Hacker News Reader

Comment by ycIsGarbage | Hacker News Reader

The ITC can definitely adjudicate invalidity.

"Definitely" -- how do you know this? Citation please.

I actually don't know for certain and I was in Google Patent Litigation (as tech advisor). I never had a case before the ITC so I can't say 100%, but AFAIK only the PTO or a regular Federal court can declare a patent invalid.

But maybe they can say "well, this will probably be declared invalid, so we're going to stay the order." Like a German court can do. So please tell us one way or the other.

https://www.itcblog.com/488-did-you-know-determinations-of-p...

"Infringement, validity, and/or enforceability" constrained to section 337, per the above legal analysis.

IANAL

However the Federal Circuit has held that “ITC findings neither purport to be, nor can they be, regarded as binding interpretations of the U.S. patent laws in particular factual contexts.

OK, we're splitting hairs, but an ITC determination that your patent is invalid doesn't render it useless in other contexts.

You can, and everyone always does, litigate invalidity before ITC. (I am an IP litigator who has done it.) Note that the ITC cannot itself invalidate patents like district courts do, but they can--and often do--decline to issue an exclusion order because they believe the patent at issue is invalid.

See answer to the other poster.

For what it's worth, this isn't limited to invalidity. For example, ITC findings that a product infringes also are not binding on courts. The reason for all this is that the ITC is an administrative agency rather than an Article III tribunal.

Does anyone have a link saying either way here? Just want to be sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com