Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in <a href="https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1300.OPINION.1-8-2026_2629793.pdf"><em>Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, </em>No. 2024-1300 (Jan. 8, 2026)</a>. The Court dismissed as untimely Crocs’ appeal from the International Trade Commission’s split final determination, which found no violation by respondents that participated in the underlying ITC investigation. And the Court affirmed the Commission’s entry of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against respondents that defaulted by failing to participate in the investigation.

core/paragraph

The Commission instituted an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. §&nbsp;1337, based on Crocs’ complaint alleging that various respondents’ imported casual footwear infringed two federally registered trade dresses and seeking a general exclusion order (“GEO”) against all infringing imports, regardless of source. Three respondents participated in the investigation through an evidentiary hearing, and four respondents defaulted. The Commission’s final determination found no violation of section 337 by the participating respondents because Crocs failed to prove likelihood of confusion, infringement, or dilution. The Commission also found violations by the defaulting respondents because it assumed the complaints’ allegations as true. But instead of the requested GEO, the Commission issued an LEO against the defaulters that became effective after the Presidential review period. Crocs filed a single notice of appeal after the 60-day Presidential review period ended.

On review, the Federal Circuit dismissed Crocs’ appeal of the Commission’s no-violation finding for the participating respondents as untimely. The Court reasoned that section 337(c) requires persons adversely affected by a Commission final determination to appeal within 60 days of issuance and that its earlier precedents provide for separate appeal deadlines for final determinations containing a split decision: the complainant’s appeal deadline runs from the final determination, whereas the respondent’s runs from the end of the Presidential review period. The Court also concluded that Crocs forfeited arguments that section 337(c)’s appeal deadline is not jurisdictional and could be equitably tolled by failing to raise them in its opening brief.

On the remedy issue, the Court affirmed the Commission’s issuance of an LEO against the defaulters, rejecting Crocs’ assertion of error concerning the forgone GEO. The Court explained: the Commission properly assumed the truth of the complaint’s allegations against the defaulting parties; under such circumstances, section 337(g)(1) required it to issue an LEO against those parties; and section 337(g)(2) authorizes GEOs in investigations featuring defaults only when no respondent appears.

CAFC Dismisses ITC Complainant’s Appeal as Untimely and Affirms Denial of General Exclusion Order

Related Professionals