On August 18, 2014, the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (“AIPLA”), Intellectual Property Owners Association (“IPO”), Dell Inc.; Adobe Systems, Inc.; Ford Motor Co.; Google Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Co.; LG Display Co., Ltd.; LG Electronics, Inc.; Netflix, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Netflix, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; And SAP America, Inc. (“some of the world’s leading technology companies”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) each filed an Amicus Brief in Suprema v. ITC,No. 12-1170 (Fed. Cir.)  Both AIPLA and IPO advocate that the en banc Federal Circuit should reach a different result than the result advocated by some of the world’s leading technology companies and Microsoft (collectively “Tech Industry”).   Both AIPLA and IPO, who each take no position on the outcome of the case, argue that the ITC should have the authority under 19 U.S.C. §1337 to ban importation of articles that will result in induced infringement of a method patent, even when direct infringement will take place after importation, as long as the requirements for inducement are met.  In contrast,  the Tech Industry argue that the Federal Circuit panel’s decision should be re-affirmed because the panel correctly held that Section 337 cannot apply to a claim of inducement if the infringement does not occur at the time of importation.  Microsoft also argued that “the Commission has exceeded its authority under Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i) … by asserting authority over the alleged direct or indirect infringement of method claims.”