Jordan Coyle

Partner

Washington, D.C.

Section 337 investigations pose an enormous risk. Without proper counsel, the speed, complexity and potential cost can overwhelm companies and drain precious resources. Having handled nearly 60 such investigations, Jordan understands those risks, and how to safely and efficiently guide complainants, respondents and non-parties toward the best possible result.

Clients who enlisted Jordan’s help recently reported to Chambers USA that "you can trust he will be in the weeds and is able to spot untenable positions taken by the opposition" and that "he is a very capable attorney and he knows the procedural details of ITC investigations." He is recognized by Chambers USA as an Up and Coming Lawyer for International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337), and The Legal 500 also described Jordan as “the heart of the practice”, who “offers a wealth of ITC experience and knowledge, while maintaining a level of responsiveness and approachability that is second to none.“ He’s managed all aspects of Section 337 investigations, including 14 trials, from pre-complaint counseling and diligence to Federal Circuit appeals. The investigations have covered technologies including smartphones, tablets, televisions, flash memory, semiconductors, and medical devices.

He also represents plaintiffs and defendants across the country in cases involving claims of patent, trademark and copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Prior to and during law school, Jordan was an Honors Paralegal and Law Clerk in the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition, where he assisted attorneys and economists in Hart-Scott-Rodino investigations in diverse industries, including pharmaceuticals, consumer products and energy.

  • Some of Jordan's representative Section 337 engagements include the following:

    • Earned a general exclusion order on behalf of a major consumer goods company combating importation of knock-off products that infringed their trademark rights and posed a potential health risk to Americans.
    • Won a finding of no violation by a major athletic shoe brand in Converse's aggressive campaign to protect its Chuck Taylor sneaker design in a case IPLaw360 named the #1 trademark ruling in 2016.
    • Defeated institution of investigation involving claims that the importation of certain dietary supplements violated the Lanham Act and the FDCA; the Federal Circuit affirmed this extremely rare result on appeal.
    • Won a finding of no violation on behalf of all respondents in a patent-infringement investigation involving electrical connectors; result affirmed on appeal.
    • Won terminations without settlement for respondents in multiple patent infringement investigations involving technologies including televisions, modular display panels, LEDs, eWriters, and other electronic devices.
    • Won termination without settlement for respondents in investigation of alleged trade secret misappropriation.
    • Won a modification proceeding on behalf of a respondent that redesigned its off-road vehicle, mooting an exclusion order only two months after the expiration of the Presidential review period.
    • Won a finding of no violation on behalf of respondents in a Section 337 investigation involving alleged infringement by certain video game systems; finding affirmed in precedential Federal Circuit opinion.
    • Obtained dismissal on summary determination of vigorously-contested patent misuse defense in an investigation involving e-readers.
    • Secured efficient resolution of investigations through consent orders.
    • Regularly advise recipients of subpoenas issued in Section 337 investigations, advising them on compliance, negotiating the scope of the subpoenas with counsel for the serving party, and drafting motions to quash, oppositions to motions seeking enforcement, and enforcement briefing in United States District Courts.
    • Advised members of a trade association regarding the potential effects a precedent-setting question of ITC jurisdiction could have on their businesses, their exposure to Section 337 investigations, and the availability of the ITC as a forum for them to assert their own Section 337 claims.

    Some of Jordan's other representative engagements include the following:

    • Represented intervenor in suit filed under the Administrative Procedure Act against the United States Patent and Trademark Office based on decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review established by the America Invents Act; court dismissed complaint.
    • Obtained transfer of patent infringement case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Southern District of New York and then dismissal of the suit due to lack of standing.
    • Obtained dismissal of contract claim brought in New York state court due to lack of personal jurisdiction and then obtained dismissal of similar complaint brought in the Southern District of New York based on lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
    • Secured antitrust clearance through the U.S. Federal Trade Commission of a global acquisition that created the world's largest technical ceramics manufacturer. Secured antitrust clearance through the U.S. Federal Trade Commission of a global joint venture that created one of the world's largest integrated manufacturers and sellers of styrene and polystyrene plastics.
    • Obtained a dismissal without settlement on behalf of a high-end, international clothing and accessories boutique of a complaint brought under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA).

    Jordan also actively provides pro bono legal services, including the following representative engagements:

    • Represents low-income families facing eviction in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of D.C. Superior Court; secured settlements that compelled landlords to repair dwellings, reduced amount of back rent due, and enabled clients to repay reduced back rent over time.
    • Filed successful pardon applications on behalf of individuals who demonstrated substantial evidence of remorse, rehabilitation and a commitment to their communities; Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued our clients pardons in 2021, 2020 and 2018.
    • Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Major Cities Chiefs Association, a professional association of Chiefs and Sheriffs representing the largest cities in the United States, Canada and the UK, in a state supreme court appeal regarding the negligent sale of a firearm by a pawn shop. The Supreme Court granted relief consistent with our client's position,Delana v. CED Sales, Inc., No. SC95013 (Sup. Ct. Mo. Apr. 5, 2016), paving the way for a $2.2 million settlement paid by a gun shop to a widow.
    • Represented political asylee seeking permanent resident status in the United States, including litigating her mandamus petition in federal district court. Immigration granted her status soon after the hearing in our petition.
    • Advised an international non-profit organization on the protection of its trade secrets, including drafting a template non-disclosure agreement.
    • Obtained a restraining order on behalf of a domestic violence victim.

    Representative Section 337 investigations in which Mr. Coyle represented complainants or respondents:

    • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1200
    • Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1149
    • Certain Pocket Lighters, Inv. No. 337-TA-1142
    • Certain Motorized Vehicles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1132
    • Certain Modular LED Display Panels and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1114
    • Certain Amorphous Metal and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1078
    • Certain Synthetically Produced, Predominantly EPA Omega-3 Products In Ethyl Ester Or Re-Esterified Triglyceride Form, DN 3247; Amarin Pharma Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 18-1247 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2019)
    • Certain Electrical Connectors, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1043; J.S.T. Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 19-2308 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2020)
    • Certain Liquid Crystal eWriters and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1035
    • Certain Hand Dryers and Housings for Hand Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015
    • Certain Surgical Stapler Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-985
    • Certain Formatted Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-931
    • Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-920
    • Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing Same,377-TA-892
    • Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-888
    • Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, Inv. No. 337-TA-884
    • Certain Electronic Devices Having a Retractable USB Connector, 337-TA-843
    • Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same,337-TA-825
    • Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-824
    • Certain Semiconductor Chips with DRAM Circuitry, and Modules and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-819
    • Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-769
    • Certain Video Game Systems and Controllers, Inv. No. 337-TA-743; Motiva, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 12-1252 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2013)
    • Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-724
    • Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips, Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-674
    • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Handheld, Wireless Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-667
    • Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640

    Representative Section 337 investigations in which Mr. Coyle represented non-party subpoena recipients:

    • Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Products Containing the Same and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1231
    • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Computers, Tablet Computers, and Components and Modules Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1208
    • Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-963
    • Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (II),Inv. No. 337-TA-945
    • Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof (I),Inv. No. 337-TA-944
    • Certain Standard Cell Libraries, Products Containing or Made Using the Same, Integrated Circuits Made Using the Same, and Products Containing Such Integrated Circuits, Inv. No. 337-TA-906
    • Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-868
    • Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof; 337-TA-800