Recently in ITC Category

On October 11, 2011 the Federal Circuit handed down an opinion in TianRui Group Co. v. ITC which decided whether section 337 authorizes the International Trade Commission (ITC) to apply domestic trade secret law to conduct which occurred in a foreign country. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's application of domestic trade secret law to activities which occurred abroad. In answering this question, the Federal Circuit also handled a matter of first impression: what forum's trade secret law applies in a section 337 case?

In this case, Amstead, an American company, held two processes for manufacturing steel railway wheels as trade secrets. Amstead had previously practiced both of these methods domestically, but no longer uses one secret process, the "ABC process" domestically, instead choosing to license the process to several Chinese based foundries. One such company that Amstead had entered into licensing negotiations with was a Chinese company named TianRui, but negotiations failed. After negotiations soured, TianRui hired nine employees from another Chinese firm whom had previously successfully negotiated a licensing agreement for the ABC process. Amstead alleged, in front of the ITC, that these employees disclosed details of the ABC process despite Amstead's warnings and confidentiality agreements. TianRui did not dispute these allegations on appeal.

Before reaching the extraterritorial application of section 337, the Federal Circuit had to decide which law to apply for a 337 proceeding regarding trade secrets. Amstead, which has its principal place of business in Illinois, argued for the Federal Circuit to apply Illinois trade secret law, but the Federal Circuit swiftly rejected this contention, instead applying a single federal standard. The Federal Circuit reasoned that "in light of the fact that section 337 deals with international commerce, a field of special federal concern, the case for applying a federal rule of decision is particularly strong."

The case, however, did not turn on this determination, as TianRui primarily argued that section 337 cannot reach the activities at hand, regardless of the law applied, because the acts occurred entirely outside the United States. The court did not find TianRui's arguments persuasive, despite the general presumption which is established against extraterritoriality. The court found the presumption of extraterritoriality inapplicable to the case at hand for three main reasons: (1) section 337 is expressly directed at importation of article into the United States; (2) the unfair conduct at issue causes domestic injury; and (3) the application of 337 to the conduct at hand is consistent with Congressional intent. Notably, the court focused on section 337's purpose, and Congress' intent when enacting 337, of preventing unfair methods of conception. By this logic, the Federal Circuit found 337, and thus federal trade secret law, applicable to the acts at hand, under the condition that these acts caused an injury domestic industry.

Thus, the court focused the remainder of its opinion on the issue of injury to domestic industry. TianRui then argued that even if 337 did apply to foreign acts, Almstead's domestic industry was not injured, and if any industry was injured it was foreign which would not justify the application of US trade secret law under section 337. In addressing this argument, the court stated that trade secrets are nonstatutory, and therefore subject to less stringent requirements under 337 which only require "unfair practices [that] threaten to 'destroy or substantially injure' a domestic industry." In applying this standard to the case at hand, the court looked to the ITC's previous ruling. The Commission had previously found that the imported wheels could be in direct competition with Amstead's domestically produced wheels and, thus, injure an "industry" under the meaning of 337(a)(1)(A). Thus, the Federal Circuit, in affirming this ruling, found the Commission's conclusion to be based on proper statutory construction and factually supported by substantial evidence.