At a recent event hosted by the International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association (ITCTLA), attendees gathered for a series of panels designed to share insights into ITC practice and procedure. The ITCTLA is a key organization supporting the Section 337 bar, offering CLE programming, policy engagement, and initiatives like the NEXT Advocates Mock Hearing Program to help train the next generation of ITC litigators. One of the highlights of the event was a fireside chat with Administrative Law Judge Doris (ALJ) Johnson Hines, which offered an opportunity to hear directly from the bench on what makes effective advocacy before the Commission.
DOAR Director, Jeffrey Dorfman, attended the event and took note of ALJ Johnson Hines’s practical guidance. A New York attorney with years of experience in Section 337 litigation, Jeff leads our efforts to help clients match the right experts to the specific needs of an ITC investigation. His takeaways from the event reflect Judge Johnson Hines’ emphasis on clarity, professionalism, and preparedness.
ALJ Doris Johnson Hines on ITC Processes
Now in her third year at the ITC, Judge Johnson Hines noted that the success rate for complainants in her courtroom is about average at around 63%, excluding default cases. She encouraged practitioners to understand that credibility is critical, even when the facts aren’t ideal. Litigators should assume every communication may eventually be read by the judge and should avoid common missteps: don’t cite her to herself, don’t overexplain the basics, and don’t waste time with unnecessary caveats. She emphasized the importance of making the record count; every exhibit and demonstrative should be referenced clearly and specifically in the transcript so she can rely on it later when writing her decision.
She also shared practical insights on briefing, discovery, and trial preparation. For cross-examination, she underscored the value of precision and planning: know your cites, your exhibits, and your expert’s history. Impeachment is rare; what resonates is showing preparedness and identifying when an expert has gone too far in their testimony. In discovery, she encouraged parties to keep things moving. She’s willing to get on the phone to resolve disputes and expects prompt production of documents and source code. She limits interrogatories to 30 and won’t referee contentious interrogatory disputes not covered by her rules.
On briefing, Judge Johnson Hines advocated for shorter, clearer writing. She appreciates visuals, especially original, annotated diagrams, but discourages the use of abbreviation tables that slow reading flow. Prehearing briefs benefit from executive-style summaries, and post-hearing briefs should begin with a list of all asserted claims. As for case management, she generally lets parties decide the scope of their assertions and expects trials to run efficiently, which is ideally five days, though she’s gone to six where warranted.
How We Can Assist in ITC Investigations
For those looking to dive deeper into Judge Johnson Hines’s judicial preferences and case history, we recently published the latest edition of our ITC ALJ Reports, which examines every investigation she has overseen, key patterns in her scheduling and ground rules, and trends in technologies and industries that appear before her. You can access the report here.
We understand that ITC Investigations can be highly nuanced and have engaged with experts who possess a deep understanding of the major industries and technologies at issue before the Commission. We represent sector-specific teams of technical experts, knowledgeable industry veterans, and skilled specialists in code review and analysis. These experts are dedicated to achieving the best outcomes for our clients, providing comprehensive support through every stage of the investigation process.
Contact us for more information about our world-class experts and to learn more about our expert teams in our areas of focus within technology.
