The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has dealt a setback to Crocs Inc., dismissing part of the footwear company's appeal against an International Trade Commission ruling in a Section 337 trade investigation. The decision, issued Jan. 8, 2026, marks the conclusion of a complex intellectual property dispute that involved multiple foreign and domestic companies.
In *Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission* (Fed. Cir. 2026), Circuit Judge Stoll, writing for a three-judge panel that included Circuit Judge Lourie and District Judge Chun, ruled that Crocs's appeal regarding certain respondents was untimely. The case originated from ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1270, where the Commission had found no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by several respondents.
The respondents in question, dubbed the "Active Respondents" by the court, included Orly Shoe Corp., Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., and Quanzhou ZhengDe Network Corp., doing business as Amoji. These companies had participated in an evidentiary hearing before the ITC. The Federal Circuit determined that Crocs's challenge to the Commission's no-violation finding against these parties was filed too late to receive consideration.
"Because Crocs's appeal of the Commission's no violation finding as to the Active Respondents is untimely, we dismiss in part," the court wrote.
Section 337 of the Tariff Act is a powerful tool that allows domestic companies to seek exclusion orders against imported goods that allegedly infringe U.S. intellectual property rights. Unlike federal district court litigation, Section 337 proceedings can result in orders that block infringing products from entering the United States entirely, making them an attractive option for patent holders seeking to protect their market position.
The case also involved a separate group of respondents that the ITC had found to be in default. These "Defaulting Respondents" included Jinjiang Anao Footwear Co. Ltd., Huizhou Xinshunzu Shoes Co. Ltd., Star Bay Group Inc., and La Modish Boutique. The Commission had entered a limited exclusion order against these companies under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).
Crocs challenged this limited exclusion order as well, but the Federal Circuit found that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in entering the order. The court's ruling suggests that while Crocs failed in its challenge to the no-violation finding due to timing issues, the exclusion order against the defaulting parties will remain in place.
The litigation involved substantial legal firepower on both sides. Crocs was represented by a team from Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, led by David A. Caine from the firm's Palo Alto office. The team also included attorneys Michael Berta, Sean Michael Callagy, and Isaac Ramsey from San Francisco, Mark Samartino from Chicago, and Andrew Tutt from Washington, D.C.
The International Trade Commission was represented by its Office of the General Counsel, with Carl Paul Bretscher arguing for the agency. The ITC team also included attorneys Amanda Pitcher Fisherow and Houda Morad.
While the court document available provides limited details about the underlying dispute, Section 337 cases typically involve allegations of patent infringement, trademark violations, or trade secret misappropriation involving imported goods. Crocs, known for its distinctive foam clogs and casual footwear, has been active in protecting its intellectual property rights, particularly regarding shoe designs and manufacturing processes.
The partial dismissal represents a mixed outcome for Crocs. While the company's challenge to the no-violation finding failed due to procedural issues rather than the merits of its claims, the exclusion order against defaulting respondents suggests that the ITC did find some merit in Crocs's underlying allegations against certain parties.
The Federal Circuit's emphasis on timeliness requirements reflects the court's strict adherence to procedural deadlines in appeals from administrative agencies. This serves as a reminder to litigants that even strong substantive claims can be defeated by procedural missteps.
For the footwear industry, the case highlights the ongoing challenges companies face in protecting their intellectual property in global markets. Section 337 proceedings have become increasingly important as companies seek effective remedies against imported goods that allegedly infringe their rights.
The decision in *Crocs v. ITC* will likely influence how companies approach both the timing of their appeals and their strategies for enforcement actions under Section 337. The case demonstrates that while the ITC provides powerful remedies for intellectual property holders, success requires careful attention to both substantive legal arguments and procedural requirements throughout the lengthy investigation and appeals process.