Standard Essential Patents at the United States International Trade Commission

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth I. Winston
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Trade Commission ◽  
Standard Essential Patents

scholarly journals International Trade Commission Exclusion Orders for the Infringement of Standard-Essential Patents

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Sidak
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
International Trade Commission ◽  
Patent Holder ◽  
Standard Essential Patents ◽  
Section 337 ◽  
The U.S

In the United States, a patent holder can pursue several remedies against a patent infringer. Section 284 of the Patent Act provides that, upon a finding of infringement, “the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty . . . .” In addition, § 283 provides that a court “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.” Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 also allows a patent holder to petition the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)—a federal agency that investigates matters of international trade and advises on international trade policy— to issue an exclusion order against an infringer, a remedy that denies the importation and sale in the United States of products that infringe a valid and enforceable U.S. patent.3 In a case of patent infringement, a patent holder may thus seek damages for the infringement, an injunction, and an exclusion order.

International Trade Commission

1978 ◽  
Vol 8 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 110-110
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
International Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Trade Commission ◽  
Direct Involvement ◽  
Generalized System ◽  
Generalized System Of Preferences

The International Trade Commission (ITC) has no direct involvement in Africa. However, the ITC is in charge of administering the Generalized System of Preferences, under which most African nations are designated beneficiary developing countries. Products from such countries are allowed duty-free import into the United States.

Commentary and Analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (06) ◽  
pp. 31-33
Author(s):  
Claire Laporte ◽  
DeAnn F. Smith ◽  
Jeremy A. Younkin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
International Trade Commission ◽  
Biotechnology Companies

Facing ITC Investigation? What Chinese Biotechnology Companies Should Know About Patent Litigation in the United States International Trade Commission.

scholarly journals Measuring The Costs Of Protection In Venezuela

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo J. Faria ◽  
Jorge Gonzalez ◽  
Luis Penzini ◽  
Ricardo Perez ◽  
Stephanie Zalzman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Automobile Industry ◽  
Growth Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Agricultural Products ◽  
Trade Barriers ◽  
International Trade Commission ◽  
Agricultural Industry ◽  
National Welfare

This research looks into the static effects on the Venezuelan economy of removing trade barriers in the form of tariffs in textiles, agricultural products, steel and automobile. Based on a methodology used by the United States International Trade Commission, this paper documents that gains to consumers for every job lost range from $85,384 in the agricultural industry to $1,096,714 in the automobile industry. Removal of these barriers would increase national welfare in excess of $1 billion per year, which is equivalent to 1% of Venezuelas GDP (based on statistics from the 90s). This evidence suggests significant misallocation of resources that may retard the growth process.

scholarly journals United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (WTO Doc. WT/DS22/R of 15 July 2002): Beating Around (The) Bush

2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (S1) ◽  
pp. 12-35
Author(s):  
Kyle Bagwell ◽  
Petros C. Mavroidis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Uruguay Round ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Trade Commission ◽  
Appellate Body Report ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The Us ◽  
United States Trade ◽  
Trade Legislation

In this dispute, Canada attacks Section 129(c)(1) of the US trade legislation as a result of the entry into force of the Uruguay Round Agreements [Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), hereinafter “Section 129”] which provides that a new antidumping or countervailing duty determination made by the Department of Commerce (DOC) or the International Trade Commission (ITC) to bring a previous antidumping, countervailing duty or injury determination into conformity with an adverse WTO panel or Appellate Body report applies only to imports that enter the United States on or after the date that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) directs implementation of the new determination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document