U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 111— GENERAL PROVISIONS

28 U.S.C. § 1659

Stay of certain actions pending disposition of related proceedings before the United States International Trade Commission

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Stay.—In a civil action involving parties that are also parties to a proceeding before the United States International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, the district court shall stay, until the determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the Commission, but only if such request is made within—(1) 30 days after the party is named as a respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, or(2) 30 days after the district court action is filed,whichever is later.(b)Use of Commission Record.—Notwithstanding section 337(n)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, after dissolution of a stay under subsection (a), the record of the proceeding before the United States International Trade Commission shall be transmitted to the district court and shall be admissible in the civil action, subject to such protective order as the district court determines necessary, to the extent permitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.(Added Pub. L. 103–465, title III, § 321(b)(1)(A), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4945.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, referred to in text, is classified to section 1337 of Title 19, Customs Duties.

The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable with respect to complaints filed under section 1337 of Title 19, Customs Duties, on or after the date on which the World Trade Organization Agreement enters into force with respect to the United States [Jan. 1, 1995], or in cases under section 1337 of Title 19 in which no complaint is filed, with respect to investigations initiated under such section on or after such date, see section 322 of Pub. L. 103–465, set out as an Effective Date of 1994 Amendment note under section 1337 of Title 19.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “Princo seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to (1) stay the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 (2000) and (2) vacate its order granting Philips’s motion for summary judgment on Princo’s patent misuse defense.”
SanDisk Corp. v. Phison Elec. Corp., 538 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (W.D. Wis. 2008). · cites it 6× “605 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 and this court’s inherent power and defendants’ motions to consolidate Cases Nos.”
Virtualagility Inc. v. salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1659 (a), giving a party in district court the absolute right to a stay when there is a concurrent action in the International Trade Commission, provided only that the stay request is made 30 days after the party is named as a respondent, or 30 days after the…”
Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc., 202 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). “”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1659 (distinguishing between civil actions and proceedings before the International Trade Commission, and permitting stay of civil action in favor of overlapping ITC proceedings in certain circumstances).”
InterDigital Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. §1659 . 15 INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS v.”
Techtronic Indus. Co. v. Itc, 944 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “That case is currently stayed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 , pend- ing final resolution of the Commission’s investigation.”
In re Princo Corp. & Princo Am. Corp., 486 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “ORDER On March 1, 2007, we granted Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation’s (“Princo”) petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to stay the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 (2000) “until…”
Aliphcom v. Fitbit, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “Without Dispute, Fitbit Would Be Entitled to a Mandatory Stay Under These Circumstances, if it Chose to Invoke its Right to One 28 U.S.C. § 1659 (a) provides that: In a civil action involving parties that are also parties to a proceeding before the United States International…”
Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Jack C. Benun, 463 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 1659 (2000), entitled “Stay of certain actions pending disposition of related proceedings before the United States International Trade Commission,” supports the district court’s proper exercise of jurisdiction in this case.”
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 692 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “And since, by 28 U.S.C. §1659 , the respondent is entitled to a stay of the district court proceedings, as here occurred in General Electric Co.”
Telcordia Tech., Inc. v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 598 (D. Del. 2007). “On July 18, 2006, the court stayed Telcor-dia's action against Alcatel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 . , 2 . For convenience, the court will refer to the record using docket item numbers from the 04-875 action.”
Powertech Tech. Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 660 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1659 . The accused products in the ITC and Texas actions were semiconductor chips that come in two formats: a first group consisting of so-called “wBGA” chips and a second group consisting of so-called “ixBGA” chips.”
Show all 56 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.