arguments that a complainant might make against 101 can come back to bite them later if they don't actually follow through with that theory.
Matt Rizzolo: Yeah, I guess to quote the immortal Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over when it comes to 101. And if you're a complainant who wins on an early motion, you better be prepared to try to defend that as well.
That's all the time we have today for this episode of Talkin' Trade. As always, we appreciate the feedback we've gotten from our listeners. If there is a topic you would like to hear more about, or if you have ideas that we can use to improve this podcast, don't hesitate to reach out and let us know. You can find this and other Ropes & Gray podcasts on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or ropesgray.com/podcasts. And as Brendan mentioned, you can find that chart of Section 101 decisions from the ITC also on the Ropes & Gray website for this podcast. Until next time, I'm Matt Rizzolo, and on behalf of Matt Shapiro and Brendan McLaughlin, thank you all for listening.
|
Investigation |
Date |
Posture |
§ 101 Validity Determination |
|
Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, |
October 13, 2021 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbine Generators and Components Thereof, |
October 12, 2021 |
Final Initial Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communication Modules and Products Containing the Same, |
September 24, 2021 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Audio Players and Controllers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, |
September 23, 2021 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Fixtures, and Components Thereof, |
August 25, 2021 |
Final Initial Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof, |
July 23, 2021 |
Final Initial Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Smart Thermostats, Smart HVAC Systems, and Components Thereof, |
May 14, 2021 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Fixtures, and Components Thereof, |
April 20, 2021 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Wearable Monitoring Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, |
February 4, 2021 |
Final Initial Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Smart Thermostats, Smart HVAC Systems, and Components Thereof, |
November 2, 2020 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof, |
September 22, 2020 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software Components, |
August 25, 2020 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Dental and Orthodontic Scanners and Software, |
June 1, 2020 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Components Thereof, |
April 21, 2020 |
Final Initial Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof, |
January 10, 2020 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, |
December 16, 2019 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof, |
July 17, 2019 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Road Construction Machines and Components Thereof, |
July 15, 2019 |
Commission Opinion |
Invalid |
|
Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, |
October 2, 2018 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain X-Ray Breast Imaging Devices and Components Thereof, |
September 13, 2018 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same, |
June 11, 2018 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Road Construction Machines and Components Thereof, |
May 24, 2018 |
Summary Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same, |
November 30, 2017 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, |
November 21, 2017 |
Final Initial Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing the Same, |
July 28, 2017 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof, |
June 26, 2017 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), |
April 19, 2017 |
Commission Opinion |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Mobile and Portable Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and Laptops) and Components Thereof, |
April 6, 2017 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II), |
January 9, 2017 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Radiotherapy Systems and Treatment Planning Software, and Components Thereof, |
November 28, 2016 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology, |
September 29, 2016 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, |
September 7, 2016 |
Commission Opinion |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products and Components Thereof, |
September 2, 2016 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, |
August 19, 2016 |
100-Day Program |
Invalid |
|
Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, |
August 9, 2016 |
Summary Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), |
July 26, 2016 |
Commission Opinion |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, |
June 28, 2016 |
Summary Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, |
April 27, 2016 |
Summary Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, |
April 4, 2016 |
Commission Opinion |
Invalid |
|
Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, |
March 3, 2016 |
Summary Determination |
Invalid |
|
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), |
March 2, 2016 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I), |
July 29, 2015 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof, |
May 19, 2015 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, |
July 5, 2013 |
Commission Opinion |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers, |
October 3, 2012 |
Final Initial Determination |
Not Invalid |
|
Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, |
July 12, 2012 |
Summary Determination |
Not Invalid |
Stay Up To Date with Ropes & Gray
Ropes & Gray attorneys provide timely analysis on legal developments, court decisions and changes in legislation and regulations.
Stay in the loop with all things Ropes & Gray, and find out more about our people, culture, initiatives and everything that’s happening.
We regularly notify our clients and contacts of significant legal developments, news, webinars and teleconferences that affect their industries.