Further complicating matters are the ITC's unique demands. The Commission moves at a breakneck pace - more than twice as fast as a typical U.S. litigation - and has dozens of ITC-specific rules and regulations. Victory demands extraordinary precision and skill.
These rigorous elements are why companies around the world rely on Orrick to protect their most innovative products from exclusion, or to halt competitors' infringing goods. Orrick has participated in 50 ITC investigations in the last five years alone. As demonstrated in the experience listed below, Orrick earned its reputation as a destination ITC practice by combining technical savvy and litigation power with practical ITC experience.
BIC Corporation v. Arrow Lighter, Inc. et al: On behalf of BIC, we won a rare general exclusion order stopping the importation of knock-off pocket lighters that infringe BIC’s trademarked design and do not conform to its stringent safety and quality standards.
J.S.T. Corporation v. Bosch and Foxconn: Turned a loss into a win by overturning the Chief ALJ’s initial determination of infringement and validity of a patent using a prior art product Orrick found by disassembling old Dell computers.
New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. v. Converse Inc.: Orrick won a complete victory on behalf New Balance in a six-year long ITC Investigation initiated by Converse involving claims of trade dress infringement related to certain design elements of Converse’s Chuck Taylor All-Star brand footwear.
Hitachi Metals and Metglas v. Advanced Technology & Materials: We won a complete victory when the complainants unilaterally moved to terminate the investigation at the close of fact discovery, without any concession or settlement agreement.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd et al v. FCA US LLC: We served as lead trial counsel in the ITC investigation, which included an early trial in the 100-day pilot program. Following a decision on the initial design at the ITC, which is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, we won a finding of non-infringement regarding the re-designed product, paving the way for Mahindra to resume production in the United States.
UEI v. Funai: We represented Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Hisense Co., Ltd. and their affiliates in defense against a patent infringement action brought by Universal Electronics Inc. (“UEI”) related to smart TVs. UEI terminated our clients from the investigation without settlement.
Microsoft v. Barnes & Noble: With an investigation stemming from Microsoft's request that Barnes & Noble license its IP for use in the Android-powered e-reader, the Nook, Microsoft hired Orrick to represent it with respect to Barnes & Noble’s patent misuse defense. The ITC rejected that defense before trial, clearing the way for settlement negotiations, which concluded with a mutually beneficial strategic business partnership between the two companies.