ITC Seeks Comments on Proposed Disclosure Rule 

Need to know  

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is seeking the public’s comments on a proposed rule that would require parties and intervenors to Section 337 investigations to file disclosure statements identifying real parties in interest.  

On April 30, the ITC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require disclosure of information by the parties and intervenors in Section 337 investigations and ancillary proceedings of entities that have an ownership or financial interest in the investigation. The ITC explains that the disclosure rule is intended to fill a gap; unlike many federal courts that have real party in interest and litigation funding disclosure requirements, the ITC does not currently have such rules. The proposed rule is thus intended to (1) facilitate evaluation of potential conflicts for the Commissioners and other ITC staff, (2) provide early clarity about entities whose rights are at issue in the investigation, and (3) promote transparency to facilitate settlement and bring relevant issues to the ITC’s attention.  

The new disclosure requirement  

The proposed rule (§ 210.14a) would require each nongovernmental party to, or a nongovernmental party who seeks to intervene in, a Section 337 investigation to file a disclosure statement that identifies:  

• Parent corporations and any entity (other than natural persons) that owns the party’s stock 
• Any person or entity that has the legal right based on the unfair act(s) asserted in the complaint to bring a Section 337 investigation besides the complainant 
• Any person or entity (a) that provides funding specifically for the investigation (excluding personal loans, bank loans, and insurance) or (b) whose approval is necessary for litigation or settlement decisions  

Disclosures must identify each person or entity’s identity, businesses address, and place of formation.  

Where the disclosure requirement would attach

The proposed rule incorporates the disclosure requirement into multiple existing provisions, requiring a disclosure statement to be filed alongside:  

• Complaints (§ 210.8) 
• Responses (§ 210.13) 
• Motions to intervene (§ 210.19) 
• Enforcement complaints and responses (§ 210.75) 
• Petitions to modify/rescind remedial orders (§ 210.76) 
• Requests for advisory opinions and responses (§ 210.79) 

Related complainants, respondents, intervenors, or parties may file a single joint disclosure statement.

Request for comments

The ITC specifically asks commentors to weigh in on several open questions, including:  

1. Whether the proposed rule should require disclosure of entities owning a party’s stock only after a particular percentage of ownership is reached 
2. Whether the proposed rule should apply to respondents and intervenors or just to complainants 
3. Whether definitions of certain terms would be useful and any proposals for such definitions 
4. Whether the disclosures required should differ for investigations under Section 337(a)(1)(A) as opposed to Section 337(a)(1)(B)-(E) 
5. Whether disclosure of funding or necessary approval in related litigation is relevant and should be included in the disclosures required 
6. Whether there are other possible financial interests in Section 337 investigations that are not required to be disclosed under the proposed rule that should be subject to the disclosure requirement 

The ITC must receive written comments by 5:15 p.m. ET on June 29, 2026.  

Takeaways 

The proposed rules align the ITC with a growing trend spanning district courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reveal who owns, funds, and controls intellectual property-focused disputes. The proposed rules could impact the types of entities that seek Section 337 relief and will impose new burdens on parties to identify and disclose corporate structures early.