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

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days