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

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

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

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.