A Domestic Industry Product Can “Exist” Under Section 337 Without Having Been Sold Before Filing a Complaint

Sep 5, 2018

Reading Time : 2 min

According to the order, in a patent infringement investigation before the ITC, a complainant must show that a domestic industry “relating to the articles protected by the patent” either “exists” or “is in the process of being established.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) (“Section 337(a)(2)”). In its motion for summary determination, Respondents argued that Complainants could not satisfy the domestic industry requirement of Section 337(a)(2) because no domestic industry products had been sold by the time the complaint was filed. Respondents cited the initial determination in Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (“Non-Volatile Memory”), where the term “articles” in Section 337(a)(2) was interpreted to mean “products or other commodities that are sold in the marketplace.” According to Respondents, this interpretation requires Complainants to have sold, or at least made available for sale, a domestic industry product before filing the complaint. Complainants disputed Respondents’ interpretation of the statute, arguing that no such requirement exists.

Judge Lord agreed with Complainants that there is no requirement that a domestic industry product be sold before filing a complaint for a domestic industry to exist under Section 337(a)(2). In reaching her decision, Judge Lord first distinguished Non-Volatile Memory, clarifying that while that case “describes the type of article that is required under section 337; it [did] not impose requirements on how or when such an article must be sold.” (emphasis added). Indeed, the alleged domestic industry product in Non-Volatile Memory was used only for research purposes and was likely never sold.

Judge Lord then concluded that although Complainants in this case had not sold a specific product by the time of the complaint, they had placed the alleged domestic industry products in the marketplace, making the existence of them public and declaring that these products would be sold. Judge Lord deemed this sufficient to show that the products met the requirement for a domestic industry “article” under Section 337(a)(2). Judge Lord explained that her interpretation of the term “article” in Section 337(a)(2) was consistent with the term’s use in other parts of the statute.

Practice Tip: A complainant is not required to show an “article” was actually sold by the time the complaint is filed to meet the domestic industry requirement of Section 337(a)(2). Instead, to meet the domestic industry requirement, it is sufficient for a complainant to show that the article was made available to the public for possible sale by the time the complaint was filed.

In the Matter of Certain Road Construction Machines & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1088, Order No. 32 (Aug. 28, 2018), Denying Respondents’ Motion for Summary Determination of No Domestic Industry (ALJ Lord)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.