The U.S. International Trade Commission reverses the Chief Administrative Law Judge’s (CALJ) decision finding a violation of Section 337, stating that petitioner met domestic industry economic interest (DI) requirements by aggregating multiple investments. It was determined that it was not. Asserted Patent. Specific replacement automotive lamps (II)Case No. 337-TA-1292 (USITC March 22, 2024).
In late 2021, Hyundai filed a complaint seeking investigation under 19 USC § 337 for alleged infringement of 21 design patents, each covering a different automotive headlamp or taillamp. In response, two of the prospective respondents filed a request for early disposal of the economic interests of domestic industry under the European Commission’s 100-day program. Hyundai filed a response objecting to the 100-day program request, citing the complexity of the issue. The European Commission launched an investigation and rejected the 100-day program request, but in setting the procedural schedule, the CALJ, in accordance with the Commission’s pilot program for interim initial decisions, An early evidentiary hearing on the aspects was scheduled. After its first hearing, CALJ issued a preliminary initial determination that Hyundai met the economic requirements of the domestic industry. After a full evidentiary hearing, the CALJ issued a final initial decision finding defendants in violation of Section 337 based on infringement of all asserted patents. The Committee decided to reconsider both the initial and final decisions.
After examination, the Commission revoked its finding that the applicant met the economic requirements of the domestic industry. As the Commission explained, if DI products do not have overlapping protection across commonly asserted patents, the petitioner must treat each product as requiring a separate her DI designation. . The European Commission may not combine investments in articles covered by one patent with investments in articles covered only by another patent. Here, since each DI product implements only one of the claimed design patents, Hyundai proves that its investment in each product is independently significant in order to meet its economic interests. There was a need. The Commission also determined that investments in plant and equipment (§ 1337(a)(3)(A)) cannot be combined with employment of labor or capital (§ 1337(a)(3)(B)). Hyundai concluded as follows. It incorrectly aggregated investments from both sectors.
Commissioner Schmidlein submitted an opinion concurring with this result, but declined to join the majority opinion based on the view that it exceeded the scope necessary for the disposition of the investigation.
[View source.]
