ITC Ruling May Presage Return Of Sanctions Proceedings

U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender (ALJ) recently imposed sanctions on Apple due to the intentional misrepresentations of fact in the opening statement and briefing.1 This sua sponte ruling indicates an increased willingness by the ITC to police alleged misconduct, and may potentially embolden litigants to independently seek sanctions.

The ALJ characterized Apple's attempt to "blame the misrepresentation" on a combination of a miscommunication with an associate and the press of litigation as "the legal equivalent to 'the dog ate my homework excuse.'"2 The ALJ expressly concluded that "without sufficient or credible reason or excuse, [Apple] misrepresented the facts and its intentions to Complainant and me and therefore caused additional confusion, expenditures, delay, and increased the potential for injustice."3

The provision invoked by the ALJ, 19 C.F.R. § 210.4, is the ITC analog to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. It was only after the ALJ ordered Apple to show cause why it should not be sanctioned4 and entertained briefing that he made his findings. The sanction imposed was reimbursement to the opposing party of all legal fees incurred during a certain time period to deal with the representation that was found to be false.5

Historically, ALJs have shown little appetite for imposing sanctions such as these. The last time that sanctions were imposed sua sponte by an ITC ALJ for alleged misrepresentations was in 2005.6 The pace of ITC proceedings does not afford the tribunal or parties time for satellite proceedings. The ALJ's decision to expend scarce judicial resources7 in this undertaking, thus, is particularly noteworthy.

Apple will be entitled to Commission review of the ALJ's imposition of sanctions, and may expect some relief, at least in the amount of damages awarded. In its review of the last sua sponte imposition of sanctions by an ALJ, the Commission held that the monetary penalty must be only so much as is necessary to deter future misconduct, and must be paid to the U.S. Treasury (not the opposing party).8

Opening statements at ITC hearings are unlike those before juries in district courts. Not every ALJ welcomes an opening statement since the ALJ is already familiar with the case from the required extensive pre-hearing briefing. Accordingly, opening statements at the ITC rarely resemble their district court counterparts. A decision sanctioning a party for alleged misrepresentations of fact...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT