## Facts

- Fuji owned U.S. patents covering disposable “lens-fitted film packages” (single-use cameras).
- Jazz Photo Corp. imported and sold refurbished disposable cameras by obtaining used units, reloading film, resealing, and placing them back into commerce.
- In a prior § 337 investigation, the ITC issued a general exclusion order barring importation of infringing disposable cameras and a cease-and-desist order directed to Jazz and “its principals, stockholders, officers, directors, employees, [and] agents.”
- Later enforcement proceedings addressed whether particular refurbished cameras were non-infringing based on patent exhaustion (authorized first sale in the United States) and whether Jazz’s refurbishment constituted permissible repair rather than impermissible reconstruction.
- The ITC imposed civil penalties for violations of the cease-and-desist order, including penalties against Jack Benun, a Jazz principal/consultant and later chief operating officer, for post-order violations.
- Fuji appealed aspects of the ITC’s penalty-related determinations; Benun separately appealed the ITC’s authority to bind and penalize him and argued lack of notice.

## Issues

1. Whether Fuji had Article III standing to appeal the ITC’s civil-penalty determination when penalties were payable to the U.S. Treasury.
2. Whether § 337 authorizes the ITC to issue and enforce a cease-and-desist order against an individual associated with a corporate respondent.
3. Whether the cease-and-desist order’s categorical language applied to Benun as a “principal” or covered person.
4. Whether due process required individualized naming or additional notice before imposing civil penalties on Benun.

## Decision

- Fuji’s appeal was dismissed for lack of Article III standing.
- The court held Fuji showed no concrete, particularized injury from the amount or allocation of civil penalties payable to the government.
- The court held the ITC had statutory authority under § 337 to bind and enforce a cease-and-desist order against individuals within covered categories connected to the corporate respondent.
- The court held the order’s text applied to Benun given his role at Jazz.
- The court held Benun received adequate notice that he was bound by the order; individualized naming was not required where the order clearly covered “principals” and similar categories.
- The court largely affirmed the imposition of civil penalties on Benun, while vacating and remanding limited aspects of the penalty calculation for further consideration.

## Legal Principles

- A party appealing an ITC determination must satisfy Article III standing, including a concrete injury-in-fact, even when appealing from an agency decision.
- A private complainant generally lacks standing to challenge ITC civil-penalty amounts payable to the U.S. Treasury absent a direct, redressable injury to the complainant.
- Under § 337, the ITC may issue and enforce cease-and-desist orders that expressly bind not only corporate respondents but also associated individuals (including principals and officers) and may impose civil penalties for violations.
- Due process notice may be satisfied by clear categorical language in an order and actual or reasonably provided notice; the order need not list every covered individual by name.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit dismissed Fuji’s appeal because dissatisfaction with government-paid penalty amounts did not create Article III injury, and it affirmed that § 337 cease-and-desist orders may bind and subject corporate principals to personal civil penalties when the order clearly covers them and notice is adequate.


Fuji Photo Film Co. v. International Trade Commission, 474 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2007)