ITC Round-Up: Q2 2025

Co-Authored by: Kevin Garvey, Summer Associate 

In the second quarter of 2025, the International Trade Commission issued public orders addressing various contested issues, including indefiniteness, witness credibility, infringement, domestic industry, and obviousness. 

Dermatological Treatment Devices and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1356 (June 18, 2025) 

In this June 19, 2025, opinion, the Commission affirmed, with certain modifications, the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finding a Section 337 violation and recommending remedies. The technology at issue in the case involved using radio-frequency needles to treat skin.  

On the economic domestic industry requirement, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding that the domestic activities of Serendia’s licensee, Benev, were sufficient. The Commission found the labor and capital investments significant based on a comparison between the licensee’s investments in a domestic industry product and the manufacturing costs of Serendia’s foreign licensee, ViOL.  

The Commission also affirmed the ALJ’s infringement finding. EndyMed argued that the combination of its accused machine consoles and modular Intensif handpieces did not contributorily infringe because the consoles had substantial non-infringing uses with other, non-accused handpieces. The Commission took no position on contributory infringement because the ALJ had also found direct and induced infringement, and EndyMed did not challenge those findings.  

The Commission further affirmed the ALJ’s finding that secondary considerations supported non-obviousness of the asserted ʼ836 and ʼ536 patents. The ALJ had accepted Serendia’s detailed showing of commercial success, industry praise, and long-felt need corresponding to the claimed inventions. On review, EndyMed argued that the ALJ’s finding on commercial success for the ʼ836 patent was erroneous because it did not adequately tie the alleged commercial success to the claimed product feature. The Commission rejected EndyMed’s argument and noted that, in any event, EndyMed had not challenged the ALJ’s other secondary considerations findings supporting non-obviousness.  

The Commission vacated the ALJ’s finding that the asserted claims of the ʼ444 patent were indefinite on account of the limitation “[causes/to cause] energy to be substantially applied to body segments around each electrode.” The Commission relied on certain portions of the specification, as well as expert testimony, to conclude that a skilled artisan would have understood the limitation with reasonable certainty despite its recitation of a term of degree (i.e., “substantially”). The Commission thus remanded for the ALJ to resolve the outstanding issues relating to the ʼ444 patent in the first instance. 

Having set out its affirmances on the violation-related issues above, the Commission adopted the ALJ’s recommended remedies. Specifically, the Commission issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against EndyMed’s products within the scope of the investigation and set an 85% bond during the presidential review period.  

Smart Wearable Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1398 (April 18, 2025) 

In this April 18, 2025, final initial determination, ALJ Doris Johnson Hines found a Section 337 violation and recommended remedies. The technology at issue related to “smart ring” wearable health monitoring devices.  

On infringement, ALJ Hines rejected at the outset the respondents’ “overarching” argument that the claims were narrow and covered only some disclosed embodiments. Specifically, the respondents argued that the claims covered only embodiments showing a cavity between two enclosures, not embodiments showing a single enclosure. ALJ Hines explained that the specification makes no such distinction between a single enclosure and a double enclosure; instead, it consistently discloses housings with two components. Having made this determination, ALJ Hines went on to find that the accused products — in which epoxy allegedly corresponds to one housing component and fully encapsulates a battery — satisfy the claim language.  

ALJ Hines also addressed “up front” a “concerning” issue, namely Ultrahuman’s CEO’s lack of credibility. Ultrahuman planned to present evidence at the hearing that it had a manufacturing facility in Plano, Texas. That evidence included images and testimony by Ultrahuman’s CEO. However, complainant Oura objected, showing that Ultrahuman had altered images of a third party’s building to incorrectly show Ultrahuman signage and altered images of manufactured parts to incorrectly indicate that they were Ultrahuman parts. Even after that information came to light, Ultrahuman’s CEO nevertheless testified about the Texas facility in his cross-examination. and Ultrahuman’s counsel did not correct his testimony. ALJ Hines thus found Ultrahuman’s CEO to be a non-credible witness.  

