Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission (ITC) continue to stand out as one of the most consequential venues for complex intellectual property disputes, particularly in matters involving advanced technologies and life sciences. The forum’s combination of compressed schedules and powerful remedies continues to draw litigants, and the current environment has only heightened that appeal. Success at the ITC depends not just on the legal merits, but on how effectively parties can organize technical complexity, align expert-driven narratives, and present a clear, disciplined case under significant time pressure. Let’s explore how venue nuances and current industry trends are impacting proceedings seen before the Commission.
2025 Saw a Renewed Focus on the ITC – What’s Driving Investigations at the Venue?
Few venues move as quickly or carry the same practical leverage as the ITC. Investigations often compress what might take years in district court into a matter of months, while offering remedies that can affect entire product lines and supply chains. That dynamic continues to draw complainants seeking swift relief and forces respondents to confront high-stakes strategic decisions almost immediately.
Because of that pace, early case choices matter enormously. Positions on infringement, domestic industry, technical themes, and expert presentation often must be developed before the full record has taken shape. In that sense, ITC practice rewards parties that can move quickly without losing clarity. It is not simply a faster forum; it is one that magnifies the consequences of early judgment.
That pressure is especially evident in the types of disputes now reaching the Commission. Recent investigations appear to reflect continued attention to disputes involving highly technical subject matter, including semiconductors, telecommunications, and medical devices. These cases often depend heavily on expert testimony to explain how accused products operate, how claim limitations should be understood, and why particular technologies matter in their commercial context.
At the same time, many investigations now involve multiple patents, multiple products, and overlapping theories of infringement. That broadening of the issues increases complexity at every stage, from discovery through hearing, and puts added pressure on counsel to decide early what themes will matter most and how technical concepts can be presented in a way that remains coherent as the record expands.
In many of these cases, that challenge is compounded by another development: the Commission is increasingly being asked to evaluate intellectual property it has not seen before.
How Does Newly Asserted Intellectual Property Change the Way Cases Are Tried?
Over 75% of 2025 ITC investigations involved patents and technologies that have not previously been litigated before the Commission. In those matters, there may be few established guideposts — no prior ITC claim constructions, no developed technical record in this forum, and little Commission-specific context to shape the presentation.
That changes the job for litigators. Technical narratives must often be built from the ground up, and they must be built in a way that helps the tribunal quickly understand both the technology and the significance of the disputed issues. Questions of claim scope, infringement, and industry context may all need to be framed for a first audience in a forum that leaves little room for drift or unnecessary complication.
Where the technology is new to the Commission, discipline becomes even more important. Parties that try to cover too much, or that fail to connect expert analysis to a central theory of the case, risk presenting a record that feels fragmented rather than persuasive. The stronger approach is usually the more focused one: identify the issues that matter most, establish a consistent technical narrative early, and reinforce it throughout the investigation.
That need for discipline also distinguishes a strong ITC strategy from more familiar district court approaches.
Should Parties Consider Their Strategy for the ITC, Especially When Parallel Proceedings Are in Play?
The short answer: Yes. The strategic demands of ITC investigations are not the same as district court matters. The Commission’s structure, the role of Administrative Law Judges, and the accelerated path to hearing all require earlier alignment of legal themes, factual development, and expert presentation.
In district court, there may be more opportunities to refine arguments over time. At the ITC, that flexibility is far more limited. Positions taken early frequently define the course of the case, and there is less room to recalibrate once discovery is underway. That reality makes coordination essential, particularly where parties are managing overlapping proceedings and trying to ensure that arguments developed in one forum do not undermine objectives in another.
Parallel proceedings also introduce practical and strategic complexities that go beyond timing. Parties must navigate differing procedural rules, discovery schedules, and evidentiary standards, often while relying on overlapping witnesses and expert testimony. Positions taken in one forum may have implications in another, whether through overlap, credibility concerns, or the risk of inconsistent arguments. At the same time, strategic priorities may diverge; for example, the pace and remedies available at the ITC may call for a more focused and expedited presentation than in district court.
For that reason, effective ITC advocacy is not just about understanding how the forum differs. It is about adjusting to those differences early enough for them to shape the entire presentation of the case.
The Importance of Clarity in Technically Complex ITC Investigations
ITC matters regularly turn on complex scientific and engineering concepts, yet the most effective presentations are rarely the most exhaustive – they are the ones that make complexity understandable without oversimplifying it.
Doing that well requires integration from the outset. That integration should extend to graphics development. Each demonstrative should be purpose‑built to clarify the record, strengthen strategic positioning, and support a focused, effective presentation at hearing rather than simply replicate expert testimony. Additionally, expert testimony should not exist alongside the case narrative as a separate track; it should deepen and support the theory the tribunal is being asked to accept. This is especially important in multi-patent investigations or matters involving several related technologies, where the risk of losing coherence is high.
When those elements are aligned, the case becomes easier to follow and more credible. When they are not, even strong individual points can lose their impact, and in a forum defined by speed, that kind of fragmentation can be difficult to overcome.
Those dynamics are only becoming more pronounced. The ITC is likely to remain a key venue for high-stakes intellectual property disputes, and as innovation continues, cases are becoming more technically sophisticated and procedurally demanding.
In that respect, the lesson is straightforward: Section 337 investigations require more than strong legal arguments or technical fluency in isolation – they require a coordinated approach that brings strategy, expert analysis, and visual presentation together from the start, ensuring that complex records are not just comprehensive, but understandable. As the ITC continues to evolve alongside the industries it serves, those who can turn complexity into a disciplined and credible narrative will be best positioned to succeed.
Reprinted with permission from the April 13, 2026, edition of the New York Law Journal © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.
