In Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-720, the Complainant, Cross Match, alleged that biometric (fingerprint) scanners sold by Respondent Suprema infringed Cross Match’s patent related to fingerprint scanning technology when combined with software created by fellow Respondent Mentalix. Suprema sold its fingerprint scanners in the United States through distributors such as Mentalix, which packaged the scanners with a general purpose computer and fingerprint scanning software for sale to end-customers. Suprema did not provide the enduser software, but did provide a Software Development Kit (“SDK”) that allowed its customers and distributors to create their own software to operate the scanner. Suprema’s scanners, as well as its SDK—the only “articles” that were actually imported—were found not to infringe Cross Match’s patent when combined with software developed by other customers. Hence, the ITC concluded these items had substantial non-infringing uses, and did not contributorily or directly infringe. The ITC, however, issued an exclusion order based on a finding of induced infringement as to Suprema, where the claimed direct infringement took place only after importation into the U.S., when the scanners were combined with particular software. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s exclusion order. Suprema, Inc. v. ITC, 2012-1170 (Fed. Cir. 2013). According to the Federal Circuit, 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) makes “actively induc[ing]” direct infringement unlawful. Federal Circuit precedent, however, holds that there can be no induced infringement unless there is also an act of direct infringement. Because the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) is only tasked with monitoring imports, the Federal Circuit found that “[f]or inducement, the only pertinent articles are those which directly infringe—at the time of importation.” Therefore, because infringement could only occur after importation when the scanners were combined with particular software, the ITC lacked the authority to enter an exclusion order directed to Suprema’s scanners premised on Suprema’s purported induced infringement of the method claimed in the patent after importation. The Federal Circuit clarified that it was not divesting the ITC of authority to deal with indirect infringement by an “inducer”—but such authority would be limited to situations “where the article itself directly infringes when imported,” rather than when the imported article may or may not later give rise to direct infringement.