James B. Altman

Direct: (202) 822-4103
Email: jaltman@fostermurphy.com

James Altman represents U.S. and foreign clients in unfair trade litigation, concentrating on Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He draws upon his background in science and technology, as well as his broad experience in administrative and regulatory litigation, to assist clients with international intellectual property and trade remedy issues.

Mr. Altman is a leading Section 337 practitioner, having represented clients in more than 70 Section 337 cases. He is a past President of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association and a past Chair of the AIPLA ITC Committee. He is currently a member of the AIPLA Professionalism & Ethics Committee. In addition to his broad experience in traditional Section 337 proceedings, Mr. Altman has considerable experience in post-Order enforcement issues before the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and in ancillary proceedings at the ITC, including enforcement proceedings as well as Temporary Exclusion Order proceedings.

Mr. Altman frequently lectures and coordinates conferences and presentations on Section 337, and publishes on IP and ITC issues.

Rankings & Recognition

  • Chambers Global: International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) (United States), 2011-2019
  • Chambers USA: International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) (National), 2010-2019

Court Admissions

  • United States Supreme Court
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States Court of International Trade
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Education

  • J.D., University of California, Berkeley, 1978
  • M.S. (Physics), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1975
  • B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1971

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Professional and Community Involvement

  • Past Chair, International Trade Commission Committee, American Intellectual Property Law Assocation
  • Past President, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association
  • International Trade Committee, Section of Intellectual Property Law, American Bar Association
  • International Trade Committee, Section of International Law, American Bar Association

Representative Engagements

  • Botulinum Toxin Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1145 (Allergan and Medytox v. Daewoong). Representing respondent Daewoong.
  • Cartridges for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-1141 (Juul Labs v. Maduro, et al.). Representing respondent Maduro.
  • Blood Cholesterol Testing Strips, Inv. No. 337-TA-1116 (Polymer Technology Systems vs. ACON). Representing complainant PTS asserting patent infringement.
  • Cell Phone Holder for Vehicles, Inv. No. 337-TA-1028 (Nite Ize v. numerous respondents). Represented complainant Nite Ize in an investigation alleging patent infringement.  The Commission issued a General Exclusion Order and Limited Exclusion Orders against multiple respondents.
  • Magnetic Data Storage Tapes, No. 337-TA-1012 (Fujifilm v. Sony). Magnetic Tape Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1036 (Sony v. Fujifilm).  Magnetic Tape Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1058 (Sony v. Fujifilm).  Magnetic Tape Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1076 (Fujifilm v. Sony).  Representing Sony in a series of investigations and counter-investigations involving allegations of patent infringement.
  • Carbon and Alloy Steel, No. 337-TA-1002 (U.S. Steel Corp. against the Chinese Steel Industry). Represented respondent Masteel Group against allegations of antitrust violations and false designation of origin.  The Commission found no violation under both allegations.
  • Portable Electronic Devices, 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.  The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • Devices for and Methods of Testing for Cholesterol, Inv. No. 337-TA-969 (Polymer Technology Systems v. Infopia and Jant Pharmacal). Represented complainant in an investigation alleging patent infringement.  The investigation settled.
  • Antivenom Compositions, Inv. No. 337-TA-903, (BTG v. Veteria Laboratories, BioVeteria Life Sciences, LLC, Laboratorios Silanes,Instituto Bioclon S.A. de C.V. and Rare Disease Therapeutics, Inc.). Represented complainant BTG in charges of patent infringement against respondents producing an antidote to snakebites.  The investigation settled.
  • Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices, No. 337-TA-892, (Straight Path IP Group v. Sony, et al.). Represented several Sony entities against claims of patent infringement involving the Sony PlayStation, television sets, smartphones, and other electronic devices.  The parties settled on the eve of trial.
  • TV Programs, Inv. 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   Young television show.  Won on summary determination of no copyright infringement.
  • Integrated Circuit Chips, No. 337-TA-859 (Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp. and Seagate Technology). Successfully represented LSI/Seagate in Section 337 investigation alleging patent infringement involving integrated circuits.  The Commission found no violation and no domestic industry.
  • Food Waste Disposers, No. 337-TA-838 (Emerson Electric v. Anaheim Manufacturing). Successfully represented Anaheim as a respondent against allegations of multiple unfair acts, including trade dress.  Complainant withdrew its complaint after the pre-hearing conference.
  • Audiovisual Components, No. 337-TA-837 (LSI Corp. v. Funai Electric Co., MediaTek, Realtek Semiconductor, et al.). Represented LSI/Agere against Funai and Realtek concerning audiovisual products and semiconductor chips.
  • Video Displays and Products Using and Containing Same, No. 337-TA-828 (Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Chimei Innolux Corporation and Innolux Corp.).  Successfully represented complainant Mondis.  The parties settled the ITC investigation and related district court and foreign litigation based on a payment of royalties to Mondis.
  • Protective Cases, Inv. No. 337-TA-780 (Otter Products v. Alibaba, DHgate.com, et al.). Reached a settlement for respondent DHgate.
  • Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA- 741/749 (Thomson Licensing SAS v. MStar Semiconductor, Inc., et al). Represented MStar, a manufacturer of controller chips used in display monitors, against claims of patent infringement.
  • Automated Media Library Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-746 (Overland Storage v. BDT, IBM and Dell). Represented the BDT respondents in a patent-based investigation.
  • Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size, 337-TA- 605 and 337-TA-649 (Tessera v. ATI Technologies, et al.). Represented complainant Tessera.
  • Endodontic Instruments, Inv. No. 337-TA-610 (Dentsply International v. Guidance Endodontics). Represented complainant Dentsply in an investigation alleging patent infringement.
  • Flash Memory Devices, 337-TA-552 (Toshiba v. Hynix), NAND Flash Memory Devices, 337-TA-553 (Hynix v. Toshiba). Represented Toshiba in both investigations.
  • Inkmarkers, Inv. No. 337-TA-522 (Sanford v. Ningbo Beifa, et al.). Represented respondent Ningbo Beifa in a case involving the trade dress of its ink marker products.  The action was ultimately settled. 
  • Systems for Detecting Computer Viruses/Worms, 337-TA-510 (Trend Micro v. Fortinet). Represented respondent Fortinet in both a patent action and a subsequent enforcement action commenced by Trend Micro.
  • Automated Mechanical Truck Transmission Systems, Inv. 337-TA-503 (Eaton v. ZF Meritor, et al.). Represented complainant Eaton in proceedings before the ITC, Court of International Trade, and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Home Vacuum Packaging Machines, 337-TA-496 (Tilia v. The Holmes Group, et al.). Represented complainant Tilia in a fully litigated temporary relief (TEO) proceeding and thereafter secured a favorable settlement on permanent relief.