The Lawxy Times
USITC Opens Patent Investigation Into Computing Modules
On October 13, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) opened a Section 337 investigation into alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,903,734. The proceeding authorizes the ITC to issue exclusion orders that block importation of products found to infringe the patent. Importers of high‑performance computing power‑delivery modules, including Google’s hardware subsidiaries, now face the prospect of customs detention. The action clarifies that patent‑infringement claims can serve as a basis for trade barriers under the Tariff Act.
Full News Breakdown
The dispute arose after Vicor Corp. filed complaints asserting that several overseas manufacturers were shipping power‑delivery systems that incorporate the patented semiconductor‑load technology. Vicor contended that the imported modules violate its patent and sought an exclusion order, while the defendants denied infringement and argued the patent was either invalid or not practiced. The ITC responded by formally commencing a Section 337 investigation to determine whether exclusion orders are warranted.
Case Name: Vicor Corp. v. Flex Ltd., et al.
Court: U.S. International Trade Commission (Section 337 proceeding)[https://www.usitc.gov/about/section337]
Date: October 13, 2026
Statutes Cited: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; 35 U.S.C. § 271; 19 C.F.R. § 210.4
Key Provisions: 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a) (ITC jurisdiction); 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (patent infringement); 19 C.F.R. § 210.4 (customs seizure authority)
Primary Legal Issue: Whether imported power‑delivery systems infringe Patent No. 10,903,734 covering semiconductor‑load power delivery.
Petitioner Arguments: Vicor alleges that the defendants’ imported modules embody each claim of the patent and therefore constitute unlawful importation under the Tariff Act.
Respondent Arguments: The accused manufacturers contend that their products either do not meet every claim limitation or that the patent is invalid for lack of enablement.
Court’s Reasoning: The ITC found sufficient allegation of infringement to satisfy the pleading standard of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a) and therefore granted jurisdiction.
Holding: No final holding; the Commission issued an order to investigate the merits of the infringement allegations.
Operative Order: Investigation opened; parties may file answers, motions, and evidence within the statutory timeframes.
Practical Outcome: The investigation creates a realistic threat that the ITC could later issue exclusion orders, prompting importers to reassess supply‑chain exposure.
How Does This Affect You?
Before the Commission’s action, market participants were uncertain whether a Section 337 proceeding could be used to block imports of AI‑related power modules on a patent‑infringement theory. The ITC’s decision to open an investigation resolves that uncertainty by confirming that alleged infringement of a semiconductor‑power patent is sufficient grounds for an exclusion order. Importers and manufacturers must now treat patent‑infringement risk as a trade‑restriction risk, integrating it into product‑development, licensing, and customs‑compliance strategies. The three audience sections below outline the concrete steps each stakeholder should take.
For Lawyers & Advocates
Draft and file a Section 337 complaint or answer within the statutory 60‑day window, expressly citing 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a) and attaching a detailed infringement analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) to satisfy the ITC’s pleading standards.
Amend import‑entry documentation to include a conditional hold notice referencing the pending ITC investigation, thereby invoking 19 C.F.R. § 210.4 and reducing the likelihood of seizure during customs review.
Advise clients to negotiate limited exclusion‑order settlements that carve out specific product families, using the ITC’s “limited exclusion order” provision[https://www.usitc.gov/exclusion-orders] to avoid a blanket ban on all imported modules.
Leverage the ITC filing as leverage in parallel district‑court patent suits, citing the Commission’s finding of probable infringement to bolster claim‑construction arguments and to pressure defendants toward licensing.
Update internal patent‑risk matrices to reflect that infringement of high‑performance power‑delivery patents now triggers trade‑restriction exposure, prompting earlier design‑around assessments in the product‑development lifecycle.
For Law Students
The case illustrates how the ITC’s statutory authority under the Tariff Act can intersect with patent law to create trade barriers. The doctrinal focus is the application of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) infringement standards within a Section 337 proceeding.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:
International Trade Law
Patent Infringement Analysis
Section 337 Enforcement
Supply‑Chain Compliance
Design‑Around Strategies
Comparing this proceeding with Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (2012) and eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) shows how courts balance patent enforcement against antitrust and competition concerns in technology markets.
For Businesses
AI accelerator manufacturers should obtain an ITC clearance letter before filing customs entries for power modules, otherwise customs may detain shipments under the exclusion‑order authority.
Overseas component suppliers must incorporate patent‑licensing clauses into supply agreements to ensure that imported modules do not infringe the asserted patent, avoiding breach of import‑restriction obligations.
Corporate boards of technology firms need to review their risk‑management policies to include Section 337 exposure, authorizing capital allocation for redesign or licensing to prevent supply‑chain disruption.
Finance teams must adjust internal controls to flag any purchase order for semiconductor power delivery products that lacks a declaration of non‑infringement, as failure could trigger a customs seizure and financial loss.
Key Takeaways
The ITC can now issue exclusion orders for imported AI‑focused power‑delivery products based on a finding of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
Counsel must embed ITC risk assessment into patent‑infringement and import‑compliance workflows, including early design‑around reviews and filing of Section 337 pleadings.
Customs officials are empowered to detain shipments that fall within an ITC exclusion order, giving the Commission concrete enforcement teeth.
Watch for the 2025 Trade Enforcement Act amendment that may tighten the standards for limited exclusion orders and introduce a
References
