Yes. A patent owner can file a district-court infringement action and a section 337 complaint at the ITC against the same products or supply chain. That dual-track pattern is lawful and common. The forums seek different remedies on different clocks: damages and an Article III injunction in district court; exclusion and cease-and-desist relief aimed at unfair imports at the ITC under 19 U.S.C. 1337.
Why owners file both
District court is where compensatory damages live. The ITC is where Customs-facing exclusion orders and related cease-and-desist orders live. USITC materials confirm that money damages are not an ITC remedy. Filing both lets the owner pursue payment exposure and import stoppage in parallel. The ITC gives owners a parallel route to import relief. PTAB review and reexamination give accused infringers ways to challenge patent claims at the Patent Office.
The 1659 mandatory stay
Parallel filing does not mean both cases always sprint together. Under 28 U.S.C. 1659, a district defendant who is also an ITC respondent can require the district court to stay proceedings on claims involving the same issues until the Commission determination becomes final, if the request is made within 30 days after the party is named as a respondent or within 30 days after the district action is filed, whichever is later. After the stay lifts, 1659(b) provides for transmission of the Commission record to the district court, subject to the Federal Rules and protective-order limits. The practical effect is familiar: the ITC target date can keep moving while the damages case pauses.
Naming, Kyocera, and consistency risk
Downstream coverage at the ITC turns on naming and remedy theory. After Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008), a limited exclusion order cannot bar non-respondent downstream products. Owners who need LEO reach against customers or OEMs should name those parties or build a general exclusion order case under 1337(d)(2). Dual-track also creates consistency pressure: claim constructions, prior-art positions, and inventorship narratives can travel between forums. Resource strain is real. Discretionary IPR denial fights can also interact with the fastest forum's schedule, which is one reason dual-track campaigns and Fintiv-style briefing often collide.
Institution timing still matters
Filing an ITC complaint starts preinstitution proceedings under 19 CFR 210.8. Under 19 CFR 210.10, the Commission generally decides institution within 30 days, subject to stated exceptions. A Federal Register receipt notice is not institution. Until institution, treat DN numbers as complaint receipts, not live exclusion-order cases. Under 19 CFR 210.13, respondents ordinarily have 20 days after service of the complaint and notice of investigation to respond, unless otherwise ordered. Temporary-relief proceedings can require a response within 10 days.
What to watch
Watch whether the Commission institutes and which patents and respondents appear in the notice of investigation. Watch whether district defendants timely seek a 1659 stay. Watch whether ITC and district patent lists stay aligned. Watch domestic-industry and public-interest development at the ITC, including economic-prong issues after Lashify, Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2025).
Where should you read next? See the dual-track ITC breakout for how these campaigns appear on this site's board, the choose-district-or-ITC FAQ for forum tradeoffs, and the exclusion-order FAQ for LEO, GEO, and Presidential review. For accused-side response duties, use the ITC complaint FAQ. Outside this site, read 19 U.S.C. 1337, 28 U.S.C. 1659, and 19 CFR 210.8, 210.10, and 210.13.