Background
Broadcom Corporation filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that Renesas Electronics imported and sold products — system-on-chip (SoC) semiconductor devices and related software — that infringed several of Broadcom’s patents covering mobile device hardware and firmware. The ITC conducts Section 337 investigations to determine whether imported goods violate U.S. intellectual property rights. To prevail, a complainant must satisfy two components: (1) show infringement by the respondent, and (2) show that a “domestic industry” exists in the United States that relates to the protected articles.
The domestic industry requirement has two prongs: an “economic prong” (showing U.S. investment in manufacturing, labor, or exploitation of the patent), and a “technical prong” (showing that specific domestic products actually practice at least one claim of the asserted patent). After a full investigation, the ITC found no domestic industry and dismissed Broadcom’s complaint. Broadcom appealed, arguing the ITC erred in applying the technical prong standard.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s ruling that Broadcom had failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The court held that to establish the technical prong, a complainant must identify specific domestic industry articles — actual products sold or made in the U.S. — and show with direct evidence that those articles are covered by at least one claim of the asserted patent. General expert testimony about how a product category operates is insufficient without direct evidence linking a specific domestic product to the specific patent claims.
In this case, Broadcom’s problem was that it supplied mobile operating system software to its customers but failed to show that any specific client applications were actually implemented on identified domestic devices in a way that satisfied the claim limitations. The court specifically faulted Broadcom for failing to identify any specific integration of the domestic industry SoC and the required firmware in an external memory location that would bring an actual product within the scope of the asserted claims. The absence of this direct evidentiary link proved fatal to Broadcom’s case.
Key Takeaways
- The ITC’s domestic industry technical prong requires direct, specific evidence showing that an identified domestic product practices the asserted patent claims — expert testimony on general product operation is not enough.
- Patent complainants at the ITC must map specific domestic industry articles (identified products with specific configurations) element-by-element to the asserted patent claims, supported by source code, test data, or other concrete evidence.
- Supplying software or components to OEM customers does not automatically establish domestic industry for a patent on integrated systems — the complainant must trace how the integration actually occurs in real products.
- The technical prong is a meaningful threshold that the ITC and Federal Circuit will enforce, even in complex semiconductor cases.
Why It Matters
The ITC has become one of the most powerful venues for patent litigation because it can issue exclusion orders — banning infringing products from the U.S. market entirely — which can be more disruptive than monetary damages. This decision serves as an important reminder that the domestic industry requirement is a real gatekeeping function: not every U.S.-based company can automatically use the ITC as a venue simply because it holds U.S. patents. Companies must affirmatively show that their own domestic operations practice the asserted patents.
For technology companies that supply components or software to hardware OEMs, Broadcom v. ITC is a cautionary tale. If the final assembled product that practices the patent is built overseas, the complainant faces a real challenge establishing domestic industry unless it can point to specific U.S.-assembled devices. Patent holders considering ITC filings should map their domestic products to asserted claims early and carefully, and gather concrete technical evidence — not just expert testimony — before filing.