Patents

Comcast v. ITC: Domestic Conduct, Imported Boxes, and Section 337's Long Reach

The Federal Circuit upheld an exclusion order against Comcast's set-top boxes, holding the ITC may act even where the inducing conduct is entirely domestic and Comcast itself imported nothing.

September 22, 2025
A cable television set-top box connected beneath a television
Comcast's customers completed the infringement at home, but the X1 boxes that enabled it were excluded at the border. Shutterstock
Educational content, not legal advice. This article explains general legal concepts. It does not create an attorney–client relationship. For your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.

Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 18-1450 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2020), tested how far the principle of Suprema would stretch. Comcast neither manufactured nor imported the set-top boxes at issue, and its allegedly inducing conduct — providing the X1 software, instructions, and service to subscribers — occurred entirely within the United States. Could the U.S. International Trade Commission nonetheless bar the imported boxes under Section 337 because Comcast induced its customers to infringe after importation? Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Newman said yes. The court affirmed the Commission’s limited exclusion order, holding that “articles that infringe” reaches articles that infringe only after importation, and that the inducer need not be the importer. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in June 2020, leaving the decision as the capstone of the ITC’s post-importation-infringement jurisprudence.

At a glance

  • Case: Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 18-1450 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2020)
  • Panel: Newman (author), Reyna, and Hughes; unanimous; Commission determination affirmed
  • Tribunal below: U.S. International Trade Commission, Inv. No. 337-TA-1001, Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof
  • Parties: Complainant Rovi Corporation and Rovi Guides, Inc.; respondent Comcast (with importers ARRIS and Technicolor as intervenors)
  • Patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,006,263 and 8,578,413, directed to interactive television program guide systems for remote recording and access
  • Statute: Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, with induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)
  • Holding: “Articles that infringe” covers articles that infringe after importation; the Commission may issue an exclusion order against imported articles where the respondent induces infringement, even if the respondent’s inducing acts are domestic and the respondent is not the importer
  • Subsequent history: Certiorari denied (June 2020)

The facts: who imports, who induces, and who infringes

The architecture of the violation explains why Comcast fought so hard. Rovi’s patents cover interactive program guide systems that let a user remotely record and access television programs through a device — such as a set-top box — connected to a guide system over a remote access link. The X1 set-top boxes that made this work were manufactured abroad and imported into the United States by ARRIS and Technicolor, which built them to Comcast’s specifications. Comcast then leased the boxes to its subscribers and supplied the X1 software, applications, and instructions that enabled the patented functionality.

The direct infringers were the customers, who performed the claimed methods when they used the system at home. Comcast was the inducer: it designed the system, directed the manufacture and importation of the boxes, and instructed its customers in the very use that infringed. The Commission found a Section 337 violation as to the ‘263 and ‘413 patents and issued a limited exclusion order plus cease-and-desist orders. Comcast appealed, raising what it framed as two jurisdictional defects: its inducing conduct was entirely domestic and untethered from the act of importation, and it did not itself import anything.

”Articles that infringe” — confirmed to reach post-importation infringement

The panel rejected Comcast’s first argument by leaning directly on Suprema, Inc. v. ITC. There, the en banc court had held that Section 337’s phrase “articles that infringe” reaches articles used to induce infringement completed after importation. Comcast applied that holding without hedging: the imported X1 boxes were articles that infringe within the meaning of Section 337 because they were imported for use in a manner that Comcast induced and that infringed Rovi’s patents once the customers operated them. That the boxes did not themselves perform the patented methods at the moment of entry was no bar. The court emphasized that Section 337 is concerned with unfair acts in the importation of articles, and that the statute’s reach is defined by the infringement the imported articles enable, not by whether the infringement is complete at the instant of customs clearance.

Notably, the panel did not rest its analysis on Chevron deference in the way Suprema had. It treated the statutory question as resolved by Suprema’s construction of “articles that infringe” and by the ordinary operation of induced-infringement law — a reading of the merits rather than a bow to agency interpretation. That distinction matters for the durability of the doctrine in an era when Chevron deference is no longer available.

”Comcast does not import” — a relationship close enough

Comcast’s second argument was that, whatever the ITC’s power over importers, Comcast was not one: ARRIS and Technicolor brought the boxes in. The court found the distinction immaterial on these facts. Comcast was deeply and concretely involved in the importation — it designed the X1 boxes, directed and controlled their manufacture, required their importation to supply its own subscribers, and was, in the court’s description, sufficiently “involved in the importation” that the boxes were imported by and for Comcast’s benefit. The statute, the panel held, does not require that the respondent be the nominal importer of record; it requires that the respondent’s unfair acts be connected to the importation of articles that infringe. Comcast’s orchestration of the supply chain supplied that connection. The Commission could therefore direct relief at Comcast even though third parties physically carried the goods across the border.

Open questions

Comcast affirms broad authority but on facts of unusually tight control, and its edges invite litigation. The opinion does not fix how much involvement in importation is “enough” when a respondent is less integrated into the supply chain than Comcast was — a licensor, a software vendor, or a service provider with a looser relationship to the importer may present a harder case. The decision also leaves the Suprema deference question hovering: because Comcast reasoned largely from the statute and precedent rather than from Chevron, the practical holding looks resilient after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), but a future challenger will surely argue that the best reading of “articles that infringe” fixes infringement at the border. Finally, the case sharpens, without resolving, the policy critique that Section 337 has drifted into purely domestic patent disputes — here the inducement and the direct infringement were entirely domestic, with importation serving as the jurisdictional hook.

Implications

  • Domestic inducement does not defeat ITC jurisdiction. A respondent whose inducing conduct occurs entirely in the United States can still face an exclusion order if it induces infringement of imported articles.
  • You need not be the importer. Sufficient involvement in and control over importation can subject a respondent to Section 337 relief even when third parties are the importers of record.
  • Supply-chain design is now a litigation fact. Companies that specify, commission, and direct the manufacture and importation of components should expect that orchestration to establish the importation nexus.
  • The post-importation doctrine is durable. Comcast reaffirmed Suprema on reasoning that does not depend on agency deference, making the rule resistant to the fall of Chevron.
  • The ITC’s domestic reach remains contested. Critics see Section 337 expanding into wholly domestic patent fights; the live policy debate did not stop the Commission’s order from standing.

Frequently asked questions

How is Comcast different from Suprema? Suprema established that “articles that infringe” reaches articles used to induce infringement completed after importation, and rested heavily on Chevron deference. Comcast extended the principle to a respondent whose inducing conduct was entirely domestic and who was not the importer of record, and it reasoned more from the statute and precedent than from deference.

Did it matter that Comcast’s customers, not Comcast, performed the patented methods? No. The customers were the direct infringers, and Comcast was the inducer under § 271(b). The court held that induced infringement completed by customers after importation still makes the imported boxes “articles that infringe” for Section 337 purposes.

Does the end of Chevron deference threaten this holding? Probably not. Comcast did not lean on Chevron the way Suprema did; it construed “articles that infringe” as a matter of statutory meaning and applied settled inducement law. That makes the holding well positioned to survive the de novo review Loper Bright now requires, though litigants should still brief the best reading of the statute directly.

Authorities and sources