Patent-related complaints continue to dominate USITC Section 337 investigations

Context: Section 337 investigations in the United States International Trade Commission (USITC or ITC) are a powerful tool in U.S.-based patent litigation. As international trade has grown, so too has the use of the ITC in IP disputes in the technology and pharmaceutical industries, particularly for those who seek speedy, affirmative decisions. There are several reasons why patentees may opt to leverage the ITC (over district courts) in patent disputes:

Accelerated decisions: Some U.S. district court cases can take up to five years to get to trial, but a trial-like evidentiary hearing at the ITC typically is held within 8 to 10 months after the filing of a complaint. Typically, a final determination is issued within 15-18 months. The average length of investigations in 2024 was 14 months, which is slightly higher than when the ITC first started collecting data in 2006 (11.2 months: April 11, 2025 Average Length of Investigations ITC data).

Jurisdiction: The ITC has jurisdiction over only the articles imported into the U.S. This means that if it finds a violation of Section 337, it will issue an exclusion order blocking all infringing products from crossing U.S. borders.
Access to injunctive relief: In U.S. district courts, a traditional four-factor (eBay v. MercExchange) test must be applied to determine whether injunctive relief for infringement is appropriate. But the ITC does not need to apply this to issue exclusion or cease-and-desist orders. The ITC issues injunctions following a finding of violation, unless there is a rare exception based on public interest considerations.

Settlement: In the face of import bans, companies often opt for settlement by way of licensing deals. Although it should be noted that the general settlement rate of Section 337 ITC complaints has declined in recent years (only 37.5% in 2024, down from 46% the previous two years and 62% in 2021: 2025 ITC statistics page).

What’s new: Patent allegations consistently dominate all other types of unfair act allegations in the ITC, with an average of around 88%, Michelle Klancnik, Assistant General Counsel, ITC, announced last week (June 13, 2025 Michelle Klancnik, Assistant General Counsel, ITC LinkedIn post). While the average number of complaints has dipped slightly since 2022 (roughly 14% decrease: April 11, 2025 ITC statistics page), the number of patent-related investigations has remained steady between 80% and 97%, she noted.

Direct impact and wider ramifications: The data confirms that the ITC is a popular venue for patent infringement disputes, and will continue to be so despite any trade concerns.

According to Ms. Klancnik, the ITC remains a patent-heavy forum, but diversification in the types of unfair acts alleged is increasing. Patent allegations reached their peak in 2011 (126) and 2022 (127), but the small decline in cases since is largely due to the overall number of Section 337 cases dropping.

Other types of IP allegations, such as trademarks, are uncommon in the ITC. However, trade secret cases are on the rise. They peaked at a total of nine in 2021. One high-profile case involving trade secrets that recently hit headlines is between Samsung Display and BOE Technology – the case is currently pending in the ITC, with several parallel patent infringement complaints also pending before the commission (March 25, 2025 ip fray article). Meanwhile, false advertising, false designation of origin, and unfair competition are also increasing, with a peak of seven in 2024.

(June 13, 2025 Michelle Klancnik, Assistant General Counsel, ITC LinkedIn post)
Data on the ITC’s website reveals that the majority of Section 337 complaints are related to computer and telecommunications products, with 42% of such cases coming from that industry in 2024 (2025 ITC statistics page). The second-highest was pharmaceutical and medical devices (8.4%), followed by a three-way tie between automotive, consumer electronics, and small consumer items (all 6.2%).

The ITC also publishes data on the types of companies that file such complaints. Many are filed by NPEs, with the total number of such cases peaking in 2011 with 69, and a total of 45 in 2024 (February 3, 2025 ITC statistics page).

Recent high-profile patent-related Section 337 cases
Some recent Section 337 patent cases include a dispute between Infineon Technologies and China’s Innoscience Suzhou Technology Holding Co., Ltd. over gallium nitride (GaN) patents, and Finnish wearable start-up Oura and Ultrahuman, RingConn, and Circular over smart ring technology (May 5, 2025 ip fray article). Oura recently celebrated a win in the latter case.

Meanwhile, in another GaN-related patent dispute, Innoscience claimed an “ultimate victory” against rival Efficient Power Conversion, after the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidated the only remaining patent in that case (March 20, 2025 ip fray article).

The ITC also played a huge role in Ericsson v. Lenovo, which the parties settled two months ago (April 3, 2025 ip fray article). Last December, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the ITC sided with Ericsson on four out of four patents that came to judgment (December 18, 2024 ip fray article).

In a precedential decision issued yesterday that further cements the ITC as a powerful venue for patent disputes, the Federal Circuit ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to review appeals outside of final decisions on the merits from the ITC that affect the entry of articles (June 18, 2025 Federal Circuit opinion (PDF)). After appealing against an ITC decision that denied a motion for sanctions against its rival Future Link, Taiwan’s Realtek was told by the Federal Circuit yesterday that while it does have jurisdiction to review ITC decisions involving import bans, it cannot review those involving litigation conduct penalties.