What meets legal requirement of "due process"?

[dstarfire]

I read recently (a few minutes ago) that many patent disputes are addressed by both civil courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC), with some disputes being resolved solely by the ITC.* However, I thought due process, as required by the fifth amendment, had to involve a member of the judiciary before penalties could be applied to an entity (whether it’s company or individual).

Since the most likely answer to this contradiction is that I’m mistaken, I’m left wondering, What processes meet the requirement for “due process”, as described by the fifth amendment?

On a related note, an online dictionary and wikipedia both quote the 5th amendment as “… deprived of life, liberty, or property, …”, while I remember (and have always heard) it as “life, libery, or the pursuit of happiness”. When did this change?

• This is an extrapolation from the claim “Technology companies in recent years have increasingly turned to the ITC to settle their disputes.” in the article: Obama vetoes Apple sales ban in U.S. - CNET

[Tom_Tildrum]

The most stripped-down definition of due process that I recall is that it requires “notice and a hearing.” The hearing does not necessarily have to be in front of a judge.

I know nothing in particular about patent law or the jurisdiction of the ITC, but it may be that litigants are turning to the ITC by agreement, like a form of arbitration.

“…the pursuit of happiness” was in the Declaration of Independence. The difference reflects the fact that the Declaration was intended to be a high-flown aspirational appeal, while the Constitution was for more practical governance.

[deltasigma]

There are 2 due process clauses

[LawMonkey]

@deltasigma

There are 2 due process clauses

Which, so far as I can recall, are interpreted in exactly the same way, so far as procedural DP goes. One’s for the states, one’s for the feds.

[deltasigma]

@LawMonkey

Which, so far as I can recall, are interpreted in exactly the same way, so far as procedural DP goes. One’s for the states, one’s for the feds.

From my link:

The Fifth Amendment’s reference to “due process” is only one of many promises of protection the Bill of Rights gives citizens against the federal government. Originally these promises had no application at all against the states. Did the Fourteenth Amendment change that? In the middle of the Twentieth Century, about a century after its adoption, a series of Supreme Court decisions found that the Due Process Clause “incorporated” most of the important elements of the Bill of Rights and made them applicable to the states. These decisions almost obliterated any difference between the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. If a Bill of Rights guarantee is “incorporated” in the “due process” requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, state and federal obligations are exactly the same. The right to a jury trial, to take just one example, means the same in state and federal courts; there are no differences about the number of jurors required, whether they have to be unanimous in their verdicts, and so forth.

[ryanl]

@dstarfire

I read recently (a few minutes ago) that many patent disputes are addressed by both civil courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC), with some disputes being resolved solely by the ITC.* However, I thought due process, as required by the fifth amendment, had to involve a member of the judiciary before penalties could be applied to an entity (whether it’s company or individual).

Since the most likely answer to this contradiction is that I’m mistaken, I’m left wondering, What processes meet the requirement for “due process”, as described by the fifth amendment?

On a related note, an online dictionary and wikipedia both quote the 5th amendment as “… deprived of life, liberty, or property, …”, while I remember (and have always heard) it as “life, libery, or the pursuit of happiness”. When did this change?

• This is an extrapolation from the claim “Technology companies in recent years have increasingly turned to the ITC to settle their disputes.” in the article: CNET: Product reviews, advice, how-tos and the latest news

To quote your source fully:

[QUOTE=CNET Article]
Technology companies in recent years have increasingly turned to the ITC to settle their disputes. Companies can pursue an ITC case in parallel with civil lawsuits, and the threat of an embargo on products typically forces companies to settle more quickly.
[/QUOTE]

In other words, some disputes may be solely resolved through ITC hearings, but parties still have recourse through the courts via civil lawsuits. I don’t see any due process issues being implicated here.