Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Roku, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2022-1386 · judgment January 19, 2024
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
Section 337’s “domestic industry” requirement is the gatekeeper to the International Trade Commission’s unique remedy of an exclusion order. For a patent owner complainant to establish a domestic industry, the plain language of the statute requires a showing of certain “significant” or “substantial” domestic investments in “articles protected by” its patent. In the case below, the patent at issue claims a physical device, but for domestic industry purposes complainant relied solely on certain investments in its unpatented software—portions of which may be incorporated into a variety of different consumer products. The ITC found specific third-party televisions running such software to be the “articles protected by” the patent, but wrongly (1) counted all of complainant’s domestic R&D and engineering investments in such software to be part of the domestic industry, and (2) found these investments to be “substantial” under Section 337 without evaluating them “with respect to” the “articles protected by” the patent. The ITC then issued an exclusion order barring importation of certain of petitioner’s products, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The questions presented are:
-
Did the ITC exceed its Section 337 authority by finding the entirety of complainant’s investments in unpatented, multi-purpose software to be “with respect to the articles protected by the patent?”
-
Did the ITC exceed its Section 337 authority by failing to consider whether the complainant’s investments in unpatented, multi-purpose software were “substantial” “with respect to the articles protected by the patent?” (I)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Matthew Joseph Rizzolo
Ropes & Gray, LLP
For respondent
Kirk Timothy Bradley
Alston & Bird LLP
Proceedings
- Jan 13 2025Petition DENIED.
- Dec 24 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
- Dec 20 2024Reply of petitioner Roku, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 10 2024Brief of respondent Universal Electronics, Inc. in opposition filed.
- Dec 10 2024Brief of Federal Respondent in opposition filed.
- Nov 15 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 10, 2024, for all respondents.
- Nov 14 2024Letter from counsel for respondent Universal Electronics, Inc. requesting an extension of time to file a response filed.
- Nov 13 2024Motion of the Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from November 27, 2024 to December 10, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Oct 25 2024The motions to extend the time to file responses are granted and the time is extended to and including November 27, 2024, for all respondents.
- Oct 24 2024Motion of respondent Universal Electronics, Inc. to extend the time to file a response from October 28, 2024 to November 27, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Oct 23 2024Motion of the Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from October 28, 2024 to November 27, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 27 2024Response Requested. (Due October 28, 2024)
- Sep 25 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
- Sep 12 2024Waiver of right of respondent Federal Respondents to respond filed.
- Sep 09 2024Waiver of right of respondent Universal Electronics, Inc. to respond filed.
- Aug 16 2024Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 19, 2024)
- Jun 17 2024Application (23A1111) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until August 16, 2024.
- Jun 12 2024Application (23A1111) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 2, 2024 to August 16, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.