Design Patents Year in Review – ITC Design Patent Trends: Analyzing Outcomes Through 2024

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) remains a pivotal forum for addressing intellectual property disputes under Section 337, particularly those involving design patents. Although the Commission issued no remedial orders in the two design patent cases that terminated in 2024, an analysis of cases reaching a Final Determination between 2015 and 2024 reveals that cases involving a design patent continue to obtain a remedial order at a significantly higher success rate than utility patents.

Design Patent Enforcement Trends

From 2015-2024, the ITC terminated 429 Section 337 investigations, with 201 cases reaching a Final Determination of violation or no violation. In 118 of those cases, the Commission found a violation and issued remedial orders. Notably, of the investigations that went to Final Determination, General Exclusion Orders (GEO) were issued in 59% of the investigations asserting at least one design patent compared to just 13% for Section 337 investigations asserting utility patents only. Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) were issued in 59% of the investigations asserting at least one design patent compared to 41% for Section 337 investigations asserting only utility patents. The Commission issued Limited Exclusion Orders (LEOs) in 36% of investigations involving design patents—slightly lower than its 43% rate of issuing LEOs in investigations involving utility patents or unfair acts. Overall, from 2015 through 2024, the Commission found a Section 337 violation in 82% of the investigations reaching Final Determination and asserting a design patent, compared to only 55% of investigations asserting just utility patents or unfair acts.

GEO in Section 337 Investigations, 2015 – 2024

LEO in Section 337 Investigations, 2015 – 2024

CDO Section 337 Investigations, 2015 – 2024

Final Determinations for Section 337 Investigations, 2015 – 2024

Domestic Industry Requirement and Design Patents

The Commission issued no remedial order in the two design patent cases that terminated in 2024: Certain Replacement Automotive Lamps (Inv. No. 337-TA-1291) and Certain Replacement Automotive Lamps II (Inv. No. 337-TA-1292). In those investigations, Complainants Kia and Hyundai sought an LEO and a CDO against the named respondents, TYC Brother Industrial Co., Genera Corporation, LKQ Corporation of Chicago, and Keystone Automotive Industries (collectively, “Respondents”). The Initial Determinations (“ID”) issued in those investigations found none of the asserted patents to be invalid as anticipated or obvious and a violation of Section 337 by Respondents concerning 17 of Kia’s 20 asserted design patents for various automobile lamps and all 21 of Hyundai’s patents for various automobile lamps.

However, the Commission ultimately reversed the ID, determining that the Complainants had failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for any of their asserted patents. Complainants asserted aggregated investments across the multiple asserted patents, rather than establishing a domestic industry for each asserted design patent individually. This decision underscores the necessity for a patent-by-patent assessment of domestic industry investments to demonstrate their significance when the asserted design patents cover different products.

This article appeared in the 2024 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends report.