Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. Itc
140 F.4th 1375
Fed. Cir.2025Background
- Realtek Semiconductor sought sanctions against Future Link Systems in an ITC proceeding, alleging an improper incentive agreement between Future Link and MediaTek linked to filing suit against Realtek.
- The administrative law judge, though concerned about the MediaTek-Future Link agreement, found no basis for sanctions as the agreement did not influence Future Link’s decision to file.
- Future Link withdrew its complaint after settling with a third party, and the ITC investigation against Realtek was terminated.
- Realtek appealed to the Federal Circuit, seeking only sanction relief, not review of the termination decision.
- The core legal question was whether the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to review the ITC’s denial of sanctions when no final exclusion or non-exclusion determination was made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Federal Circuit have jurisdiction over ITC denial of sanctions when not tied to a final section 337 determination? | Sanctions denial is a final determination reviewable by this court per section 1295(a)(6) and 1337(c). | Jurisdiction is limited to final determinations related to exclusion under (d)-(g); this was not. | Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction; appeal dismissed. |
| Can use of “also” in § 1337(c) bring (h) sanctions reviews before the Federal Circuit? | “Also” means (h) determinations are reviewable by this court. | “Also” only refers to reviewability standard, not forum; (h) not added to list for this court. | “Also” pertains to review procedure; not jurisdictional grant. |
| Is denial of ancillary matters (like sanctions) reviewable in absence of a final (d)-(g) determination? | Jurisdiction extends to final decisions on the merits, including the sanctions denial here. | Only matters directly related to or affecting a final (d)-(g) determination are reviewable. | No jurisdiction if not ancillary to a qualifying final determination. |
| If the Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction, where should review be sought? | Not addressed. | Suggest district court is default forum absent explicit statute. | Review of such ITC orders lies in district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crucible Materials Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 127 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (defines “final determination” as a decision on the merits related to exclusion or non-exclusion under § 1337)
- Block v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 777 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (excludes non-merits and non-final agency actions from Federal Circuit jurisdiction)
- Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 923 F.3d 959 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (provides for finality when action conclusively denies exclusion of goods)
- Viscofan, S.A. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 787 F.2d 544 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (limits Federal Circuit jurisdiction to Commission decisions that affect exclusion orders)
- Amgen Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 902 F.2d 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction constitutes final determination not to exclude articles)
- Refractarios Monterrey, S.A. v. Ferro Corp., 606 F.2d 966 (CCPA 1979) (Federal Circuit has ancillary jurisdiction over issues directly tied to a final determination)
- Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 224 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (sanctions appealable if ancillary to a qualifying final determination)