United States: Indirect Infringement At The ITC Post-Suprema

Last Updated: March 13 2014
Article by Jonathan Engler

Law360, New York (January 03, 2014, 12:08 PM ET) -- In a potentially far-reaching decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Suprema Inc. and Mentalix Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission vacated an ITC determination based on induced infringement, holding that the commission has no authority under Section 337 to find a violation in an inducement case involving method claims where the articles do not directly infringe at the time of importation.1

At first glance, the opinion appeared to destabilize decades of established ITC law, under which indirect infringement could form the basis of a Section 337 violation, even where the final act of direct infringement took place in the United States after importation. A closer reading of the decision in Suprema make clear, however, that the court deliberately sought to narrow the scope of its decision to cases involving induced infringement under § 271(b) of the Patent Act — thereby maintaining the viability of contributory infringement cases at the ITC involving method claims under 271(c).

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 authorizes the ITC to find unlawful:

The importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee of articles that ... [i]nfringe a valid and enforceable United States patent.

On the basis of such a determination, the ITC is authorized to order the exclusion of such "articles."

In recent years, the commission has adjudicated numerous cases involving method claims, in which software loaded onto hardware — such as the operating system running on a smartphone — is alleged to infringe method claims.2 Because claims of indirect infringement necessarily involve proof that an act of direct infringement occurred — and because patent law is territorial — ITC complainants in software cases have sought to establish direct infringement based on the infringing use of the imported article in the United States. Suprema appears to call into question the viability of ITC cases involving inducement of infringement of method claims, where the act of direct infringement occurs in the United States.

In relevant part, the Suprema case involved the importation of fingerprint scanners into the United States by Suprema, a Korean company, and Mentalix, a Texas-based integrator. In Texas, Mentalix loaded software onto the noninfringing scanners and then sold them to clients in the United States. The complainant, CrossMatch, alleged that the scanners, once the software was loaded onto the machines in Texas and the machines were operated, infringed the asserted method claims.

The complainant alleged that Suprema, acting from abroad, actively induced Mentalix to develop and implement software that infringed the asserted method claims in the United States. There was no dispute that the scanners themselves, as imported, had substantial noninfringing uses and did not infringe the asserted method claims. It was only the specific use to which the articles were put after importation by Mentalix — and the act of domestic direct infringement predicated on that use — that the commission found to have infringed the asserted method claim.

Applying Section 337 to these facts, the Federal CIrcuit in Suprema held that "the statutory grant of authority in § 337 cannot extend to the conduct proscribed in § 271(b) where the acts of underlying direct infringement occur post-importation."3 The court explained that § 271(b) "focus[es] on the conduct of the inducer" whereas under Section 337 the focus is "on the infringing nature of the articles at the time of importation, not on the intent of the parties with respect to the imported goods."4 The majority's statements appear to leave no basis for a violation finding based on induced infringement, whatever the facts, given that that "inducement requires that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement."5

At first glance, this is a surprising result, as the Federal Circuit did not address the commission's factual findings. ("Because we find the Commission had no authority to premise an exclusion order addressed to Suprema's scanners on the infringement theory it employed, we do not address the Commission's other findings on the '344 patent."6) It is important, however, to recall that Section 337 is a trade statute that is administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which prospectively excludes infringing devices.

For an ITC exclusion order to be administrable, CBP must be able to determine by examining the imported article whether it infringes the asserted patent claims. Where, as here, the imported article does not necessarily infringe and has substantial noninfringing uses, and it is possible for the importer to use the imported article in a noninfringing manner, exclusion of the accused scanners by CBP arguably is not appropriate. CBP is not in a position to determine whether the imported article — such as the otherwise noninfringing scanners at issue in Suprema — will be used in an infringing manner in the United States.

The court appears to recognize the difficultly in administering a prospective exclusion order that requires CBP to assess the subjective intent of the importer, noting that "[t]he focus is on the infringing nature of the articles at the time of importation, not on the intent of the parties with respect to the imported goods. The same focus is evident also from the main remedy [the ITC] can grant, exclusion orders on the imported articles."7

Nevertheless, the majority implied that induced infringement may still remain a viable cause of action at the ITC under the right circumstances.8 Specifically, the court repeatedly suggests that the facts of the underlying case were highly significant to the court's holding (a 337 violation "may not be predicated on a theory of induced infringement in these circumstances;"9 the commission is "powerless to remedy acts of induced infringement in these circumstances."10).

