CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854

Import Loophole Harms U.S. Patents

Federal Circuit
Considers closing loophole
In patent cases

The full Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to review a panel decision that found the US International Trade Commission (ITC) may not hear certain cases involving induced patent infringement.

The ITC and the owner of the US patent at issue petitioned for an en banc hearing of a December ruling that the ITC lacked the authority to exclude imports into the US of products that do not infringe US patents at the time they’re imported but only infringe once they’re in the US.

The panel had ruled that the ITC’s Section 337 on exclusion orders did not cover imports of fingerprint scanners made by Suprema Inc., a company based in South Korea.

Suprema’s scanners were found not to infringe a US patent on their own but only when used in combination with software made by Mentalix Inc., a US company which imports the scanners.

The panel said that the ITC can ban items imported by a person or entity that “induces” patent infringement only if the imported product, standing alone, directly infringes a US patent.

The panel then vacated the ITC’s order excluding the scanners.

The dispute was initiated by Cross Match, a US company that holds a patent it claims was infringed by the scanners when used with the software.

Unless reversed by the full court, the panel’s decision may help the importers of devices like smartphones and tablets that incorporate infringing features that can be “turned off” before import into the US and then reactivated before sale in the US market.

Judge Jimmie Reyna of the Federal Circuit dissented from the majority’s decision, writing that it “created a fissure in the dam of the U.S. border through which circumvention of Section 337 will ensue, thereby harming holders of U.S. patents.”

He noted that for many years the ITC decided cases in which induced infringement didn’t occur until after items were imported.

He said that the Federal Circuit had affirmed some of those previous rulings.

Related Articles

Buying Rival’s Trademark as Keyword Search Doesn’t Violate Lanham Act

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a case in which the plaintiff law firm claimed ...
Read More

What does copyright law have to do with McDonalds ice cream machines?

The US Copyright Office has granted a copyright exemption giving restaurants the right to repair broken equipment by bypassing locks intended to prevent anyone other ...
Read More

What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law

Not surprisingly, a lot is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law. Here’s a roundup of some recent developments ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854