The en banc Federal Circuit held August 10, 2015 that the U.S. International Trade Commission has jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. §1337 to exclude articles based on induced patent infringement post-importation. In Suprema, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Fed. Cir., No. 2012‐1170, 8/10/2015, a 6-4 decision, the Court held that the ITC reasonably interpreted the statutory phrase “articles that infringe” to cover goods infringing post-importation even though the infringe is induced by the seller post-importation.
Cross Match is the assignee of patents relating to fingerprint scanning. Cross Match complained to the ITC under Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930 that Korean scanner maker Suprema’s action is unlawful when Suprema was importing scanners to Mentalix, a U.S. company, that infringed Cross Match’s method patent when the Suprema scanners were used with Mentalix software. That statute, in part, defines as an unlawful activity the “importation into the United States … of articles that … infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent.” Under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), the imports used by Mentalix induced infringement of method claims in Cross Match’s patents.
At first the Federal Circuit panel reversed, ruling that the imported scanners could not be “articles that infringe” under Section 337 because the direct infringement occurred after importation, not before. The en banc Federal Court, however, vacated the panel’s decision, and held that the ITC’s interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the statutory text, policy, and legislative history of Section 337.
First Courts are directed to defer to certain agency interpretations of statutes under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Since the ITC interpreted Section 337(1)(1)(B)(i) the phrase “articles that infringe” to cover goods that, after importation, are used by the importer, as a result of inducement by the goods’ seller, to directly infringe. The Court found no unambiguous statement of Congress that conflicted with the ITC’s interpretation. Secondly, the ITC’s interpretation is reasonable because direct infringement commonly occurs after inducement, the finding of an induced infringement must be predicated on a finding of direct infringement.
8月10号，美国联邦上诉法院裁决，美国国际贸易署对19 U.S.C. §1337中侵权商品的解释是合理的。美国国际贸易署在Cross Match的起诉判决中，认定ITC可以限制Suprema 进口指纹扫描机卖给Mentalix ， 因为Mentalix 的软件使用该扫描机来侵犯Cross Match的方法专利。
