Minnesota Law Review

Blocking Blocks at the Border: Examining Standard-Essential Patent Litigation Between Domestic Companies at the ITC

The United States International Trade Commission was created to protect domestic industry and American workers from illegal foreign trade practices. Increasingly, domestic companies have turned to the ITC seeking relief for the infringement of standard-essential patents (SEPs) by other domestic companies. In exchange for having their patented technologies adopted as an industry-wide standard, these companies agree to license their SEPs on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, even to their competitors. However, prominent American technology companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and Motorola, frequently have been unable to agree to licensing rates. They have pursued infringement cases at the ITC because of its expedited review timeline, experienced administrative law judges, and sole remedy—a complete ban on the importation of the infringing product, known as an exclusion order. As a result, popular consumer electronics such as Xboxes, iPhones, and iPads could be barred from the U.S. market.

This Note examines why the ITC is an inappropriate venue for these SEP cases and the resulting harm to American consumers. The ITC was established to protect domestic industry, and that interest cannot be served when one American company seeks a SEP exclusion order against another American company. The federal court system is better equipped to conduct the careful balancing required in these cases to protect intellectual property rights and American consumers for maximum benefit to the U.S. economy. Congress should amend the ITC statute to bar the ITC from hearing SEP disputes between domestic companies.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]