On February 8, oral argument was held before the en banc Federal Circuit in Suprema v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 2012-1170. The panel decision in Suprema v. ITC, 742 F.3d 1353, which previously had been vacated by the en banc panel, held "an exclusion order based on a violation of 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(1)(B)(i) may not be predicated upon a theory of induced infringement where no direct infringement occurs until post-importation." In argument that collectively exceeded the allotted time usually permitted by the Court, counsel for Appellants Suprema and Mentalix argued in support of the vacated panel decision followed by arguments opposing that decision by the Office of General Counsel for Appellee International Trade Commission, counsel for Intervenor Cross Match, and the U.S. Department of Justice. The en banc panel consisted of only 10 Judges, as Judge Moore recused herself because her husband’s law firm is counsel for one of the parties. Questions posed by several of the Judges appeared to show that the en banc court is divided on whether Section 337 covers inducing infringement. Questions signaling the view that Section 337 covers inducing infringement included inquiries into whether Section 337 is a trade statute and whether 35 U.S.C. §271(a) also requires conduct, i.e., importing, making, using, or selling an article, to determine direct infringement. Questions signaling the view that Section 337 does not cover inducing infringement included inquiries as to whether it is important that Section 337 does not mention "use," unlike 35 U.S.C. §271.