Home   About   Attorneys   Contact


Barbara A. Murphy
Direct: (202) 822-4102
Email: bmurphy@fostermurphy.com

Barbara Murphy has nearly 30 years of experience in Section 337, antidumping and customs, having practiced extensively before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Involved in over 55 Section 337 investigations, she has handled all aspects of these cases, from filing of complaints through appellate review. She has represented domestic and foreign companies pursuing and defending against Section 337 relief in cases involving patent, trademark, copyright, and/or trade dress infringement, as well as claims of false advertising, trade secret misappropriation, and gray market goods. Her experience covers a wide range of technologies and products, from tools and machinery to flash memory devices and chemicals.

In the antidumping area, Ms. Murphy has handled investigations and reviews at both ITC and DOC. In addition to helping clients prepare questionnaire responses, she regularly advises them on antidumping procedures and the modification of business practices to minimize the impact of antidumping orders. She has handled antidumping appeals at the CIT and Federal Circuit. She is also active in the trademark and copyright area, where she advises clients on applications, licensing and litigation.

Ms. Murphy has lectured on Section 337 and antidumping procedures and other international trade and business topics to clients, bar association groups and international trade associations. While in law school, Ms. Murphy served on George Washington University's Journal of International Law & Economics.

Rankings and Recognition

  • Chambers Global: International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) (United States), 2011
  • Chambers USA: International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) (National), 2010
  • Legal 500: Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation - International Trade Commission, 2008
  • The Best Lawyers in America®: International Trade and Finance Law, 2010 - 2011

Professional and Community Involvement

  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association: Former President; Member, Executive Committee
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association: Former Member, Board of Directors; Former Chair, International Trade Committee
  • District of Columbia Bar Association: Chair, Intellectual Property Committee, International Section
  • Dartmouth Lawyers Association: Former President; Board Member

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia

Court Admissions

  • United States Courts of Appeals for the Federal, Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits
  • United States Court of International Trade
  • United States Court of Federal Claims
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals


  • Clerk, Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission (1981-82)


  • J.D., The George Washington University Law School, 1982
  • B.A., Dartmouth College, 1979

Representative Engagements

Section 337 Matters
  • Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof, Inv. Nos. 337-TA- 741/749 (Thomson Licensing SAS v. MStar Semiconductor, Inc., et al): Representing MStar, a manufacturer of controller chips used in display monitors against claims of patent infringement. The investigations are currently in the discovery phase.
  • DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-698, (Richtek Technology v. Advanced Micro Devices, uPI Semiconductor et al): RRepresented Respondents MSI Corp. and Micro-Star International in a patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets Section 337 investigation. MSI obtained a very favorable settlement agreement that included the dismissal of pending parallel and related infringement litigation.
  • Bulk Welding Wire Containers and Components Thereof and Welding Wire, Inv. No. 337-TA-686 (Lincoln Global v. Kiswel Ltd., et al): Represented Respondent Kiswel Ltd. in a Section 337 investigation filed by Lincoln Electric and Lincoln Global alleging patent infringement of several patents relating to bulk welding wire or containers of same. Kiswel obtained a favorable settlement agreement that included the dismissal of pending parallel and related infringement litigation in the Northern District of Ohio.
  • Adjustable Keyboard Support Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-670 (Humanscale Corp. v. CompX International and Waterloo Furniture Components Limited): Successfully represented Respondent CompX in an investigation involving competitors with pending cross-litigation in district court. Following a largely favorable ruling from the Chief Administrative Law Judge ("CALJ"), the International Trade Commission ruled entirely in favor of CompX, finding no violation based on non-infringement of the asserted claims and ruling that the claims were invalid.
  • Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size, Inv. Nos. 337-TA-605 and 337-TA-649 (Tessera v. ATI Technologies, et al.): Represented Complainant Tessera in two investigations involving patents on seminal technology in modern integrated circuit manufacture. These related cases were brought against numerous chip manufacturers and package assemblers. In the 605 investigation, the Commission found that every respondent, including industry leaders Qualcomm, Motorola and ST Micro, violated Section 337 and issued an exclusion order and cease and desist orders prohibiting certain respondents (and their affiliates) from importing and/or selling the infringing chips. Upon issuance of the Commission's decision, Motorola took a license to maintain continued access for its downstream products to the U.S. market. The 649 investigation was dismissed to pursue damages in district court litigation in lieu of the ITC investigation.
  • Set-Top Boxes, Inv. No. 337-TA-454 (Gemstar v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. et al.): Represented Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. in a patent-based Section 337 investigation resulting in favorable settlement.
  • Noncontact Tonometers, Inv. No. 337-TA-270 (Cambridge Instruments v. Keeler Industries et al.): Represented Respondent Keeler Industries in patent infringement investigation seeking temporary exclusion order and permanent relief; investigation terminated based on no violation.
  • Endodontic Instruments Inv. No. 337-TA-610 (Dentsply International v. Guidance Endodontics): Represented complainant Dentsply in a patent-based Section 337 investigation concerning endodontic instruments used to perform root canals.
  • Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-565(Seiko Epson Corp. v. Ninestar Technologies, et al.): Represented complainant Seiko Epson and its related entities in an 11 patent-based Section 337 investigation against numerous foreign respondents. The ITC issued general exclusion order.
  • Rubber Antidegradants, Inv. No. 337-TA-533 (Flexsys America v. Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., et al.): Represented respondent KKPC in a Section 337 investigation regarding rubber antidegradants. The ITC determined that KKPC's accused products did not violate Section 337.
  • Audio Digital-to-Analog Converters and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-499 (Cirrus Logic v. Wolfson): Represented complainant Cirrus Logic in a multiple patent-based investigation. The ITC found respondent Wolfson in violation of one of the asserted patents and issued limited exclusion and cease and desist orders.
  • Spherical Roller Bearings and Components Thereof and Tools and Equipment for the Manufacture Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-179 (SKF Industries v. FAG Bearings and Kugelfischer): Represented Respondents FAG Bearings and Kugelfischer in a patent-based investigation. Commission found no violation based on patent invalidity and lack of domestic industry; decision upheld by Federal Circuit.
  • Vertical Milling Machines and Parts, Attachments and Accessories Thereto, Inv. No. 337-TA-133 (Textron v. Yamazen et al.): Represented Respondent Yamazen in common law trademark infringement investigation. Commission found no violation based on lack of common law trademark; decision upheld by Federal Circuit.
Antidumping Matters
  • Outboard Motors from Japan, Inv. 731-TA-1069 (2005): The Commission issued a final determination of no injury on behalf of our client and other respondent companies.
  • Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene Terephthalamide (PPD-T) from the Netherlands Inv. 731-TA-652 (2001): In the first sunset review of the antidumping order, the Commission revoked the order, resulting in a victory for our clients. The revocation was based in part on a unique finding from the U.S. Department of Commerce (Inv. A-421-805) that the likely dumping margin that would occur if the order were revoked was the prevailing rate of three percent from the most recent administrative review rather than the rate of 67 percent from the antidumping investigation.
  • Carbon Steel Pipe Nipples from Mexico, Inv. 731-TA-719 (1994): The Commission issued a preliminary determination of no injury on behalf of our client and other respondent companies.
  • Ball Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted from Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, Hungary, Mexico, China, Poland, Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, Yugoslavia Inv. 731-TA-498-511 (1991): The Commission issued a then rare preliminary determination of no injury on behalf of our client and other respondent companies.

1899 L Street, NW, Ste 1150 • Washington, DC • 20036 • phone: 202.822.4100
© Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC All Rights Reserved