IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: ITC’s non-infringement determination affirmed in optical network dispute, (Jan 9, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

An International Trade Commission summary decision of non-infringement was affirmed because the Commission had properly found that no evidence of infringement was in the record.

An individual failed to show any error in an International Trade Commission decision ruling that certain foreign imports did not infringe his asserted optical signal patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The patentee failed to produce admissible evidence to show infringement (Sandstrom v. ITC, No. 2025-1269 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2026)).

Mark Sandstrom was the owner by assignment of U.S. Patents Nos. 10,567,474 (the ’474 patent) and 10,848,546 (the ’546 patent), which involved optical line termination (OLT) and optical network terminal (ONT) devices used by network service providers to split one optical signal into several. Sandstrom’s predecessor in interest brought a complaint against several Chinese companies before the International Trade Commission, alleging that several of their products infringed both patents. All of the Chinese Companies defaulted, and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) moved for summary determination of no infringement, arguing that Sandstrom’s predecessor had failed to present any evidence the accused products utilized the specific versions of the technological standards that showed infringement. The Commission granted the motion. Sandstrom appealed, challenging the Commission’s summary determination.

Evidence of infringement. Sandstrom argued that the accused products were sold with advertisements that described use of the standards in question. OUII’s expert had testified that the information from these advertisements was not sufficient to show infringement, and Sandstrom had not rebutted that testimony. While he argued that he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the expert, the Federal Circuit found that the record showed he had admitted to having the opportunity to take his deposition. The claim charts did not show anything except legal conclusions, and the only other issue Sandstrom pointed to was attorney argument, not admissible evidence.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Commission, finding no error in its summary decision.

The Case is No. 25-1269.

Judge: Wallach, E.

Attorneys: Mark H. Sandstrom, pro se. Jonathan Link for the ITC.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews