Centripetal Networks Llc V Itc

Key Facts

Issues

• The court addressed whether the Commission's finding that Centripetal's CleanINTERNET Solution products failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement was supported by substantial evidence. The technical prong requires a comparison of domestic products to the asserted patent claims, essentially asking whether the complainant practices its own patent. The Commission found that Centripetal's RuleGATE ports could not meet the claim's device limitations because they are simply electrical interfaces rather than devices capable of the required functions.
• The court determined that Centripetal waived its ability to contest the Commission's finding of non-infringement for certain limitations of claims 22 and 43 of the '370 Patent. Centripetal's opening brief failed to address the Commission's findings regarding the 'identify' and 'communicate' aspects of limitations (e) and (f), and the court agreed that these omissions constituted waiver of the ability to challenge those findings.

Holdings

Legal Principles

Precedent Name

• Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
• Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
• In re Kotzab
• Pokarna Engineered Stone Ltd. v. United States
• TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
• Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n
• Lashify, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
• In re Nuvasive, Inc.
• Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Techs., Inc.

Cited Statute

• Judicial Code
• Trade Act of 1930

Judge Name

• WALLACH
• PROST
• STARK

Passage Text

• To show a violation under Section 337, a complainant must meet at least the following requirements. First, the respondents named in the Commission proceeding must be importing 'articles that... infringe' a United States patent. Second, there must be (already or in process of establishment) an industry in the United States that relates to the articles protected by the patent. This second requirement, which is commonly referred to as 'the domestic-industry requirement,' is commonly described as having two requirements: (1) the 'economic prong' and (2) the 'technical prong.' As to the technical prong, the test 'is essentially same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted claims.' Put simply, the complainant must practice its own patent.
• This court reviews the Commission's legal determinations without deference and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is something less than the weight of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla of evidence. The substantial evidence standard 'involves examination of the record as a whole, taking into account evidence that both justifies and detracts from an agency's decision.' However, 'the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.'
• For the '370 Patent, the Commission's finding of no Section 337 violation rests on three independent grounds—the failure to establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; the failure to show infringement; and patent ineligibility. Centripetal must therefore prevail on all three grounds in this appeal. For the reasons explained below, we hold that substantial evidence supports the Commission's finding that Centripetal's DI Product failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. We also find Centripetal waived any challenge to the Commission's finding of non-infringement. Because these grounds independently support the Commission's finding of no Section 337 violation, we do not need to reach the patent ineligibility ground, and we affirm.