- within Accounting and Audit, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration and Technology topic(s)
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations and Banking & Credit industries
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Dometic Corp. v. International Trade Commission (April 6, 2026) demonstrates that claim construction disputes can simultaneously undermine both infringement analysis and domestic industry requirements in Section 337 proceedings, creating compounding risks for International Trade Commission (ITC) complainants.
Section 337 Domestic Industry Requirements
Section 337 complainants must satisfy both technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement. The technical prong requires that domestic products practice at least one claim of the asserted patent using the same analytical framework applied in infringement determinations. The economic prong can be satisfied through significant US investment in plant and equipment, substantial domestic employment, or substantial investment in patent exploitation activities.
Dometic’s Dual Claim Construction Problem
In Dometic, claim construction arguments created cascading failures across multiple patent claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s construction of the “guiding cover” limitation in claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7, allowing assembly components to be physically integrated within the main body structure, which supported anticipation findings. More critically, the court upheld the ITC’s construction of claim 18’s dual-axis rotation requirements, demanding two structurally and functionally distinct rotational degrees of freedom rather than a single rotation mode.
Fatal Impact on Domestic Industry
The claim construction analysis that enabled some infringement findings simultaneously revealed that Dometic’s domestic products failed to practice claims 18-22. Specifically, Dometic’s domestic air conditioning systems lacked the dual-axis rotation functionality required by the claims, particularly the independent rotational capabilities distinguishing the first axis (blower rotation) from the second axis (assembly adjustment). This technical deficiency in domestic industry satisfaction proved fatal despite Dometic’s ability to demonstrate economic investment in US operations.
Strategic Implications
The Dometic ruling illustrates that companies pursuing ITC relief face dual vulnerabilities from claim construction positions. The domestic industry requirement serves as a significant procedural hurdle that can be undermined by the same claim interpretation arguments used to establish infringement. Companies should ensure their domestic products clearly practice asserted patent claims under any reasonable construction and conduct thorough technical analysis before filing complaints, as claim construction disputes create compounding risks that can destroy Section 337 enforcement strategies even when infringement is proven.
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.
[View Source]