Given the court's analysis, under what circumstances could induced infringement remain a viable cause of action at the ITC? The answer, the Federal Circuit states, is that the commission may ban articles "imported by an 'inducer' where the article itself directly infringes when imported ... it may not invoke inducement to ban importation of articles which may or may not later give rise to direct infringement."11

Where an imported product contains written instructions that induce infringement at importation, it is possible that would also suffice under the Federal Circuit's analysis, although the act of direct infringement would occur in the United States. Induced infringement, however, is generally much more difficult to prove than direct infringement, and it is highly unlikely a party would claim a violation based on induced infringement if it could prove direct infringement at the time of importation. In a case involving alleged induced infringement of a method claim, where a necessary step of the method occurs in the United States, the commission after Suprema would seem justified in refusing to institute an investigation based solely on inducement.

To avoid the opinion being read as undermining the viability of contributory infringement cases under § 337 (given that the requisite act of direct infringement in contributory infringement cases also occurs post-importation), the court went out of its way to emphasize that contributory infringement remains a viable cause of action at the commission, stating that "[o]ur holding is far narrower than the dissent asserts ... virtually all of the mischief the dissent fears can be addressed by the ITC via resort to § 271(a) or § 271(c), or even to § 271(b) where the direct infringement occurs pre-importation."12

The Federal Circuit further distinguished contributory infringement from induced infringement, emphasizing that the relevant inquiry under Section 337 is whether the infringing conduct was "tied to an article."13 In the case of direct infringement under § 271(a), the imported article itself is a "patented invention" and therefore clearly is an "article ... that infringe[s]" for purpose of Section 337.14

Contributory infringement, the court said, is similarly also "tied to an article," in that Section 271(c) requires that an article be specifically designed to infringe and have no substantial noninfringing uses.15 This is consistent with the Federal Circuit's previous holdings that contributory infringement is a viable cause of action under Section 337.16 The continued life of contributory infringement at the ITC under Section 337 in cases involving method claims is also consistent with the Federal Circuit's recent approach to § 271(c), which "covers both contributory infringement of systems claims and method claims."17

This suggests that the key distinction between induced infringement and contributory infringement for purposes of Section 337 is inherency: In contributory infringement cases, the accused product has no substantial noninfringing uses and, therefore, can be said to infringe (or contribute to infringement) at the time of importation.

Viewed, again, in light of the fact that Section 337 is a trade statute, the viability of contributory infringement as a cause of action at the ITC makes some practical sense. CBP, at least in principle, can determine from a visual examination of an imported article (or in the laboratory) whether an imported article necessarily directly infringes a method claim, by switching on the device or making a determination of the device's lack of a more general purpose use. A determination of the subjective intent of the importer at the point of importation is not necessary if infringement can be determined by CBP through such inspection or testing.

In short, the Federal Circuit's decision in Suprema appears to leave no room for viable Section 337 actions based solely on induced infringement of method claims, when the act of direct infringement occurs in the United States. While findings of violation based on inducement cases were relatively rare at the ITC, particularly involving method claims, the commission had long adjudicated such cases on the merits. Given the Federal Circuit's ruling here, it would seem that such a path no longer exists.

Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit went out of its way to make clear that contributory infringement continues to be a viable cause of action in Section 337 investigations involving method claims. For both defendants and respondents, however, the central inquiry in indirect infringement cases at the ITC, in addition to infringement, must be whether the accused articles are staple articles of commerce or have no substantial noninfringing uses. A clear showing that the claim is "tied to an article" that infringes upon importation into the United States will be key to obtaining a finding of violation at the ITC in cases involving indirect infringement.


1 Suprema, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 2012-1170, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2013) ("Maj. Op.")

2 See generally, Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-724

3 Maj. Op. at 20

4 Maj. Op. at 16

5 DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

6 Maj. Op. at 26

7 Maj. Op. at 16

8 Maj. Op. at 13, n2

9 Id.

10 Maj. Op. at 13

11 Maj. Op. at 25

12 Maj. Op. at 21, n4

13 Maj. Op. at 19

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 See Spansion, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that "to prevail on contributory infringement in a Section 337 case, the complainant must show: (1) there is an act of direct infringement in violation of Section 337; (2) the accused device has no substantial non-infringing uses; and (3) the accused infringer imported, sold for importation, or sold after importation within the United States, the accused components that contributed to another's direct infringement.")

17 Arris Group, Inc. v. British Telecomm. PLC, 639 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (footnotes omitted)

All Content © 2003-2014, Portfolio Media, Inc.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions