DJI, an enterprise in China and the world’s largest manufacturer of civilian drones, has won a major victory in a U.S. trade investigation that has been going on for almost two years. This case has received widespread attention.

Back in August 2018, a smaller rival whose name is Autel Robotics USA LLC filed a case with the U.S. International Trade Commission. The complainant requested that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order and impose a bond during the 60-day review period pursuant to 19 U. S.C. § 1337(j). International Trade Commission started investigation in October 2018 based on three US patents (US7979174, US9260184 and US10044013) claimed by Autel Robotics USA LLC. As a response, DJI filed invalid requests for these three patents in USPTO and PTAB. In March 2020, ITC preliminarily ruled that some of DJI's products infringed the US9260184 patent, and recommended banning these products. During the 60-day review period, the invalid requests for invalidity were concluded. In May 2020, PTAB held that claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 11 in US9260184 were invalid. The remaining claims of US9260184 that have not been invalidated should not be related to this investigation, and DJI's sales in the United States will not be affected.

Section 337 of the U.S. trade rules allows the U.S. ITC to exclude imports that infringe upon US intellectual property rights. In recent years, the United States International Trade Commission, or the ITC, has become an important venue for resolving high-stakes patent disputes involving globally-traded products. Compared with the prosecution to the court, a Section 337 investigation has a shorter trial period, which can be concluded in 12-18 months.

Currently, the ITC is investigating China's electronic information industry. Experts say many Chinese firms didn't actively plead in previous cases, so the ITC considered them as an automatic failure. But Chinese companies have begun to change their previous strategies. In 2019, a total of 85 Chinese companies were sued to ITC, of which 43 Chinese companies chose to respond. Chinese companies are encouraged to stand firm in the investigations, though the investigations are always time and money consuming.

This reflects that Chinese companies are paying more and more attention to intellectual property rights. Before their products go abroad, they have enough preparation to deal with various challenges and can deal with the Section 337 investigation more intelligently.