ITC Litigation

Cadwalader’s International Trade Commission (ITC) trial team has unparalleled experience in this important venue. Cadwalader attorneys have litigated many 337 investigations over the past two decades. 

As a result, our attorneys possess a specialized combination of deep knowledge of the ITC Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the judges that preside over ITC cases, and recent developments in patent law that enables our team to achieve outstanding results for Cadwalader clients. In addition to being skilled trial lawyers, our ITC professionals have diverse advanced scientific and technical backgrounds and professional experience with a wide variety of technologies including electrical, chemical, biochemical, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, computer science, telecommunications and mechanical.

The International Trade Commission has become an important legal venue for disputes involving patent infringement for companies seeking quick resolution and an injunctive form of relief. In this fast-paced litigation environment, cases (known as investigations), are typically compacted into a 15-18 month window and focus on the protection of intellectual property rights with the added complexities of importation and domestic industries (see Cadwalader’s Section 337 Investigation Lifecycle graphic for further information). ITC remedies include the prospect of an exclusion order barring the importation of infringing products into the U.S. market and cease and desist orders precluding the domestic sale and distribution of products already imported into the U.S. (see Cadwalader’s brief ITC Primer for additional information on ITC investigations).

  • Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, No. 337-TA-850. Represented Huawei Technologies in patent infringement case involving mobile imaging technology used in handsets, tablets, and other mobile devices. Successfully defended against two patents at trial. The Commission subsequently affirmed administrative law judge’s no violation determination in favor of our client.
  • Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same, and Products Containing Same, No. 337-TA-855. Represented Hitachi Metals against over thirty respondents in a multi-patent case pertaining to the composition and manufacture of rare earth magnets. After obtaining a favorable Markman ruling, this litigation settled favorably with all respondents prior to trial.
  • Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices, No. 337-TA-796. Represented Apple in a high-profile smartphone case involving four utility patents and two design patents. Obtained an exclusion order for Apple, which was upheld at the Commission, to exclude infringing products from being imported into the U.S.
  • Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same, No. 337-TA-491. Represented Genesis Microchip. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims against MStar Semiconductor, Inc. and Media Reality Technologies, Inc. through a full trial. Obtained an exclusion order after the administrative law judge’s decision was reviewed and adopted by the full Commission. The case involved semiconductor and LCD panel controller technology.
  • Certain Recordable Compact Discs and Rewritable Compact Discs, No. 337-TA-474. Represented Princo Corporation, Gigastorage Corporation, and Linberg Enterprises. Successfully employed an antitrust-based patent misuse defense to defend Princo, Gigastorage, and Linberg against patent infringement claims of Philips. All six of the patents that Philips asserted were deemed unenforceable, and were part of a billion-dollar patent pool involving optical storage medium and CD-R and CD-RW technology. The ITC declined to issue an exclusion order against Princo, Gigastorage, and Linberg after the administrative law judge’s decision was reviewed and adopted by the full Commission.
  • Certain Color Television Receivers and Color Display Monitors and Components Thereof, 337-TA-534. Lead trial counsel for Thomson. Successfully prosecuted patent infringement claims through a full trial in a multi-patent suit against BenQ Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation. The case settled favorably for Thomson before a decision issued. The case involved LCD panel processing and circuitry technology.



12 Attorneys

Augelli, John Associate New York
T. +1 212 504 6136
Burns, Emory Associate Charlotte
T. +1 704 348 5212
Cole, Dash Associate New York
T. +1 212 504 6755
Devereux, Amanda Partner New York
T. +1 212 504 5767
Moehringer, John T. Partner New York
T. +1 212 504 6731
Patel, Rikesh Associate New York
T. +1 212 504 6306
Petrella, Michael Partner New York
T. +1 212 504 5551
Powell, Michael B. Special Counsel New York
T. +1 212 504 6246
Rabbino, Jennifer Associate New York
T. +1 212 504 6419
Talar, Jessica Senior Staff Attorney New York
T. +1 212 504 6247
Tully, Danielle Vincenti Partner New York
T. +1 212 504 6585
Wizenfeld, Howard Special Counsel New York
T. +1 212 504 6050