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 30 such investigations, Jordan understands those risks, and how to safely and efficiently guide complainants, respondents and non-parties toward the best possible result.

He’s managed all aspects of Section 337 investigations, including eight 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.

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

  • Obtained a finding of no violation of Section 337 on behalf of respondents in a Section 337 investigation involving alleged infringement by certain video game systems; finding upheld on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
  • Obtained dismissal on summary determination of vigorously-contested patent misuse defense in a Section 337 investigation involving e-readers.
  • Obtained a termination without settlement on behalf of respondents in a Section 337 investigation involving alleged infringement of certain light emitting diode and laser diode patents.
  • Obtained a termination without settlement on behalf of respondents in a Section 337 investigation involving alleged infringement of certain electronic device patents.
  • 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 plaintiff in declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in which the judge--after an 11-day bench trial--found that the defendant did not own the disputed trademark or trade dress rights.
  • 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 for 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:

  • 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.
  • Representing political asylee seeking permanent resident status in the United States, including litigating her mandamus petition in federal district court.
  • 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 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 Consumer Electronics and Display Devices with Graphics Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein; Inv. No. 337-TA-932
  • 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 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 Communication Equipment, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Including Power Over Ethernet Telephones, Switches, Wireless Access Points, Routers, and Other Devices Used in WLAN, and Cameras; 337-TA-817
  • Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof; 337-TA-800

Posts by: Jordan Coyle

Supreme Court Deflates Sino Legend Cert Petition

On Monday, January 9, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from Sino Legend Chemical Co., Ltd., concluding litigation that began with a Section 337 complaint filed more than four‑and‑a‑half years ago by SI Group, Inc. In January 2014, the International Trade Commission found that Sino Legend, a Chinese company, misappropriated SI Group’s rubber resin trade secrets and issued an exclusion order, barring the importation of Sino Legend products made using these trade secrets for 10 years.

The TSW has extensively covered this case with posts on the ITC Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination, the Commission’s decision, the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 affirmance, and Sino Legend’s cert petition.

The case attracted the attention of the Chinese government, which filed an amicus brief in support of Sino Legend’s cert petition—the first amicus brief ever filed by the Chinese government in the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Sino Legend. The Chinese Trade Remedy and Investigation Bureau (“TRB”), a branch of the Ministry of Commerce, forcefully argued that the Supreme Court should grant Sino Legend’s petition and reverse the ITC’s decision:

The TRB is disappointed by recent actions of the ITC. In wrongly interpreting Section 337 of the Tariff Act to allow the ITC to bar imports into the United States based on alleged actions conducted, and adjudicated, wholly within the borders of China, the ITC has impugned the sovereignty of China and refused to accord the comity expected of a trade partner.

TRB Brief at 2.

The TRB criticized the ITC’s “expansion” of the Federal Circuit’s TianRui decision “to bar products from entering the United States for conduct that not only occurred completely within China’s borders by Chinese citizens working at Chinese companies, but also conduct that was adjudicated in China to have been lawful.” (Id. at 1.) Citing Judge Moore’s dissent, Sino Legend’s petition also criticized TianRui as incompatible with the presumption against extraterritorial application of federal statutes.

The Supreme Court’s denial of Sino Legend’s petition for certiorari is significant because it appears to cement the extraterritorial reach of Section 337 inasmuch as the offending conduct relates to products that are imported into the United States. Thus, the ITC remains a powerful forum for companies with significant operations in the United States to seek redress for misappropriation of trade secrets. Read more broadly, TianRui and its progeny may provide the ITC with the authority to investigate other types of “unfair acts” that occur outside the United States, provided—again—that those acts pertain to products that are imported into the United States.

 

The ITC Investigation was captioned Certain Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-849.

The Supreme Court docket was captioned Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chem. Co. Ltd. et al. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n et al., No. 16-428.

ITC Stops Sany Crawler Cranes in their Tracks

The Federal Circuit recently issued another Rule 36 affirmance of an International Trade Commission order barring the importation of products made using misappropriated trade secrets. (See our previous post about another Rule 36 affirmance of an ITC trade secrets order here.) This time, the Commission barred for ten years the importation into the U.S. of crawler cranes that relied on the trade secrets at issue. READ MORE