Strategic Implications for Trade Lawyers
As global trade disputes grow more complex, Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) continue to shape how companies protect intellectual property and manage import risks. For attorneys focused on CLE international trade law, keeping pace with the ITC’s evolving interpretation of “domestic industry” and its expanding jurisdiction is essential to effective client representation.
Recent cases and congressional discussions show that Section 337 is no longer limited to traditional manufacturers. Modern business models—driven by sales, distribution, and digital commerce—are now gaining traction under the statute, widening access to ITC remedies for non-manufacturing entities.
Broader Domestic Industry Standards
A landmark 2025 decision by the Federal Circuit in Lashify Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission broadened the definition of domestic industry. The court held that U.S. activities such as marketing, sales, and warehousing may satisfy the economic prong—even when no U.S. manufacturing or R&D is present.
Historically, proving domestic industry required significant production or technical investment in the United States. The Lashify ruling shifts that standard, making Section 337 accessible to rights holders with primarily commercial operations. From a CLE International Trade Law standpoint, this precedent expands who can bring an ITC complaint and demands fresh defense strategies.
Filing Trends and Jurisdictional Scrutiny
ITC filings have slowed slightly in recent years—55 complaints were filed by late 2023, down from 71 in 2022 and 82 in 2021. Simultaneously, lawmakers are questioning whether Section 337 should continue handling disputes involving U.S. respondents. Congressional hearings in 2024 examined whether certain cases belong in federal court rather than at the ITC, raising the prospect of future legislative adjustments.
For attorneys, these discussions underscore the importance of monitoring reform proposals and evaluating how jurisdictional changes might alter case strategy and client expectations.
Remedies and Public Interest Considerations
The ITC’s authority to issue exclusion orders and cease-and-desist orders remains a key attraction for complainants. Yet recent cases—such as those involving consumer electronics—highlight growing scrutiny of public interest factors and the timing of enforcement. Counsel should be prepared to address how proposed remedies affect U.S. consumers, competition, and innovation.
For practitioners in international trade law, balancing strong enforcement arguments with public interest advocacy is increasingly part of effective litigation strategy.
Strategy Implications for Counsel
Several strategic implications flow from these developments:
- The Lashify decision invites more commercial entities to pursue Section 337 relief.
- Defense teams must rigorously test complainants’ domestic-industry claims.
- Legislative and procedural changes may reshape the ITC’s reach—staying updated is critical.
- Section 337’s speed remains its strength: investigations typically conclude within 18 months, demanding early preparation and strategic foresight.
Why International Trade Law Should Focus Here
Given that Section 337 lies at the intersection of intellectual property, trade, import relief, and regulatory enforcement, it remains a prime topic for CLE international trade law programs. The recent developments—broadened domestic industry definition, legislative scrutiny of jurisdiction, procedural refinements, and strategic reconsiderations—provide rich content for attendees wanting to stay at the leading edge of trade-IP enforcement.
Whether advising clients on pre-suit planning, forum selection, parallel federal court strategy, or exclusion-order risk, attorneys in trade and IP spaces must track how Section 337 is evolving. These changes affect case viability, cost/benefit calculus, and remedial expectations.
Conclusion
Section 337 continues to offer one of the most dynamic tools in the trade lawyer’s toolkit. But the landscape is shifting: domestic industry thresholds are expanding, procedural trends are evolving, and jurisdictional boundaries are being questioned. For attorneys focusing on international trade law, staying current with these changes is indispensable. Advising clients with confidence requires familiarity not just with the statute but with how the ITC and the Federal Circuit are now interpreting it—and how those interpretations may impact strategy today and tomorrow.