Beau Jackson

Representative ITC Cases (not exhaustive)

• Successfully represented two respondents in Certain Electronic Candle Products and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1195. Expeditiously negotiated favorable settlement and distribution agreements, leading to clients' early dismissal from the case and avoidance of substantial litigation expenses.
• Successfully represented two respondents in Certain Child Carriers & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1154. Took the case through trial and prevailed on all key issues before the judge: asserted patent found not infringed by both existing and redesigned products, patent invalidated, and patent found unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Complainant did not even seek Commission review and the investigation was terminated with a finding of no violation. This complete ITC victory also led to the patent holder withdrawing its parallel district court action.
• Represented both respondents in Certain Strength-Training Systems & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1135.
• Represented subpoenaed non-party in Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products & Related Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1131.
• Successfully represented a respondent in Certain Taurine (2-Aminoethanesulfonic Acid), Inv. No. 337-TA-1146. The complainant withdrew all claims and voluntarily terminated the case without obtaining any relief or settlement.
• Successfully defended pharmaceutical manufacturer in Certain Clidinium Bromide & Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1109. This unique case involved allegations that client's generic drug was marketed unfairly. The case was placed in the ITC's "100-day program" on the issues of domestic industry and injury, and the complainant withdrew the case on the first day of the hearing, thus terminating the proceeding without obtaining any relief or settlement.
• Represented the primary respondent in Certain Industrial Automation Systems & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1074.
• Represented leading consumer and medical mattress suppliers as successful respondents in Certain Air Mattress Systems & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-971. The ITC found no violation as to one patent and declined to issue remedies as to another patent due to public interest concerns. In a related case against the same clients (Inv. No. 337-TA-999), the complainant withdrew all claims and voluntarily terminated the case without obtaining any relief or settlement.
• Successfully represented leading inflatable products company as a Section 337 complainant, obtaining ITC consent orders that completely bar the accused products from the U.S. market. Certain Inflatable Products With Tensioning Structures & Processes for Making the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1009.
• Represented the world's top mobile chipset supplier as the complainant in an extremely high-profile case, Certain Mobile Electronic Devices & Radio Frequency & Processing Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1065.
• Represented world's top mobile chipset supplier as respondent in Certain Graphics Processors, DDR Memory Controllers, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1037. Effective discovery strategy and motions practice helped lead to favorable pretrial settlement.
• Represented the world's top mobile chipset supplier as successful respondent in Certain Consumer Electronics & Display Devices With GPUs, Inv. No. 337-TA-932. The judge found no violation and recommended no remedies against client even in the event the Commission were to find a violation. The full ITC decided not to review the case, thereby upholding the judge's determinations.
• Successfully represented cable set-top box supplier as respondent in Certain Digital Video Receivers & Hardware & Software Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1001. In a precedential decision, the ITC found no violation against client due to lack of infringement at the time of importation.
• Represented respondents in Certain Acousto-Magnetic Electronic Article Surveillance Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-904. Defeated complainant on key motions, leading to a favorable pre-trial settlement.
• Represented respondents in Certain Paper Shredders, Inv. No. 337-TA-863. Defeated the complainant on key pre-trial motions, leading to a favorable settlement.
• Represented the complainants in Certain DRAM and NAND Flash Memory Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-803. Defeated respondents' motion for summary determination that a domestic industry did not exist, helping lead to favorable pre-trial settlements with all respondents.
• Represented a respondent in Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters, Inv. No. 337-TA-739. Defeated complainant's motion for summary determination regarding domestic industry, leading to a favorable pre-trial settlement.
• Represented multinational technology company as successful respondent in Certain Multimedia Display & Navigation Devices & Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-694. In a landmark, precedent-setting decision, the Commission found no violation based, in part, on the complainant's failure to establish a domestic industry.
• Represented semiconductor technology company as successful complainant in a precedential Section 337 bond forfeiture proceeding. In the first such proceeding in more than a decade, the client fully recouped the bonds posted by respondents in relation to exclusion and cease and desist orders. Certain Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size, Inv. No. 337-TA-605.

Other Notable Matters

• Representing major Australian and U.S. agribusiness companies in Canadian antidumping investigation regarding wheat gluten.
• Helping Kansas biotechnology company identify and combat intellectual property infringement by foreign competitor and various distributors.
• Representing multiple clients with respect to Section 301 tariffs on imports from China.
• Representing a Kansas architecture firm with its substantial overseas projects.
• Assisting a South Africa-based engineering and construction firm with its entry into the U.S. market.
• Representing a Kansas manufacturer of medical and consumer products with respect to assorted intellectual property matters.
• Advising a Kansas manufacturer of metal processing equipment regarding the operations of its corporate affiliates in Asia and Europe.
• Representing a Kansas manufacturer of agricultural and livestock equipment with its international operations, including IP protection in key foreign jurisdictions.
• Assisting a diversified Kansas holding company regarding export control issues of relevance to its subsidiaries.
• Successfully represented the market leader for protective phone cases in a high-profile, precedential customs case before the U.S. Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, concerning the proper tariff classification of protective cases for electronic devices.
• Helped a consortium of technology companies advocate before Congress and the U.S. Trade Representative regarding intellectual property issues in international trade negotiations.
• Helped a multinational agriculture company advocate before Congress and the U.S. Trade Representative regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership and renewal of the African Growth & Opportunity Act.
• Successfully represented two importers before U.S. Customs & Border Protection, obtaining the release of products allegedly bearing counterfeit trademarks.
• Obtained favorable ruling from U.S. Customs & Border Protection regarding the proper tariff classification of imported educational products.
• Successfully represented a Kansas educational company before the Department of Commerce and USTR with respect to trade remedies on solar panels. Achieved orders exempting the client’s imports from all antidumping and countervailing duties, as well as from ancillary safeguards measures.