An exclusion order is the ITC's border remedy under 19 U.S.C. 1337. When the Commission finds a section 337 violation and issues exclusion relief, U.S. Customs and Border Protection stops covered infringing articles from entering the United States. A limited exclusion order (LEO) reaches articles of named respondents. A general exclusion order (GEO) can reach infringing articles regardless of source when the statutory GEO tests are met. Cease-and-desist orders are a related in-country tool aimed at named respondents, including certain sales from U.S. inventory.
LEO vs GEO, and the Kyocera downstream problem
Under 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), the default exclusion remedy is limited to articles of persons the Commission finds violating section 337. A GEO is available only if the Commission also finds one of the two gateways in 1337(d)(2): a general exclusion is necessary to prevent circumvention of an LEO limited to named persons, or there is a pattern of violation and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products.
That statutory split matters after Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit held that an LEO may not exclude downstream products of non-respondents. If the complainant needs Customs to stop non-respondent downstream articles, the path is a GEO that satisfies 1337(d)(2), not an LEO aimed at a single upstream respondent. Naming strategy is therefore part of remedy strategy: customers, OEMs, and importers you need inside the LEO's reach usually need to be respondents, unless you can prove a GEO.
In day-to-day terms, an LEO is a named-party Customs instruction. A GEO is a product-coverage instruction that can sweep unnamed importers when the statute's circumvention or pattern-of-violation showing is made. Downstream phone makers in Kyocera were not respondents, so an LEO against the chip supplier could not lawfully bar their finished handsets. That holding still drives how complainants plead respondents and how they argue for general relief.
How exclusion orders differ from district-court injunctions
A district injunction is an Article III equitable order under the eBay framework. An ITC exclusion order is an administrative importation remedy enforced at the border by Customs. The ITC does not award patent damages the way a district court does. The Commission can also issue cease-and-desist orders under 1337(f) against named respondents, which can reach unfair acts inside the United States, including selling infringing imported articles out of domestic inventory. Default relief against a nonparticipating respondent can be limited to that person under 1337(g) when the statutory conditions are met.
Parallel district litigation is common. Under 28 U.S.C. 1659, a district defendant who is also an ITC respondent can obtain a mandatory stay of district claims involving the same issues, if the request is timely (generally within 30 days after being named as a respondent, or after the district action is filed, whichever is later). The stay lasts until the Commission determination becomes final. That is one reason dual-track campaigns feel different from a district case alone: the ITC clock keeps moving while the damages case may pause.
What happens before and after institution
Filing a complaint starts a preinstitution proceeding under 19 CFR 210.8. Under 19 CFR 210.10, the Commission generally decides whether to institute within 30 days after the complaint is filed, subject to stated exceptions (exceptional circumstances, temporary-relief processing, complainant postponement, withdrawal, or excessive confidential designations). Institution is published in the Federal Register. Receipt of a complaint is not the same thing as institution of an investigation.
Once an investigation is instituted, 19 CFR 210.13 ordinarily gives each respondent 20 days from service of the complaint and notice of investigation to file a written response (shorter if temporary relief is in play). The response must meet the content rules in 210.13(b), including admissions, denials, and available import statistics. The ALJ then drives discovery, hearing, and an initial determination toward a target date. USITC practice materials discuss target dates and Commission review; treat published target dates as case-specific scheduling, not a guarantee.
Presidential / USTR review and entry under bond
After the Commission issues a remedial order, 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) sends the determination to the President for policy review. The statute gives a 60-day window beginning the day after receipt. For policy reasons, the President may disapprove, in which case the determination and related exclusion or cease-and-desist action have no force or effect. That review authority has been delegated to the U.S. Trade Representative. During the review period, covered articles may enter under bond in an amount set to protect the complainant. Read the particular exclusion and cease-and-desist orders for their bonding terms. Under section 1337(j)(4), the determination becomes final when the 60-day period expires without disapproval, or earlier if the President notifies the Commission of approval.
An example of disapproval is Investigation No. 337-TA-794, where USTR, exercising delegated authority, disapproved the Commission's exclusion and cease-and-desist orders against certain Apple products in August 2013. That episode is a policy-review story about competitive conditions and consumers in a standard-essential-patent setting, not a template for everyday cases.
Public interest
Even after a violation finding, exclusion and cease-and-desist relief are not automatic in a vacuum. Section 1337(d), (f), and (g) require the Commission to consider the effect of the proposed remedy on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and U.S. consumers. Those factors can affect whether relief issues and the terms of any relief. Public-interest comments can appear in the preinstitution window and again in remedy briefing after a violation finding.
Practical considerations
Design-around work should start early. An exclusion order is only as useful as Customs' ability to identify covered articles, and respondents plan noninfringing replacements on the same clock. After Kyocera, complainants who need downstream coverage should either name the downstream players as respondents or build a real GEO record under 1337(d)(2), not assume an LEO against a chip or component supplier will sweep finished devices of non-respondents.
Cease-and-desist orders and LEOs do different jobs. An LEO is a Customs gate on future imports. A cease-and-desist order under 1337(f) can reach named respondents' post-importation conduct, including selling already-imported stock from U.S. inventory, which is why complainants often seek both when domestic inventory is part of the commercial threat. Seizure and forfeiture under 1337(i) is a further escalation after repeated denied entry and notice, not a first-line tool.
Domestic industry remains a gate to any remedy. On the economic prong, the Federal Circuit's March 5, 2025 decision in Lashify, Inc. v. ITC vacated a Commission approach that had excluded sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution labor and capital from 1337(a)(3)(B). Those categories can count; significance is still a holistic factual question. Pair that note with the technical prong and your plant, labor, or exploitation evidence rather than treating Lashify as a free pass.
What to watch next
Watch the institution decision and the Federal Register notice for who is named and whether temporary relief is in play. Watch whether complainants plead GEO theories under 1337(d)(2) or lean on an LEO-plus-CDO package. Watch public-interest briefing and any request to tailor or delay relief. After a final Commission order, watch the 60-day Presidential / USTR review window and the bond terms that apply in the meantime. On appeal, watch Federal Circuit review of remedy scope, domestic industry, and related issues.
Where should you read next? Start with the dual-track ITC breakout on this site for parallel district pressure, then the choose-district-or-ITC FAQ, the sue-both-forums FAQ, and the FAQ on what happens when the owner also files at the ITC. For complaint and response mechanics, use the ITC complaint FAQ. Outside this site, read 19 U.S.C. 1337, the Part 210 rules linked below, the USITC Section 337 FAQs, and the Kyocera and Lashify opinions.