ITC Round-Up: Q3 2025

In the third quarter of 2025, the International Trade Commission issued public orders addressing various contested issues, including bonds and the scope of exclusion orders, as well as touched on the importance of litigants maintaining credibility throughout investigations.

Electronic Computing Devices and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1382 (July 8, 2025)

On July 8, 2025, the Commission issued its opinion finding no violation of Section 337 with respect to alleged infringement of the asserted patents — U.S. Patent No. 7,792,066 (“the ’066 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,687,354 (“the ’354 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,952,203 (“the ’203 patent”). The technology at issue in pertained to computing devices and involved a wireless data transmission protocol that results in reduced uplink latency (’203 patent), a method of waking a laptop from a sleep state via Wi-Fi (’066 patent), and laptop hinges that facilitate improved rotation of a laptop housing across various degrees of rotation (’354 patent).

With respect to the ’203 patent, the Commission affirmed the initial determination’s (ID’s) findings of noninfringement and no technical domestic industry for all asserted claims, providing supplemental reasoning that addressed certain arguments raised by the complainant in its petition for review. The Commission relied on the testimony of the complainant’s own expert, as well as the expert for the respondent, and concluded that the accused and domestic industry products did not practice the “resource assignment indication” element of the asserted claims. Op. at 12-13.

Likewise, with respect to the ’066 patent, the Commission affirmed the ID’s findings of noninfringement and no technical domestic industry for all asserted claims. In reaching its conclusion, the Commission supplemented the ID’s analysis that found that the “no handshaking” element was not met by the accused and domestic industry products. Id. at 16-17.

Finally, with respect to the ’354 patent, the Commission affirmed the ID’s findings of noninfringement for claims 1 and 4-6 and supplemented the ID’s analysis by its own examination of physical samples of the accused hinges. Id. at 19-20. While the Commission noted at the beginning of its opinion that it found the other asserted claims of the ’354 patent — claims 7, 9, and 11 — invalid, id. at 2, it did not provide any express analysis thereof.

Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, and Products Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1394 (Aug. 5, 2025)

The Commission issued its opinion on August 5, 2025, finding a violation of Section 337. The investigation concerned two asserted patents — U.S. Patent No. 10,509,446 and U.S. Patent No. 11,061,450 — covering liquid cooling technology for electronic components.

The Commission affirmed the ID’s finding of infringement of the asserted claims by the accused products. The Commission also affirmed the ID’s findings that the complainant established the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement and that the asserted claims were not invalid. The respondents asserted that the ID applied inconsistent interpretations of the “defining a heat exchange chamber” limitation in the context of invalidity, infringement, and the technical prong of domestic industry. The Commission disagreed with the respondents and affirmed the ID’s findings with supplemental analysis. Op. at 14-25.

The Commission also affirmed the ID’s finding that the complainants satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The respondents’ petition for review challenged the allocation of certain domestic industry investments, specifically the alleged failure by the ID to discount labor expenses pertaining to a patent that was withdrawn from the investigation, as well as the ID’s inclusion of investments in a downstream “product ecosystem.” The Commission examined the evidentiary record and concluded that the asserted domestic expenditures did not include those relating to the withdrawn patent. Id. at 26-27. Otherwise, the Commission summarily rejected arguments regarding the “ecosystem,” thus affirming the findings in the ID. Id. at 27.

The Commission determined a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order to be appropriate, with 0% bond. Despite the respondents not opposing the complainants’ request for bond, the Commission set bond at 0% because the complainants failed to meet their burden to show the need for a bond. Op. at 35. The Commission explained that merely claiming a competitive relationship between the parties is insufficient to show the need for a bond, and the alleged difficulty in determining a price differential did not relieve the complainants’ of their burden to establish an appropriate bond amount. Id.

Exercise Equipment and Subassemblies Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1419 (Aug. 20, 2025)

The Commission issued its opinion on August 20, 2025, adopting the recommended determination’s (RD’s) recommendation to issue general and limited exclusion orders to the defaulting respondents. The products and technology at issue related to the design of a reformer apparatus for Pilates exercises. The respondents had defaulted in this investigation, resulting in a summary determination of violation. The Commission determined not to review the administrative law judge’s summary determination findings and instead requested the parties, government agencies, and other interested parties to submit briefing on the issues of remedy, public interest, and bonding, which the Commission focused on in its opinion.

