United States: The Suprema Federal Circuit En Banc Hearing: The Full Court's Decision May Impact The ITC's Remedial Authority

Last Updated: February 23 2015
Article by Alexander J. Hadjis, Tihua Huang, Kristin L. Yohannan and Steven Rushing

Most Read Contributor in United States, October 2018

On February 5, 2015, the Federal Circuit sat en banc and heard oral argument after vacating a panel decision in Suprema, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 742 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  The panel decided that the ITC lacks statutory authority to enter an exclusion order to remedy the induced infringement of a method claim that is practiced after the article that performs the method is imported into the United States.  The full Court appeared split during oral arguments, and is expected to issue its decision by sometime this summer.  Ultimately, the final disposition of the en banc Court may have a significant impact on the ITC's jurisdiction — particularly on the viability of assertions of inducement of method claim infringement.

Procedural Background

The litigation began in May 2010 when Cross Match Technologies, Inc. (Cross Match) filed a complaint at the ITC alleging that Mentalix, Inc. (Mentalix), a domestic importer of fingerprint scanners, infringed its method claims directed to the capture and processing of fingerprint images.  The complaint additionally alleged that Suprema, Inc. (Suprema), a Korean developer of the imported scanners, induced Mentalix's infringement.

The Commission found that Suprema induced infringement despite the fact that the direct infringement took place after the scanners were imported into the United States and subsequently combined with Mentalix's proprietary software.  The Commission accordingly issued an exclusion order preventing importation of the accused scanners into the United States.  The Commission did find, however, that Suprema's scanners did not infringe Cross Match's patent when combined with software developed by other customers.

On appeal, a split panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the exclusion order, holding that "an exclusion order based on a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) may not be predicated on a theory of induced infringement where no direct infringement occurs until post-importation."  Suprema, 742 F.3d at 1353.

On May 13, 2014, the Federal Circuit granted the ITC's and Cross Match's petitions for rehearing en banc.  As a result, the panel opinion and judgment were vacated and the appeal was reinstated.  On February 5, 2015, the full Federal Circuit heard oral argument.

Oral Argument

Attorneys representing Suprema, the Commission, Cross Match, and the United States made arguments before the Court.  The questions posed by the judges were focused in three areas:

1)   interpretation of the phrase "articles that — infringe" in § 337(a)(1)(B)(i), and whether it is ambiguous in light of the relationship between Section 337 and 35 U.S.C. § 271;

2)   if ambiguous, whether the Commission's interpretation of the phrase to include induced infringement is reasonable and thus entitled to Chevron deference; and

3)   whether an enforceable exclusion order can be formulated that allows for the importation of scanners meant for non-infringing uses.

Suprema argued that the interpretation of the phrase "articles that — infringe" in Section 337 of the statute requires that there be an infringing article at the time of importation, not simply an act that induces another's infringement.  In response to questions regarding the trade law nature of Section 337 and its relationship with § 271, Suprema argued that unlike direct infringement under § 271(a) and contributory infringement under § 271(c), which (like Section 337) refer to an "article," inducement of infringement under § 271(b) is defined solely by reference to the conduct of the alleged inducer.  Therefore, the authority of Section 337 cannot extend to the conduct proscribed in § 271(b) where the acts of underlying direct infringement occur post-importation.

Conceding that neither Section 337 nor § 271 define the phrase "articles that — infringe," Suprema asserted that the phrase is not ambiguous.  But even if it is ambiguous, Suprema argued that the Commission's interpretation is unreasonable because it runs counter to the statutory language by effectively eliminating the term "that infringe" from the phrase and replacing it with "used to infringe."  Suprema also stated that a staple article suitable for substantial non-infringing use cannot be an infringing article proscribed in Section 337, and that Suprema only imports staple articles.

The Commission and Cross Match disagreed, arguing that the phrase "articles that — infringe" refers to both direct and indirect infringement.  They asserted that Suprema's argument that infringement under § 271(b) is not tied to products contradicts both Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent.  The two parties also argued that the Commission's interpretation of Section 337 is consistent with the overriding purpose of the Tariff Act as a trade remedy and is supported by the ITC's longstanding tradition of exclusion under Section 337 based on inducement of infringement by imported articles.  Therefore, Chevron deference should apply to the Commission's interpretation of the statute if the Court decides the phrase is ambiguous.  Notably though, a number of the judges raised questions during oral argument concerning whether the past cases cited to support the alleged ITC's longstanding practice deal with staple articles that have substantial non-infringing uses.

The United States, amicus curiae in this case, also briefly argued that the Commission's interpretation of Section 337 is appropriate in light of the history and purpose of the Tariff Act and is entitled to Chevron deference.

As for the ability to effectively formulate and enforce an exclusion order that allows for the importation of scanners used for non-infringing uses, the parties again had diverging views.  Suprema argued that: 1) the Commission's exclusion order prohibited all scanners without reference to post-importation use; 2) even if the Commission attempted to make a distinction it would be impossible to enforce; and 3) the Commission's finding of induced infringement was based on willful blindness, not specific intent.

The Commission and Cross Match argued that the panel confused the question of an appropriate remedy under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) with the question of liability under 19 U.S.C. § (a)(1)(B)(i).  They argued that if the Court's concern is that the Commission's remedial order in this case bans the importation of articles that may or may not later give rise to direct infringement, then the Court could vacate and remand the decision to the Commission so that the Commission could tailor a selective order that would ensure exclusion of only the infringing scanners.  The Commission and Cross Match also noted that the vast majority of Suprema's accused scanners were destined for Mentalix's software pairing, and, thus, would be infringing.  In addition, the Commission and Cross Match stated that no scanners had been turned away at Customs to date under the current exclusion order, and should Suprema disagree with the subsequently-narrowed order they could file a protest with a Customs specialist.  Finally, it was noted that Suprema also has the ability to request an advisory opinion from the Commission should it require further clarification.

Potential Outcomes

The Federal Circuit may conclude, as the panel did, that the ITC lacks authority over induced infringement of method claims when direct infringement occurs after importation.  As a few judges noted, if the Court holds that the statute should be given a narrow interpretation to authorize a remedy only for articles that infringe "at the time of importation," it may later be argued that the ITC lacks authority to remedy infringement of method of use claims or even contributory infringement claims.  This extension of the argument may have significant implications for the scope of the ITC's remedial authority.

Alternatively, the Court may conclude that congressional intent regarding "articles that — infringe" is ambiguous with respect to induced infringement.  If so, then the Court would proceed to the second step of the Chevron analysis and determine whether the Commission reasonably included induced infringement in its interpretations of "articles that — infringe."  Here, the Court may decide that the Commission's interpretation was reasonable and continue to allow the Commission in appropriate circumstances to remedy infringement of method claims based on a theory of induced infringement.  It is also possible though that the Court may determine that the Commission's interpretation of the statute to authorize exclusionary orders directed to prohibit the importation of non-infringing staple articles of commerce was unreasonable, particularly in light of a number of judges' concern regarding Customs' practical enforcement of an ITC exclusion order directed to non-infringing staple items of commerce when imported.

Finally, although it is possible, it is uncertain whether the Court will remand the case to the Commission to tailor the remedy order.

The uncertainty for patent owners contemplating the assertion of inducement of method claim infringement will continue until the full Federal Circuit resolves the Suprema case.  As we have from the start, we will continue to report significant developments to the case as it proceeds though to its final decision.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
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