Barbara A. Murphy

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

A founding partner of Washington, DC’s Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC, Barbara Murphy has over 40 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 100 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.

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 & Recognition

  • Chambers Global:  International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) (United States), 2011-2025
  • Chambers USA:  International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) (National), 2010-2025
  • The Best Lawyers in America®:  International Trade and Finance Law

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • 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

Education

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

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia

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:  Vice Chair, International Trade Subcommittee, International Community
  • Dartmouth Lawyers Association:  Past President; Board Member

Representative Engagements

  • Hydrodermabrasion Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-1416 (HydraFacial v. Aesthetics Management Partners, et al.). Represented Aesthetics Management Partners in a patent infringement investigation. Obtained early withdrawal of complaint.
  • Wireless Front-End Modules, Inv. No. 337-TA-1413 (Skyworks v. Kangxi Communication Technologies). Representing Respondent Kangxi Communications Technology in a patent infringement investigation.
  • Universal Golf Club Shaft and Golf Club Head Connection Adaptors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1320, -1354 (Club-Conex v. Top Golf Equipment, et al.).  Represented complainant Club-Conex in two investigations asserting patent infringement.  Obtained limited exclusion orders against respondents in both investigations, followed by a favorable settlement.
  • Active Optical Cables, No. 337-TA-1233 (Cosemi v. EverPro, Facebook, and Logitech). Represented respondent Facebook against allegations of patent infringement.  Complainants withdrew the complaint on the eve of trial.
  • Certain Smart Thermostats and HVAC Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-1185 (EcoFactor v. several respondents) Represented Alarm.com Holdings Alarm.com Incorporated and Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. against patent infringement allegations. The Commission found no violation.
  • Modular LED Display Panels, Inv. No. 337-TA-1114 (Ultravision v. Lighthouse, Panasonic, et. al.)  Represented the Lighthouse and Panasonic respondents against allegations of patent infringement.  Investigation terminated as to our clients due to a standstill agreement.
  • Radio Frequency Micro-Needle Dermatological Treatment Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1112 (Syneron v. Lutronic, et. al.)
    Represented the Lutronic respondents against allegations of patent infringement. Investigation terminated based on settlement.
  • Ink Toner Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1106 (Canon v. Aster Graphics, et al.). Represented the Aster respondents against allegations of patent infringement. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision granting summary determination of non-infringement, found no violation, and terminated the investigation. Affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit.
  • Solid State Storage Drives, Inv. No. 337-TA-1097 (BiTMICRO v. Lenovo, et. al.) Represented the Lenovo respondents against allegations of patent infringement. Investigation terminated based on settlement.
  • Carbon and Alloy Steel, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002 (S. Steel Corp. against the Chinese Steel Industry).  Represented respondent Masteel Group against allegations of antitrust violations and false designation of origin.  Commission ruled in Masteel’s favor.
  • Portable Electronic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-994 (Creative Technology v. Sony, et al.).  Represented respondent Sony against allegations of patent infringement.  Obtained 100-day hearing and invalidated the asserted patent under §101. Prevailed at the Commission and on appeal.
  • Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics, Inv. No. 337-TA-1004 and Inv. No. 337-TA-990 (Consolidated) (Immersion v. Apple, AT&T).  Represented complainant Immersion in a consolidated investigation alleging patent infringement.  Settled favorably before final Initial Determination.
  • Automatic Teller Machines, Inv. No. 337-TA-958 (Global Cash Access v. NRT Technology Corp.). Successfully represented respondent NRT against allegations of patent infringement.  The complainant withdrew the Complaint and the Investigation was terminated after the ALJ issued an order granting respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity.
  • Footwear Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-936 (Converse, Inc. v. a number of respondents, including Skechers U.S.A., Inc.). Represented Skechers and Zulily against charges of trademark infringement and unfair competition before the Commission and the Federal Circuit.  Obtained a no violation finding by the Commission after a remand from the Federal Circuit.  
  • TV Programs, No. 337-TA-886, (E.T. Radcliffe, LLC and Emir Tiar v. The Walt Disney Company and Thunderbird Films). Successfully represented The Walt Disney Company against charges of copyright infringement related to the Mr. Young television show.  Won on summary determination of no copyright infringement.
  • 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):  Successfully represented MStar, a manufacturer of controller chips used in display monitors against claims of patent infringement.
  • DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-698, (Richtek Technology v. Advanced Micro Devices, uPI Semiconductor et al): Represented Respondents MSI Corp. and Micro-Star International in a patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets Section 337 investigation. MSI obtained a favorable settlement agreement that included the dismissal of pending parallel and related infringement litigation.
  • 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, 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. In the 605 investigation, the Commission found that every respondent, violated Section 337 and issued an exclusion order and cease and desist orders. The 649 investigation was dismissed to pursue damages in district court litigation in lieu of the ITC investigation.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.