Federal Circuit: Aggregated Financial Data From Different Products That Practice Different Patents Insufficient to Establish Domestic Industry

July 10, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

In an appeal from the ITC, the Federal Circuit recently held that by presenting cumulative financial data across different products that practice various combinations of patents, appellant provided insufficient evidence for a court to evaluate domestic industry for any individual patent. And as a result, the court affirmed the ITC’s determination that the appellant failed to satisfy its burden to establish a domestic industry for any of its asserted patents.

The technology in this case related to stud finders. The appellant in this case asserted three patents each of which covered different features of its stud finder technology, including methods of calibration and features of the grips. In an effort to show domestic industry at the ITC, the appellant alleged that it met the domestic industry requirement based on investments in manufacturing, labor and capital, research and development, and the exploitation of its patents. As evidence of these investments, appellant provided financial data across 53 different products. Not all 53 products, however, practiced all three patents. Rather, only 14 of the 53 products practiced at least one claim of each asserted patent. The remaining products practiced only one or two of the asserted patents. But appellant’s domestic industry evidence aggregated the financial data for all products—it did not allocate the investments separately by product or patent.

At the ITC, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that this evidence did not satisfy the economic prong for any of the asserted patents because it did not show a substantial or significant investment specific to any particular patent. On review, the ITC upheld the ALJ’s determination, explaining that instead of establishing domestic industry for products protected by each asserted patent, the complainant “aggregated its domestic industry products without regard for whether or which patents they practiced and then argued that a domestic industry in all of its products exists.” The aggregated information “failed to provide the Commission with an adequate basis to evaluate the investments and the significance of those investments with respect to each asserted patent.”

On appeal, appellant argued that Section 337 permits it to rely on investment data in the aggregate, so long as it ties expenditures to articles that practice some or all of the asserted patents. In other words, it need not show investments on a patent-by-patent basis.

The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, adopting the reasoning of the ALJ and ITC. As the court explained, a complainant must show “how much of its investment in each statutory category was attributable to each group of products” that practices an asserted patent. Thus, while it may be possible to aggregate data in certain circumstances, such as where all of the products practice all of the patents, such a method was inappropriate here where many of the products practiced fewer than all of the asserted patents. The court also confirmed its decision here does not preclude a party from grouping data for products that practice the same patents, so long as domestic industry can be determined for each patent.

Practice Tip: This case illustrates that, similar to damages apportionment, parties should give attention to ensuring that domestic industry evidence connects specific products to the specific patents they practice and does not depend on data for products that are not covered by the claims.

Zircon Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 101 F.4d 817, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.