The central legal issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of the “economic prong” of the domestic-industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(B). Specifically, the panel examined whether significant employment of labor or capital related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution could satisfy the economic prong, even in the absence of domestic manufacturing.

The Federal Circuit vacated the Commission’s split decision regarding the economic prong, finding that the Commission’s interpretation was contrary to the statutory text. Notably, the Court cited the Loper Bright Supreme Court decision that allows the Court to “exercise [] ‘independent judgment’ about the correctness of [the Commission’s] interpretation.”

The Court ultimately held that significant employment of labor or capital should be considered sufficient to satisfy the economic prong, regardless of whether the labor or capital is used for sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, or distribution. The Court emphasized that the statutory language does not impose a domestic-manufacturing requirement or limit the economic prong to technical development. Rather the panel held that so long as the human activity is related to “aspects of providing [patented] goods or services,” the cost of that investment in human capital should be accounted for. This decision has significant implications for future cases involving the domestic-industry requirement under Section 337. The Federal Circuit’s interpretation broadens the scope of what can be considered significant employment of labor or capital, potentially allowing more companies to satisfy the economic prong without engaging in domestic manufacturing. This could lead to increased access to Section 337 relief for companies that focus on sales, marketing, and distribution activities within the United States.