ITC Seeks Comments on Proposed Disclosure Rule

Why It Matters

Revealing ownership and funding structures will help the ITC assess conflicts of interest, improve settlement prospects, and level the playing field for all participants in high‑stakes IP disputes.

Key Takeaways

• ITC proposes real‑party‑in‑interest disclosures for Section 337 cases
• Disclosures required for complaints, responses, motions, and advisory petitions
• Comment period ends June 29, 2026, 5:15 p.m. ET
• Rule aims to expose ownership, funding, control of IP disputes
• Joint statements allowed for related parties to reduce filing burden

Pulse Analysis

The International Trade Commission (ITC) has long served as the gateway for enforcing U.S. trade remedies under Section 337, yet it has lacked a formal mechanism to uncover who truly controls the parties before it. In federal courts and before the Patent and Trademark Office, real‑party‑in‑interest rules have become standard, forcing litigants to disclose corporate parents, investors and funding sources. By introducing a comparable requirement, the ITC is catching up with a transparency trend that aims to prevent hidden conflicts and to ensure that commissioners can evaluate the full landscape of interests influencing a case.

Under the proposed rule, any nongovernmental party or intervenor must submit a disclosure statement alongside key filings such as complaints, responses, motions to intervene and petitions for advisory opinions. The statement must list parent corporations, entities owning stock, parties with a legal right to bring the investigation, and any funder or approver whose involvement exceeds ordinary loans or insurance. The ITC allows related parties to file a single joint statement, reducing administrative load while still capturing the necessary information. The rule also invites comment on thresholds for ownership disclosure, the scope of respondents versus complainants, and whether funding disclosures should differ across the various subsections of Section 337.

For businesses, the rule could reshape how they approach Section 337 enforcement. Companies may need to map complex corporate structures and funding arrangements earlier in the process, potentially deterring entities with opaque ownership from pursuing or defending claims. The added transparency could facilitate settlements by clarifying who stands to gain or lose, but it also imposes compliance costs and strategic considerations around disclosure timing. Stakeholders have until June 29, 2026, to weigh in, and their feedback will likely influence the final shape of a rule that could become a pivotal factor in U.S. trade‑related IP litigation.