The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently addressed how businesses should manage appeals in International Trade Commission (ITC) cases involving dual determinations. When an ITC ruling includes both findings of infringement and non-infringement, each outcome triggers separate appeal periods. This decision, authored by Judge Stoll, underscores the intricacies of legal deadlines for challenging such mixed rulings.
Crocs’ dispute against multiple entities exemplifies the implications of these rulings. The ITC determined that Crocs could not prove infringement for some respondents, resulting in non-infringement findings, while issuing a limited exclusion order (LEO) for others. Crocs contested both outcomes, but the CAFC ruled that its appeal against the non-infringement findings was time-barred. The court clarified that non-infringement rulings close the appeal window immediately, whereas infringement findings extend the timeline due to the 6,000-day presidential review period. This distinction aligns with precedents such as Allied Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission and Broadcom Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission.
Crocs argued that the ITC’s consolidated findings made separation impossible, but the CAFC rejected this claim. The court also dismissed equitable tolling arguments, noting insufficient supporting evidence. This outcome highlights the necessity for businesses to grasp how dual rulings impact deadlines. For trademark holders, it reinforces the value of proactive oversight and strategic appeal planning to avoid missing critical windows.
The CAFC upheld the ITC’s issuance of an LEO against defaulting respondents, citing statutory provisions. This reinforces the challenges of enforcing trademarks in international disputes. Brands must balance legal complexities with protecting their intellectual property.
Trademark monitoring has become a critical component of global strategy. As markets evolve, the risk of conflicts and infringements rises. IP Defender provides continuous surveillance of national trademark databases, identifying potential conflicts and infringements. By tracking 50+ jurisdictions, including the EU, USA, and Australia, the service ensures brands remain protected from unauthorized registrations. This proactive approach helps mitigate legal risks and financial losses.
The urgency to act is evident. Overlooking trademark monitoring can lead to costly disputes and missed opportunities. IP Defender’s real-time surveillance offers brands clarity, allowing them to prioritize growth over litigation. As demonstrated by the ITC case, failing to meet deadlines can result in losing the ability to defend a trademark. With IP Defender, brands gain a reliable tool to maintain vigilance and safeguard their intellectual property.