Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Fish Cases

Certain Robotic Toys (337-TA-869)

ITC Litigation

Fish Cases

Certain Robotic Toys (337-TA-869)

ITC Litigation

Back to Case Listing

Represented the Innovation First Complainants, which develop and market small mechanical and, in some cases, robotic toys. Innovation First sought relief in the ITC for the unlawful importation into the United States of certain robotic toys that were manufactured as a result of a misappropriation of Innovation First’s trade secrets, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain robotic toys, made using Innovation First’s trade secrets. The trade secret misappropriation included acts of misappropriation that occurred in China. This case was one of only a handful that the Commission instituted after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in TianRui Group Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 661 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The ITC was a particularly useful forum here because one of the Respondents had previously secured a dismissal of a trade secret misappropriation case in a Texas court – arguing that a Chinese court would be a more convenient forum. That Respondent had no such defense before the ITC and, in fact, affirmatively moved to intervene as a Respondent in the investigation. In connection with a confidential settlement, the Respondents agreed to a consent order.

In-Depth

Represented the Innovation First Complainants, which develop and market small mechanical and, in some cases, robotic toys. Innovation First sought relief in the ITC for the unlawful importation into the United States of certain robotic toys that were manufactured as a result of a misappropriation of Innovation First’s trade secrets, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain robotic toys, made using Innovation First’s trade secrets. The trade secret misappropriation included acts of misappropriation that occurred in China. This case was one of only a handful that the Commission instituted after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in TianRui Group Co. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 661 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The ITC was a particularly useful forum here because one of the Respondents had previously secured a dismissal of a trade secret misappropriation case in a Texas court – arguing that a Chinese court would be a more convenient forum. That Respondent had no such defense before the ITC and, in fact, affirmatively moved to intervene as a Respondent in the investigation. In connection with a confidential settlement, the Respondents agreed to a consent order.