United States: Time For Another Look At General Exclusion Orders?

One of the most attractive attributes of Section 337 proceedings from a complainant's perspective is the ITC's unique exclusionary remedies against infringing imports.  Specifically, the ITC has the power to issue exclusion orders directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to block the importation of products that infringe U.S. patents.  Nevertheless, as the ITC's reputation as a forum for adjudicating patent disputes involving complex computer and telecommunication technologies has grown, there has been a tendency to view general exclusion orders (GEOs) – which bar infringing imports regardless of their source – as a remedy that is rarely attainable.  The statistics on GEOs, however, tell a different story.  Forty percent of the exclusion orders issued by the Commission since the beginning of 2010 have been GEOs, and GEOs have been recommended by the Judges in three investigations currently pending before the Commission.  Also, a majority of the GEOs issued since 2010 have been obtained without a hearing after the non-settling respondents defaulted.  Thus, this may be a good time for prospective complainants to consider whether they are confronting circumstances (particularly widespread infringement by multiple importers or manufacturers of goods involving relatively uncomplicated technology) where pursuit of a GEO may be worthwhile.


A GEO is a powerful remedy.  If the Commission determines that a GEO is an appropriate remedy for a violation of Section 337, all infringing products are excluded from entering the United States regardless of the identity of the importer or manufacturer.  Thus, GEOs reach infringing imports of entities that were not named as respondents in the investigation and that may not even have been importing the product at the time the order issued.  By contrast, if the Commission issues a limited exclusion order (LEO), only articles that are imported by named respondents who are found to have violated Section 337 will be excluded.  Generally, issuance of a GEO is most likely where the infringing imports are not technologically complex and there are many current or potential infringers.

To obtain a GEO, the complainant must not only prove that a violation of Section 337 has occurred, but must also satisfy one of two criteria in Section 337(d)(2) – it must demonstrate that either (a) "a general exclusion from entry of articles is necessary to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named persons" or (b) "there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products."  19 U.S.C.A. § 1337(d)(2).  This standard was added to the statute in 1994.  Prior to that time, the Commission had articulated a standard for GEOs in Certain Airless Paint Spray Pumps and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-90 ("Spray Pumps") that required a complainant to show "both a widespread pattern of unauthorized use of its patented invention, and certain business conditions from which one might reasonably infer that foreign manufacturers other than the respondents to the investigation may attempt to enter the U.S. market with infringing articles."  Spray Pumps, Comm'n Opinion (Nov. 24, 1981) at 18.

The Spray Pumps standard was utilized by the Commission even after the statute was amended in 1994, but since 2009 the Commission has directed parties to focus on the statutory standard for GEOs rather than on the factors listed in the Spray Pumps opinion.  "While the Commission has in the past considered analysis based on the Spray Pumps factors when evaluating whether the statutory criteria are satisfied, we now focus principally on the statutory language itself in light of recent Federal Circuit decisions."  Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters, Inv. No. 337-TA-615, Comm'n Op. (Mar. 26, 2009) at 25.

As a practical matter, when assessing the likelihood of obtaining a GEO, prospective complainants should still consider whether they can present the type of information identified in Spray Pumps, which may be used to prove a widespread pattern of unauthorized use and business conditions from which it may reasonably be inferred that additional foreign manufacturers may attempt to enter the U.S. market with infringing articles.  The following types of information, listed in Spray Pumps, are often deemed relevant to the statutory standard for GEOs and continue to be relied upon by complainants in support of their GEO requests:

  • (1) a Commission determination of unauthorized importation into the United States of infringing articles by numerous foreign manufacturers;
  • (2) the pendency of foreign infringement suits based upon foreign patents which correspond to the domestic patent in issue;
  • (3) other evidence which demonstrates a history of unauthorized use of the patented invention;
  • (4) an established demand for the patented product in the U.S. market and conditions of the world market;
  • (5) the availability of marketing and distribution networks in the United States for potential foreign manufacturers;
  • (6) the cost to foreign entrepreneurs of building a facility capable of producing the patented article;
  • (7) the number of foreign manufacturers whose facilities could be retooled to produce the patented article; and
  • (8) the cost to foreign manufacturers of retooling their facility to produce the patented articles.

See Spray Pumps, Comm'n Opinion at 18-19.

Data on GEOs and LEOs Issued Since 2010

Although still less common than LEOs, GEOs have accounted for a significant proportion of the exclusion orders issued by the Commission since the beginning of 2010.  Since 2010, the Commission has issued 17 GEOs and 25 LEOs.  Thus, GEOs have accounted for 40 percent of the exclusion orders issued by the Commission during the last six years.

In each of the last three calendar years, only two GEOs were issued, but GEOs have already been recommended by the Administrative Law Judge in three investigations now awaiting final decisions by the Commission – Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof, and Manuals Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA- 935; Certain Footwear Products, Inv. No. 337-TA- 936; and Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA- 946.  Seven additional investigations are pending in which the complainants have requested GEOs.  Interestingly, since the start of 2010, of the 24 investigations where GEOs were originally requested in the complaint and a violation was found, 17 (or approximately 70 percent) resulted in the issuance of GEOs.  In three of the seven remaining complaints where GEOs had originally been requested and a violation was found, by the end of the investigation the complainant was no longer requesting a GEO.  Of the 17 GEOs issued since 2010, all but two were patent-based.

