In a recent Q+A with The Recorder, partners Sheila Swaroop and Jonathan Bachand discussed the International Trade Commission’s role in the U.S. patent litigation landscape. Throughout the interview, Swaroop and Bachand touched on why patent owners choose to take their dispute to the ITC, current proposals to limit the power of the ITC, and how an increased priority on domestic manufacturing could expand the use of the ITC as an enforcement tool.
Swaroop, who chairs Knobbe Martens’ litigation practice, explained that there are several factors for why patent owners might choose the ITC as a litigation venue, including the likelihood of obtaining an injunction against an alleged infringer at the ITC compared to achieving the same outcome through district court litigation.
Bachand noted, however, that companies must meet a “domestic industry” requirement to bring a complaint before the ITC, which is meant “to encourage companies to invest in the United States.”
Both attorneys offered insight into why the ITC’s focus on domestic industry could play a role in its popularity as a patent litigation venue under the incoming presidential administration, given the administration’s stated goals of expanding American manufacturing.
They also spoke to recent legislative efforts to limit the authority of the ITC, including the Advancing America’s Interests Act, which Swaroop maintained “would make public interest more front and center and almost require an affirmative determination by the commission whether or not exclusion would be in the public interest.”
Read the full Q+A here.
The Knobbe Martens litigation team has a depth of experience in bringing and defending against complaints before the ITC. In 2024, the firm secured an import ban at the ITC of certain Apple Watch models that infringed Masimo Corp.’s patented pulse oximetry technology.
