H341926

H341926 February 20, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H341926 JRW CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Tommy Martin 700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-5692 USA VIA EMAIL: tommy.martin@bakerbotts.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1174; Certain Toner Cartridges, Components Thereof, and Systems Dear Mr. Martin: Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (“EOE Branch”), Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issues this ruling letter in response to Brother Industries, Ltd.; Brother International Corporation (U.S.A.); and Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. (collectively, “Brother’s”) request for an administrative ruling, dated September 20, 2024 (“Ruling Request”). We find that Brother has established, through this inter partes proceeding, that certain TN830 “compatible” toner cartridges should be excluded from entry for consumption into (collectively, “articles at issue”), as described in this ruling, are subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order (“GEO”) issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1174 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1174 investigation”), under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”),1 unless and until this ruling letter is revoked or 1 The GEO issued in the 1174 investigation bars the unlicensed entry for consumption into the United States of toner cartridges, components thereof, and systems containing same, as defined in ¶ 1 of the GEO, that infringe one or more of Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,785,093 (“the ’093 Patent”); Claims 1, 7-11, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,575,460 (“the ’460 Patent”); Claims 1-7 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,568,856 (“the ’856 Patent”); Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,632,456 (“the ’456 Patent”); and Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,846,387 (“the ’387 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). See Certain Toner Cartridges, Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1174, EDIS Doc. ID 726161, General Exclusion Order (November 23, 2020) (“1174 GEO”). modified pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.12. We further note that determinations of the Commission resulting from the underlying investigation or a related proceeding under 19 C.F.R. Part 210 are binding authority on CBP and, in the case of conflict, will modify or revoke by operation of law any contrary CBP ruling or decision pertaining to Section 337 exclusion orders. As noted above, this ruling letter is the result of a request for an administrative ruling from CBP under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that the EOE Branch conducted on an inter partes basis. The proceeding involved the following parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by the ruling request: (1) your client, Brother, the ruling requester, complainant and patent owner from the 1174 investigation; and (2) Hunan Anhe Technology Co., Ltd. (“Hunan Ahne”); MILLMIX INC (“MILLMIX”); Topjet Technology Co., Ltd. (“Topjet”); Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. (“Moan Tech.”); Shenzhen Haichuang E-Commerce Trading Co., Ltd. (“Haichuang E-Comm.”); Zhuhai Xucai Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. (“Xucai E-Comm.”); and Shenzhen Xiyu Technology Co., Ltd. (“Xiyu Tech.”) (collectively, “Accused Infringers”). See 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). On September 20, 2024, Brother submitted its Ruling Request to the EOE Branch. Brother Email to EOE Branch, dated September 20, 2024. In its email, Brother (1) confirmed the counsel for Accused Infringers to whom the ruling request was concurrently sent (via certified mail and email to counsel of Accused Infringers2) and (2) confirmed that there is no confidential information in the materials linked. Id. The EOE Branch confirmed receipt of the Ruling Request as well as the documents associated with the same. EOE Branch Email to Brother and Accused Infringers, dated September 20, 2024. Due to the lack of a response from the Accused Infringers, on September 25, 2024, the EOE Branch, set forth, in an email to the Accused Infringers: The Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (the “EOE Branch”) has not received any responses to Brother’s email below (dated September 20, 2024), requesting an administrative ruling under 19 C.F.R. § 177. The EOE Branch conducts such ruling requests on an inter partes basis with the ruling requester and the other interested party to the question presented (such as a foreign manufacturer, exporter, or importer of the articles at issue). It is our understanding that, by way of your inclusion in Brother’s email below, you represent in some capacity one of the parties that has a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by this ruling request. Please confirm whether you represent such a party and that you have notified your client or company regarding this inter partes proceeding for its participation in the adjudication of the articles at issue. EOE Branch Email to Accused Infringers, dated September 25, 2024. In its email, the EOE Branch further provided: 2 The email was sent to Anhe Tech’s trademark counsel Evelyn Ufomadu; MILLMIX’s trademark counsel Kaitlyn Haven; Topjet’s trademark counsel Evelyn Ufomadu, its prior Part 177 counsel David Farnum, and three secondary correspondent emails provided to the USPTO; Moan Tech’s trademark counsel Victoria Velazquez Walker and a secondary correspondent email provided to USPTO; Haichuang E-Comm’s trademark counsel Victoria Velazquez Walker; Xucai E-Comm’s trademark counsel Evelyn Ufomadu; and Xiyu Tech’s trademark counsel Yanghao Liu Significantly, the EOE Branch notes that the Federal Circuit has held, with regard to service on foreign entities, that “service does not need to have been attempted under the Hague Convention before alternative service methods can be employed.” Nuance Communs. Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, alternative service is allowed “as deem[ed] appropriate,” which includes substitute service pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3), to include “service via e-mail.” Id. at 1237-40. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not cover the EOE Branch’s inter partes proceedings, the procedures provided for or considered permissible are instructive. Additionally, the EOE Branch provided as additional support for acceptable alternative service on foreign-located defendants: As an example, the Federal Circuit in Nuance cited Rio Props. Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, where the Ninth Circuit affirmed not only “court-ordered alternative service methods on a Costa Rican business entity under Rules 4(f)(3) and 4(h)(2)” but allowed “[i]n addition to service via e-mail . . . substitute service through the mail both to the U.S. office of the defendant's international courier and on the defendant's California based attorney.” Id. (citing Rio Props. Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016-19 (9th Cir. 2002)). Similarly, the U.S. Court of International Trade has held that its rules “permit[] service on a foreign-located defendant through its U.S.-located counsel.” United States v. Koehler, 2024 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 98, *12 (Ct. Int’l Trade, 2024). The EOE Branch stated in conclusion that, due to the foregoing reasons, Brother’s means of service (specifically, certified mail and email to counsel of Accused Infringers) constituted sufficient notice unless the EOE Branch heard otherwise from any individual copied on the email. Id. It further requested that counsel of the Accused Infringers respond to the message by close of business on Friday, September 27, 2024. Id. The EOE Branch further stated that “[i]n the absence of a response, the EOE Branch will take action as appropriate.” Id. None of the Accused Infringers responded to this communication. A. The Ar