The U.S. International Trade Commission is entering an important period of transition. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara’s planned departure has prompted the Commission to begin searching for her successor, while the Commission itself is also welcoming new leadership as the Senate advances a full slate of commissioner nominees.
Together, these developments provide a rare opportunity to examine not only who will lead the ITC, but what qualifications and experience the Commission appears to value as Section 337 investigations continue to evolve. While the agency’s rules and procedures remain well established, the qualifications outlined in its search for the next ALJ suggest the Commission is preparing for an increasingly technical and specialized Section 337 docket.
A Docket That Continues to Evolve
The timing of the Commission’s search is particularly notable. Over the past several years, Section 337 investigations have become increasingly sophisticated, driven by emerging technologies, more complex patent portfolios, and parallel proceedings across multiple forums. As the nature of the docket has evolved, so too have the demands placed on the judges responsible for managing these investigations.
DOAR’s 2025 in Review: Key ITC Insights reflects those changes. Patent infringement remained the dominant unfair act alleged before the Commission, appearing in 44 of the 46 investigations instituted in 2025. Even more notably, 35 of those investigations involved intellectual property that had not previously been litigated at the ITC. Rather than revisiting familiar patents, the Commission is increasingly being asked to evaluate new technologies, new products, and novel legal questions.
The industries represented in the Commission’s docket reinforce that trend. Consumer goods accounted for the largest share of investigations in 2025, while networking and wireless technologies and life sciences continued to generate a significant volume of Section 337 activity. These matters frequently involve multiple asserted patents, highly technical expert testimony, extensive technical discovery, and parallel litigation in district court or before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Against that backdrop, the Commission’s hiring priorities become easier to understand. The current job posting emphasizes intellectual property litigation experience, Section 337 expertise, courtroom experience, and patent law knowledge, which are qualifications that closely align with the realities of today’s docket.
The qualifications are also notable when viewed in the context of the Commission’s evolving docket. Historically, the ITC has appointed experienced Administrative Law Judges from a variety of federal agencies, many of whom went on to build deep expertise in Section 337 practice. ALJ McNamara, for example, joined the Commission after serving as an Administrative Law Judge with the Social Security Administration before establishing a distinguished career overseeing complex intellectual property disputes at the ITC.
With McNamara’s planned departure, however, the Commission has an opportunity to reassess the qualifications it views as most valuable for the next generation of Administrative Law Judges. The current job posting places particular emphasis on candidates with substantial intellectual property litigation, Section 337, and courtroom experience. That emphasis aligns with the increasingly technical and procedurally demanding nature of today’s investigations, which often resemble fast-paced federal patent litigation while retaining the unique characteristics of an administrative forum.
The Pace of Modern Section 337 Investigations
Understanding complex technologies is only part of the job. Today’s Administrative Law Judges must also manage investigations moving at an exceptionally fast pace.
DOAR’s recent analysis of ALJ Monica Bhattacharyya’s investigations illustrates just how demanding those schedules can be. On average, expert identification disclosures occur 138 days after institution, while Markman hearings take place approximately 203 days into an investigation. Within those compressed timeframes, judges are expected to resolve discovery disputes, oversee technical experts, manage claim construction, address evidentiary issues, and prepare matters for evidentiary hearings.
Many investigations also proceed alongside district court litigation or Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings, requiring careful coordination while maintaining the ITC’s expedited schedule. Practical experience managing complex patent litigation is therefore more than a desirable qualification—it can help judges efficiently manage increasingly demanding investigations without sacrificing the thoroughness required in technically sophisticated disputes.
Viewed through that lens, the Commission’s emphasis on Section 337 and patent litigation experience appears less like a change in hiring philosophy and more like a response to the realities of today’s docket.
A Broader Leadership Transition
The search for a new ALJ comes at a time of broader leadership change at the Commission. With the Senate’s recent confirmation of five new commissioners, the ITC has entered a new chapter that combines fresh leadership at the Commission level with the search for a successor to ALJ MaryJoan McNamara.
Although Administrative Law Judges oversee discovery, evidentiary rulings, hearings, and Initial Determinations, commissioners play a distinct role in shaping Section 337 practice. They determine whether to review Initial Determinations, decide whether to issue exclusion and cease-and-desist orders, and establish Commission precedent that guides future investigations.
While these leadership changes are unlikely to result in immediate procedural shifts, they nevertheless mark an important transition for the ITC. The Commission’s rules, experienced staff, and decades of precedent provide continuity regardless of changes in personnel. At the same time, every ALJ brings an individual approach to case management, discovery disputes, expert testimony, claim construction, and evidentiary rulings, while a newly constituted Commission will shape the development of Section 337 jurisprudence through its review decisions over time.
For practitioners, the takeaway is not to expect a dramatic change in how Section 337 investigations are conducted, but to recognize that this period represents an opportunity to observe how new leadership approaches an increasingly complex and technically sophisticated docket.
Looking Ahead
The Commission’s search for its next ALJ is ultimately about more than replacing a single jurist. The qualifications outlined in the job posting provide insight into the types of disputes the ITC expects to hear in the years ahead and the expertise required to manage them effectively.
As Jeffrey Dorfman, Managing Director and Chair of DOAR’s ITC Practice, explains, “Section 337 investigations have become increasingly sophisticated, both technically and procedurally. Today’s Administrative Law Judges are expected to manage a full caseload of complex patent disputes involving multiple asserted patents. The qualifications outlined in the Commission’s search recognize that reality and underscore the growing importance of practical patent litigation experience in managing the modern ITC docket.”
As the ITC welcomes new leadership at both the bench and commissioner level, practitioners should be watching not only who fills those roles, but what those appointments may signal about the continued evolution of Section 337 practice.