Mechanism for Obtaining a GEO Without an Evidentiary Hearing

In the majority of investigations where GEOs have issued in recent years, the existence of a violation has been established without an evidentiary hearing.  Of the 17 GEOs issued since 2010, 11 issued without a hearing after the non-settling respondents defaulted.  Similarly, in two of the three investigations currently pending before the Commission where the Judges have recommended issuance of a GEO, the Judge found the complainant had proven a violation of Section 337 without the need for an evidentiary hearing.

Section 337 and the Commission's Rules contain several provisions relating to defaults, which are useful to review to gain an understanding of the process for obtaining a GEO where the non-settling respondents have defaulted.  Section 337(g) and Commission Rule 210.16 provide that a respondent will be found in default if it fails to respond to the complaint and Notice of Investigation and fails to show cause why it should not be found in default.  A respondent may also be found in default under Rule 201.16(a)(2) as a sanction for failing to cooperate in discovery.

The proof required to obtain a GEO where respondents have defaulted is quite different from the proof required if only LEOs against individual defaulters are sought.  When a particular respondent is found to have defaulted, "the facts alleged in the complaint will be presumed to be true" and, upon request, the complainant is entitled to an LEO against the accused imports of that respondent unless there are public interest considerations that warrant denial of such relief.  Section 337(g)(1).  In contrast, with regard to GEOs, Section 337(g)(2) provides that when all non-settling respondents have defaulted, a complainant may request issuance of a GEO on the basis of the existing record, and the Commission may grant a GEO if the violation is "established by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence" and the statutory requirements for a GEO – discussed above – have been satisfied.  See also Commission Rule 210.16(c)(2).  Although a complainant cannot simply rely upon respondents' defaults to establish its case, adverse inferences arising from defaults may be used to fill in some missing information that complainant could not reasonably obtain absent discovery from respondents (such as specifics relating to infringement of process patents that cannot be readily established by testing of the imported products).

While substantial cost savings should be realized if a complainant is able to dispense with the evidentiary hearing, prospective complainants should be cognizant of costs that will be incurred even if all respondents default.  There are a series of procedural steps involving discovery requests, motions practice, and orders to show cause directed to the non-participating respondents that must be followed to obtain default findings and adverse inferences based on defaults at the ITC.  Also, when a GEO is requested by complainant, a staff attorney from the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) will normally be assigned to participate as a party to the investigation.  As an independent party, OUII has the right to probe complainant's proof.  Thus, it is common for OUII to serve written discovery on the complainant in investigations where there are no active respondents.  OUII has also taken depositions in some default investigations, most often on the issue of domestic industry.  It is unusual for OUII to press for an evidentiary hearing in an investigation where there are no participating respondents, but OUII is not prohibited from doing so.  Moreover, OUII is free to challenge aspects of complainant's factual showing and legal theories and has done so in past default investigations.  As a practical matter, the participation of the OUII attorney in a default investigation may be helpful to a complainant seeking to establish a violation on the papers because the OUII attorney will normally advise complainant's counsel in advance of the hearing if it believes that complainant's prima facie case is deficient in some respect.  In such instances, complainant may be able to cure weaknesses in its case and avoid an unnecessary evidentiary hearing.

Circumstances In Which GEOs Should Be Considered

GEOs are often attractive and obtainable by IP rights holders where there are multiple unrelated infringers, and the identity of some of those infringers may not be known.  These are the types of cases where a complainant is most likely to be able to satisfy the statutory requirement for a GEO – i.e., that "there is a pattern of violation of [Section 337] and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products."  Section 337 (d)(2)(B).  Because Section 337 proceedings are in rem proceedings that focus upon imported articles, personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer or importer is not required.  The filing of a single Section 337 complaint seeking entry of a GEO provides the patent holder (or other type of IP rights holder) a way to avoid filing numerous suits to stop current and future importations of infringing goods.  In cases involving relatively less complex technology and/or relatively inexpensive goods, remedying widespread infringement from imports while avoiding the cost of multiple costly district court actions may be particularly important to rights holders.

The last three GEOs issued by the Commission involved loom kits for making bracelets (Inv. No. 337-TA 923), ink cartridges for printers (Inv. No. 337-TA-918), and cases for smart phones (Inv. No. 337-TA-867).  The three pending investigations where GEOs have been recommended by the Judges involved ink cartridges, sneakers, and motorized personal transporters (Inv. Nos. 946, 936, and 935, respectively). In each of these investigations, the complainant presented evidence to show that a LEO could be easily circumvented (for example, because a named Respondent could easily shut down and restart its infringing operation under a different name, as was alleged in the 918 investigation), or that it was difficult to identify the source of infringing products (because, for example, the products did not identify their manufacturer, as was the case in the 923 investigation), or both.


Complainants requesting GEOs in recent years have experienced considerable success in obtaining such relief from the Commission, most often without having to go through an evidentiary hearing.  GEOs may be of particular interest to patent and other rights holders facing widespread infringement from multiple importers or manufacturers on products involving relatively uncomplicated technologies and/or relatively lower cost.  In considering whether to bring a complaint before the Commission where at least some respondents seem likely to default, prospective complainants should be cognizant of the procedural steps unique to Section 337 practice that must be followed to secure default findings and concomitant adverse inferences based on defaults, as well as the substantive requirements for obtaining a GEO.  Because a showing of violation by "substantial, reliable, and probative evidence" is a prerequisite for a GEO even in cases where respondents default, complainants that plan to seek a GEO should, as much as possible, assemble their proof on each element of a violation and the factors required for issuance of a GEO before filing their complaints.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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.

Lynn I. Levine
G. Brian Busey
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