With respect to remedy, the Commission found that a general exclusion order was warranted under both Sections 337(d)(2)(A) and (B), as recommended by the RD and requested by the complainant and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations. Op. at 10. Among other factors, the Commission recognized that the use of “generic, non-descript, and unmarked packaging” would obfuscate the source of the infringing articles, which is conducive to circumventing a limited exclusion order. Op. at 12. Moreover, the Commission highlighted a pattern of violation and the difficulty of identifying the source of infringing products. For example, the Commission discussed the presence of numerous counterfeit products on internet platforms such as Alibaba.com even after takedown. Id. at 14-15. The Commission also noted difficulties with serving the proposed respondents and evidence of respondents hiding the origin of their products, including selling products under different company names and having partial or ambiguous addresses. Id. at 15-16.

With respect to public interest, the Commission found no basis to refuse a general exclusion order. For example, the Commission recognized that Pilates reformers are non-medical, non-essential components and thus have no impact on health or safety. Id. at 20. The Commission further recognized that the relevant market is highly competitive and there are many available alternatives to the accused products. Id. at 21-22. Otherwise, the Commission concluded that there is no risk of shortages or price increases and that the complainant could meet the market demand. Id. at 22.

With respect to bonding, the Commission agreed with the RD’s recommendation to impose a bond of 100% of the entered value of the covered products as requested by the complainant. In reaching its finding, the Commission relied on the price differential showing “that most of the Defaulting Respondents have price differentials between their respective infringing products and the DI product that are greater than one hundred percent (100%) of the sale prices for those respective infringing products.” Id. at 24. Further, the Commission noted that there was insufficient reasonable royalty evidence, as well as pricing variations across the infringing products, thus supporting a 100% bond. Id.

Smart Wearable Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof; Inv No. 337-TA-1398 (Sept. 5, 2025)

The Commission issued its opinion on September 5, 2025, finding a violation of Section 337 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 11,868,178. The products and technology at issue in this investigation related to wearable smart ring devices. The Commission determined not to review the ID’s determination of infringement and technical domestic industry; instead, the Commission reviewed the administrative law judge’s analysis of the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

With respect to the economic prong, the ID found that the domestic industry requirement was satisfied under both sections 337(a)(3)(A) (plant and equipment) and (B) (employment of labor or capital). The Commission took no position on subsection (A) and affirmed the ID’s findings under subsection (B) with modification. Specifically, the Commission found the complainant’s investments in labor to be significant based upon a “holistic review of the record,” including the number of full-time equivalents, the amount of investment, trends in investments, and the complainant’s design and development of its product in the United States. Op. at 5. The Commission noted that, while domestic-to-foreign comparison was not required, it nevertheless favorably noted such evidence. Id.

On remedy, the Commission adopted the RD’s recommendation of a limited exclusion order with the standard certification provision, denying the respondents’ request for non-standard provisions. In denying the respondents’ request, the Commission noted the lack of adjudication of noninfringing components during the investigation, id. at 10, and declined to consider declarations submitted by the respondents after the hearing because such a belated attempt to “back-door a merits determination as to the scope of the remedial orders under the guise of a remedy determination cannot be sustained at this stage of the investigation.” Id. at 12. Furthermore, the Commission faulted the respondents for their lack of credibility and judgment, noting “the ALJ’s findings concerning serious credibility and judgment issues” by the respondents and their counsel, such as altering video footage to make it look like one of the respondents was operating a manufacturing facility in Texas. Id. at 11.

The Commission also denied the respondents’ request to stay its consideration of the investigation until the resolution of a post-grant review of the asserted patent, which has a decision due date of December of 2025, three months after issuance of this opinion. “The pendency of a post-grant review by itself does not warrant delaying implementation of the remedial orders.” Id. at 13-14.

Regarding public interest, when the respondents submitted numerous third party submissions post-hearing, the Commission questioned the sincerity of the respondents’ contention, noting that the respondents did not vigorously develop the evidentiary record during the investigation despite urging for delegation of public interest at the outset. Id. at 16-17.