Draft International Trade Commission Section 337 Complaint

---
name: draft-itc-section-337-complaint
task_id: intellectual-property/draft-international-trade-commission-section-337-complaint
description: Draft an International Trade Commission Section 337 complaint for patent infringement with domestic industry allegations, plus a pre-filing issues memo organized by severity.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft ITC Section 337 Complaint

## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable)

- Treat the complaint and the pre-filing memo as separate deliverables, with the complaint drafted first and the memo second.
- Enumerate all asserted patents, asserted claims, accused product categories, and respondents before drafting any claim chart or issue analysis.
- If the source set identifies more than one respondent, patent family, product line, domestic product, or import pathway, analyze each one separately rather than using a representative sample.
- Confirm whether the filing is for exclusionary relief against imported articles under Section 337 and whether the domestic industry theory is present or in-process before drafting the substantive allegations.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Drafting the domestic industry section as a single blended narrative instead of separately analyzing the economic prong and the technical prong.
- Failing to tie importation allegations to particular accused articles and identifiable respondents with enough specificity for the Commission to evaluate the pleading.
- Omitting or underdeveloping claim charts for the asserted claims and domestic industry theory.
- Treating ownership, standing, and chain of title as background only, rather than as threshold issues that should be confirmed from the source set.
- Producing the complaint without a separate pre-filing issues memo, or producing the memo without ordering issues by severity and next step.
- Missing internal inconsistencies among the source documents on patent scope, product identity, import evidence, domestic industry evidence, or party identity.
- Stating legal conclusions without identifying the governing statute, rule, or Commission convention supporting them.
- Summarizing risks without stating the practical consequence of each risk for filing, enforcement, or remedy.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337: analyze imported articles, unfair acts, and the availability of exclusionary relief.
- ITC complaint practice: include parties, asserted patents, accused products, importation allegations, domestic industry allegations, requested remedy, and supporting exhibits.
- Domestic industry requirement: analyze the economic prong and the technical prong separately, with the economic prong grounded in protected investments or activities and the technical prong grounded in a domestic product that practices at least one asserted claim.
- Importation showing: connect the accused articles to importation into the United States or sale for importation, and tie the evidence to the relevant entities and product categories.
- Claim chart convention: map each asserted claim element to each accused product category, and separately map the domestic product to the asserted claims for technical prong support.
- Party identification convention: identify each respondent by legal name and role in the importation chain with enough certainty for Commission review.
- Pre-filing risk review convention: assess claim scope, infringement, validity, domestic industry, importation, standing, and evidentiary gaps before filing.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Patent and ownership section: verify chain of title, list each asserted patent, and identify each asserted claim actually being pursued.
- Accused products and respondents: list each accused product category, then match each to the respondent(s) implicated by the source documents and the importation theory.
- Infringement analysis: prepare an element-by-element chart for each asserted claim against each accused product category; do not merge distinct claim limitations into one generalized narrative.
- Domestic industry analysis: separate the economic prong from the technical prong; for the economic prong, organize investments by category; for the technical prong, chart the domestic product against the asserted claims.
- Importation evidence: compile the source evidence showing importation or sale for importation for each accused product category and note any evidentiary gaps.
- Remedy analysis: evaluate whether a limited exclusion order or general exclusion order is supported by the source record and explain the basis for the preferred remedy.
- Pre-filing issues memo: identify each issue, assign a severity level on a defined ordinal scale, state the controlling authority or Commission convention, and add the filing consequence and recommended next step.
- Consistency check: compare the complaint theory against the underlying source materials to flag mismatches in product names, dates, owners, domestic industry support, and import records.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)

- If the source set contains multiple patent families, proceed family-by-family and do not mix claim charts across different patents.
- If the source set contains multiple accused product generations or configurations, analyze each generation or configuration separately where the infringement or importation theory differs.
- If domestic industry support arises from multiple investment types or domestic products, break them out by category and sequence, then state how they relate to the asserted claims.
- If a timing sequence matters for standing, licensing, importation, or domestic industry build-out, preserve the chronology and identify any gaps between invention, ownership, imports, and expenditures.
- If the source documents contain competing descriptions of the same product, contract, or entity, resolve the discrepancy explicitly or flag it as an issue before drafting final language.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Complaint draft: use conventional Section 337 pleading structure, including caption, parties, jurisdiction and venue basis, asserted patents, standing and ownership, accused products, importation allegations, domestic industry allegations, infringement allegations with claim charts, requested relief, and exhibit references.
- Complaint draft: keep the allegations factual and documentary, and cite the governing Section 337 authority where legal propositions are stated.
- Complaint draft: include separate treatment for economic-prong and technical-prong domestic industry allegations rather than a combined paragraph.
- Complaint draft: include an exhibit-style or appendix-style location for claim charts and domestic industry support so the operative pleading remains readable.
- Pre-filing issues memo: define the severity scale once at the top, then list issues under that scale with a short rationale for each severity label.
- Pre-filing issues memo: for each issue, state the legal authority or Commission practice rule supporting the concern, identify the downstream filing consequence, and give a concrete next step.
- Pre-filing issues memo: end with a Recommended Actions block that assigns the action, the responsible role, and the timing anchor tied to the intended filing.
- Use ordinary industry-conventional section titles rather than reproducing any hidden checklist or rubric phrasing.
- Confirm in your working process that the complaint file is the primary deliverable and is non-empty before finalizing the memo.