ALJ Hines also found that a protected domestic industry exists based on Oura’s Gen. 3 and Gen. 4 products. Opposing the technical prong, the respondents argued that those rings did not meet the claim language for the same reason that the respondents’ own accused products did not meet the claim language — a reason ALJ Hines already rejected. On the economic prong, ALJ Hines noted that the Oura Ring is Oura’s only product and that Oura operates two facilities in the United States (San Diego and San Francisco). ALJ Hines thus found that Oura’s evidence sufficed.   

Addressing validity, ALJ Hines found the asserted claims valid because none of the asserted prior art reference disclosed separate “external” and “internal” housing components, as claimed.  

On public interest, ALJ Hines determined that the public interest did not weigh against issuing a remedy. In support, ALJ Hines found that, inter alia, (i) Oura and others have capacity to make up for increased demand resulting from a remedy in this investigation, and (ii) U.S. consumers have access to other alternative products if a remedy issues.  

ALJ Hines recommended a limited exclusion order barring the Ultrahuman and RingConn products within the scope of the investigation. ALJ Hines also recommended a cease and desist order, as both Ultrahuman and RingConn maintain commercially significant inventory in the U.S. Lastly, ALJ Hines recommended a 0% bond during the presidential review period, given the record’s silence on what percentage of Oura customers purchase a subscription.  

Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, and Products Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1394 (March 21, 2025) 

In this March 21, 2025, final initial determination, Chief ALJ Clark Cheney found a Section 337 violation and recommended remedies. The claimed technology related to liquid coolers for electronic components in computers.  

On infringement, the respondents disputed satisfaction of the terms “[first/second] [cavity/opening/slot].” The respondents argued that the Cooler Master complainants’ expert proffered insufficient conclusory testimony on those terms. Chief ALJ Cheney noted, however, that the photographs of record showed the presence of the claimed features, and, in any event, expert testimony is not required to prove infringement.  

Chief ALJ Cheney found a domestic industry protected by the asserted patents. On the technical prong, the respondents argued that Cooler Master’s domestic industry products did not satisfy the claim language for the same reasons that their own accused products did not satisfy it — i.e., insufficient evidence supporting the two “[cavities/openings/slots].” Chief ALJ Cheney again rejected those arguments. On the economic prong, Chief ALJ Cheney found that the Cooler Master complainants’ evidence concerning U.S.-based R&D, customization, technical support, marketing, and distribution (inter alia) sufficed.  

Chief ALJ Cheney also upheld the asserted patents’ validity. Chief ALJ Cheney found that two alleged anticipatory references did not adequately disclose the claim requirement that “the cover member and the base plate defin[e] a heat exchange chamber that includes the heat exchange unit.” The respondents’ technical expert admitted that the prior art elements corresponding to the “cover member” and “base plate” could not make up a heat exchange unit as claimed without additional components. Chief ALJ Cheney also found that a third invalidity ground — a product — was not clearly and convincingly on sale before the priority date.  

Having found a violation of Section 337, Chief ALJ Cheney recommended remedies in the form of a limited exclusion order directed to all the respondents, a cease and desist order directed to one respondent, and a 100% bond during the presidential review period.  

Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1368 (April 8, 2025) 

On April 8, 2025, the Commission denied the NJOY respondents’ petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s opinion finding a violation of Section 337 and issuing a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. In its petition, NJOY challenged the Commission’s finding that the complainant’s domestic industry product met the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.  

NJOY argued that the Commission’s reasoning contained an “inconsistency” warranting reconsideration: The Commission had determined that the complainant’s domestic industry product met the “pressure sensor” limitation under the doctrine of equivalents, yet it found that the same product literally met other, distinct claim limitations that used the “pressure sensor” term, such as “gasket around the pressure sensor.” According to NJOY, it “necessarily follow[ed]” that that latter category of terms could not literally practice the claims. However, the Commission rejected NJOY’s argument because it lacked case law support and NJOY had forfeited the argument despite having the opportunity to assert it during the investigation.  

NJOY also argued that the Commission erred in finding the domestic industry product met the limitation “gasket around the pressure sensor.” The Commission rejected that argument, too, explaining that NJOY’s argument was predicated on a claim interpretation that it had raised and rejected during the investigation — namely, that “gasket around” language requires that a gasket “completely” “surround” every component of the pressure sensor.