- Brita 24-1098.pdf

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Casam 23-1769.pdf

• Mootness of an ITC infringement appeal following an appellate affirmance of PTAB unpatentability of the only asserted claim.: An affirmance that the only claim asserted on appeal is unpatentable moots a Section 337 appeal challenging a noninfringement determination because §337 relief requires infringement of a valid and enforceable patent; the court therefore lacks a live controversy and must dismiss even if other litigation is pending.

- Lashify 23-1245.pdf

• Whether § 337(a)(3)(B) permits the Commission to categorically discount labor/capital used for sales/marketing and warehousing/quality control/distribution (especially absent domestic manufacturing) when assessing the economic prong.: Section 337(a)(3)(B) is satisfied by “significant employment of labor or capital” with respect to the patented articles, without atextual carveouts for particular enterprise functions; the Commission may not deem sales/marketing or warehousing/quality-control/distribution labor/capital categorically insufficient standing alone or condition their consideration on domestic manufacturing.
• Role of legislative history and pre-1988 practice in narrowing § 337(a)(3)(B).: Where § 337(a)(3)(B)’s text is clear, legislative history, pre-1988 Commission practice, and pre-1988 case law (including Schaper) cannot justify reading in exclusions or a domestic-manufacturing requirement inconsistent with the statute’s enacted language.
• Remand framework for economic-prong determination under § 337(a)(3)(B).: On remand, the Commission must count labor and capital used in sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution to the extent “with respect to” the patented articles, and then determine whether the qualifying employment is “significant” via a holistic assessment of all relevant considerations.
• Whether Lashify satisfied the technical prong for the ’984 patent under the affirmed construction.: Because Lashify’s domestic-industry products did not meet the “heat fused” limitations as construed, the Commission correctly found the technical prong not satisfied for the ’984 patent, and that determination is affirmed.

- Realtek 23-1187.pdf

• Whether § 1337©’s statement that sanctions determinations “shall also be reviewable in accordance with section 706 of title 5” confers Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction.: Section 1337©’s “also reviewable in accordance with section 706” language addresses the APA standard/procedure of review, not the forum for appellate jurisdiction; Congress did not include subsection (h) in the statutory list of Commission determinations appealable to the Federal Circuit.

- US Synthetic 23-1217.pdf

• (no holding tagged to this category)

- Wuhan Healthgen 23-1389.pdf

• Whether relatively small dollar investments can satisfy the § 337(a)(3) economic prong for domestic industry.: The domestic-industry economic prong does not turn on any threshold dollar amount or rigid formula; the Commission may find investments “significant” or “substantial” based on a context-dependent, holistic assessment using quantitative measures such as the domestic share of total investments/value added and investment-to-revenue comparisons, including for small market segments.
• Use of domestic-versus-total investment (value added) and investment-to-revenue ratio in the economic-prong analysis.: Consistent with precedent requiring quantitative analysis, the Commission may treat a 100% domestic allocation/value-added comparison and a high investment-to-revenue ratio as probative quantitative indicators supporting a finding of significant/substantial investment under § 337(a)(3).