ITC Finds Violation in Aardvark Medical vs. Chongqing Moffy: Irrigation Device Patent Case

Introduction

In a significant outcome for medical device patent enforcement, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) found a violation in Aardvark Medical Inc. v. Chongqing Moffy Innovation Technology Co., Ltd. (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1444). The case, presided over by Chief Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara, concluded on March 9, 2026, after 384 days of proceedings — resulting in a participant disposition finding of violation against the Chinese manufacturer.

The dispute centers on five U.S. patents covering irrigation and aspiration device technology — a specialized medical device segment with significant clinical and commercial relevance. For patent attorneys navigating Section 337 enforcement, IP professionals tracking cross-border medical device litigation, and R&D teams assessing freedom-to-operate risk, this case delivers important strategic lessons about ITC enforcement as a front-line tool against international infringement.

The outcome reaffirms the ITC’s role as a powerful forum for domestic patent holders seeking to exclude infringing imported goods from U.S. markets.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

This landmark case involved five U.S. patents covering methods and apparatus related to irrigation and aspiration devices — technology governing how surgical instruments manage fluid dynamics during medical procedures. The portfolio spans both earlier foundational claims (US9750856B2) and more recent continuation-family patents, suggesting layered claim coverage across generations of the technology.

• • US11883009B2 (Application No. 18/324,081)
• • US11889995B2 (Application No. 18/324,069)
• • US11883010B2 (Application No. 18/324,087)
• • US9750856B2 (Application No. 14/622,507)
• • US11318234B2 (Application No. 17/099,482)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The investigation was filed on February 18, 2025, before the USITC in Washington, D.C. — the exclusive venue for Section 337 proceedings. The 384-day duration from filing to close falls within the standard ITC investigative timeline, which typically targets completion within 15–18 months under statutory mandate.

The ITC’s accelerated schedule compared to district court litigation is a key strategic driver for patent holders seeking timely exclusion orders. Chief Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara presided over the investigation. The absence of any record of defendant participation or defense counsel suggests this may have proceeded as a default or uncontested proceeding, which can streamline the path to a violation finding while limiting the factual record developed on invalidity or non-infringement.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The ITC issued a Participant Disposition: Violation Found — the formal determination that Chongqing Moffy’s imported irrigation and aspiration devices violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 through infringement of one or more of Aardvark Medical’s asserted patents. Specific remedial orders, such as a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) or Cease and Desist Order (CDO), would typically follow a violation finding of this nature, subject to Presidential review. No specific damages amount was applicable, as the ITC does not award monetary damages — its primary remedy is import exclusion.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The case was brought as an infringement action under Section 337, which prohibits the importation into the United States of articles that infringe valid and enforceable U.S. patents. A violation finding requires the complainant to establish: (1) a valid and enforceable patent; (2) infringement by the imported articles; and (3) the existence of a domestic industry relating to the patent.

The absence of defendant participation is legally significant. When a respondent fails to appear or engage, the ITC may rely on the complainant’s evidence without adversarial challenge, making claim construction disputes, invalidity arguments, and non-infringement defenses effectively unavailable to the accused party. This creates a substantially lower evidentiary burden for the complainant in practice.

The five-patent portfolio, spanning both foundational and continuation claims, provided Aardvark Medical with broad claim coverage — reducing the likelihood that any single patent’s invalidity would defeat the entire investigation.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces several important doctrinal and procedural points in ITC practice:

• • Section 337 as an import enforcement mechanism remains highly effective against foreign manufacturers who do not maintain U.S. operations capable of satisfying a district court damages judgment.
• • Continuation patent portfolios offer complainants strategic redundancy — if one patent is successfully challenged on validity, sibling patents with overlapping claim coverage may sustain a violation finding.
• • The domestic industry requirement under Section 337 was presumably satisfied by Aardvark Medical’s U.S.-based commercial activities in irrigation and aspiration devices — a threshold that has been subject to evolving ITC interpretation.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders: The ITC forum is particularly effective when the accused infringer is a foreign entity unlikely to engage in U.S. proceedings. Building a continuation patent family with layered claims enhances resilience across multi-patent investigations.

For Accused Infringers: Non-participation in ITC proceedings is a high-risk strategy. Engaging competent U.S. counsel to contest domestic industry standing, validity, or infringement — even in a respondent-unfavorable forum — may prevent default adverse findings and preserve appellate options.

For R&D Teams: Medical device engineers developing fluid management or irrigation systems should conduct thorough freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis against the Aardvark Medical patent family before commercializing products for U.S. import or sale. The breadth of the five-patent portfolio signals significant claim coverage in this technology space.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The violation finding in 337-TA-1444 carries meaningful implications for the medical device import market. If the ITC issues a Limited Exclusion Order, Chongqing Moffy faces a de facto ban on importing its accused irrigation and aspiration products into the United States — a commercially severe outcome for any company reliant on U.S. market access.

More broadly, this case reflects a continuing trend of U.S. medical device companies leveraging ITC enforcement against Chinese manufacturers in the surgical tools and instrumentation segment. The ITC’s expedited timeline and exclusion-focused remedy make it an increasingly preferred forum over district court for IP-intensive companies with strong domestic industry bases.

For companies operating in adjacent medical device categories — including ophthalmic surgical tools, arthroscopic instruments, and fluid management systems — this case signals that well-constructed patent portfolios backed by continuation strategies can deliver enforceable exclusion rights against foreign competition. Licensing discussions in this technology area may also be influenced by the precedent of an uncontested violation finding.