{"id":31693,"date":"2015-11-18T19:25:40","date_gmt":"2015-11-18T13:55:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/one\/sinapse\/?p=31693"},"modified":"2025-06-04T12:41:29","modified_gmt":"2025-06-04T07:11:29","slug":"us-itc-patent-jurisdiction-digital-data-clearcorrect-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/us-itc-patent-jurisdiction-digital-data-clearcorrect-case\/","title":{"rendered":"US-ITC versus Clear"},"content":{"rendered":"

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently passed a decision against an order of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) which sought to block the import of digital data that violated patents. The decision was passed on 10th<\/sup> November this year, in the case of ClearCorrect Operating, LLC, ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private), Ltd., v.<\/em> International Trade Commission and Align Technology, Inc.<\/em><\/p>\n

Align Technology is a multinational medical device company based out of San Jose, California. \u00a0Align Technology filed a patent infringement case in 2012 with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) when it found that ClearCorrect operating LLC, another US company that provides dental products and services, was infringing on 7 different patents of Align Technology related to system and methods for repositioning teeth, including the US Patent application number US67228800<\/a>.<\/p>\n

ClearCorrects\u2019 mode of operation was simple. They made models of US patients\u2019 teeth, scanned them and converted them to digital data sets, which in turn were transmitted to their branch in Pakistan. ClearCorrect Pakistan manipulated the data, adjusted the data sets, and sent them back to ClearCorrect in the US, where the aligners were created based on the received data. This meant that only digital data sets were imported. ITC, in 2014, found out that the aligners made by ClearCorrect infringed on Align Technology\u2019s patents, and issued a cease and desist order banning ClearCorrect from importing the data sets. ClearCorrect appealed the decision to the Federal court.<\/p>\n

The counsel that represented ClearCorrect pointed out the fact that ITC had no jurisdiction over all patentable subject matters. ITC counter-argued that it has authority over electronically imported data under section 337 of Tariff Act of 1930, and that ClearCorrect\u2019s importation of digital models had violated the law.<\/p>\n

The Court, primarily observing that there is a fundamental difference between \u2018electronic transmissions\u2019 and \u2018material things\u2019, concluded that ITC had no jurisdiction over this case, forcing ITC to revoke the cease and desist order they issued. The Court said that ITC\u2019s authority to prevent importation of \u201carticles\u201d applies only to material things and not digital transmissions. The court also rejected ITC\u2019s reasoning that the term \u2018article\u2019 under section 337 could include digital information.<\/p>\n

While some experts say that the ruling will help to ensure that users have unchained access to the free flow of information and that it will be useful for innovation and free expression, people in industries where digital data and digital data transmission has more prominence, such as Entertainment industry, are of the opinion that the ruling will promote blatant piracy of movies, television programs, books, music, and other copyrighted works.<\/p>\n

Authored by Naveen K.M
\nContributed by Electronics, Software and Telecommunications team\u00a0of BananaIP \u00a0India<\/p>\n

For further information on\u00a0Electronics, Software and Telecommunications\u00a0Patent<\/a>\u00a0law in India, write to\u00a0contact@bananaip.com<\/a><\/p>\n

Sources: 1<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Federal Circuit clarified that the US ITC lacks jurisdiction over digital data imports in patent cases, restricting its authority to material articles only. This decision impacts how digital transmissions are treated under section 337 of the Tariff Act.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":20,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,14,135],"tags":[7745,7744,7743,7747,16,7746,3147,169],"class_list":["post-31693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-patents","category-trade-secrets","tag-align-technology","tag-clearcorrect","tag-digital-data-import","tag-international-trade","tag-patent-infringement-2","tag-section-337","tag-us-itc","tag-us-patent-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31693","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31693"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31693\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":133734,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31693\/revisions\/133734"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}