H344595

H344595 February 20, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H344595 JW CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Lionel Lavenue Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800 Reston, VA 20190-6023 VIA EMAIL: Lionel.Lavenue@finnegan.com; Innoscience-177-Request@finnegan.com Smith.Brittingham@finnegan.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1366; Certain Semiconductor Devices, and Methods of Manufacturing Same and Products Containing the Same Dear Mr. Lavenue: 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 the request from Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. and Innoscience America, Inc. (collectively, “Innoscience”) for an administrative ruling (dated January 19, 2025), which included Exhibits 1 to 11 (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find thatthe articles at issue, as described below, are not subject to the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) issued in U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “ITC”) Investigation No. 337-TA-1366 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1366 investigation”), pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). 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 by operation of law modify or revoke any contrary CBP ruling or decision pertaining to Section 337 exclusion orders. This ruling letter is the result of a request for an administrative ruling from CBP under 19 C.F.R. Part 177that the EOE Branch conducted on an interpartesbasis. The proceeding involved the two parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by the ruling request: (1) your client, Innoscience, the ruling requester; and (2) Efficient Power Conversion Corporation of El Segundo, California (“EPC”), the complainant in the 1366 investigation. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). The parties were asked to clearly identify confidential information with [[red brackets]] in their submissions to CBP. See, e.g., EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated January 23, 2025; see also 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2 and 177.8. If there is additional information in this ruling letter not currently bracketed in red [[ ]] that either party believes constitutes confidential information and should be redacted from the published ruling, the parties are directed to contact CBP within ten (10) working days of the date of this ruling letter. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3). Please note that disclosure of information related to administrative rulings under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 is governed by, for example, 6 C.F.R. Part 5, 31 C.F.R. Part 1, 19 C.F.R. Part 103, and 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3). See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.10(a). In addition, CBP is guided by the laws relating to confidentiality and disclosure, such as the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552), the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1905), and the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a). A request for confidential treatment of information submitted in connection with a ruling requested under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 faces a strong presumption in favor of disclosure. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3). The person seeking this treatment must overcome that presumption with a request that is appropriately tailored and supported by evidence establishing that: the information in question is customarily kept private or closely-held and either that the government provided an express or implied assurance of confidentiality when the information was shared with the government or there were no express or implied indications at the time the information was submitted that the government would publicly disclose the information. See Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2366 (2019) (concluding that “[a]t least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is ‘confidential’ within the meaning of exemption 4.”); see also U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy (OIP): Step-by-Step Guide for Determining if Commercial or Financial Information Obtained from a Person is Confidential Under Exemption 4 of the FOIA (updated 10/7/2019); and OIP Guidance: Exemption 4 after the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media (updated 10/4/2019). I. BACKGROUND A. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1366 The Commission instituted the 1366 investigation on July 3, 2023, based upon a complaint filed on behalf of EPC. Certain Semiconductor Devices, and Methods of Manufacturing Same and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1366, EDIS Doc. No. 838650, Commission Opinion (Public) at 3 (December 5, 2024) (“Comm’n Op.”), citing 88 Fed. Reg. 42756-77 (July 3, 2023). The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices, and methods of manufacturing same and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,350,294 (“the ‘294 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,404,508 (“the ‘508 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,748,347 (“the ‘347 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,312,335 (“the ‘335 patent”). Certain Semiconductor Devices, 2 and Methods of Manufacturing Same and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337- TA-1366, EDIS Doc. No. 828317, Final Initial Determination (Public) at 2 (August 5, 2024) (“FID”). EPC supplemented the complaint on June 14 and 15, 2023. Id. The Commission instituted the investigation to determine: [W]hether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3 of the ‘294 patent; claim 1 of the ‘508 patent; claims 1-3 of the ‘347 patent; and claims 1-7 of the ‘335 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. Id. citing 88 Fed. Reg. 42756 (July 3, 2023). Further, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.10(b)(1): [T]he plain language description of the accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “GaN-on-Si semiconductor devices, GaN FETs, GaN high electron mobility transistors, and products incorporating such transistors, which are bidirectional transistors, multichip modules, and demo boards.” Id. The Notice of Investigation named Innoscience as respondent. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also a party to the investigation. Id. On July 5, 2024, the presiding Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) issued the FID finding, inter alia, a violation of Section 337 as to claims 2 and 3 of the ‘294 patent, but no violation as to claim 1 of the ‘294 patent and claim 1 of the ‘508 patent. Comm’n Op. at 4. The FID included the CALJ’s recommended determination on remedy and bonding (“RD”). Id. at 5. The RD recommended that issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against the Innoscience should the Commission find a violation. Id. (citation omitted). The RD also recommended imposing a bond in the amount of five percent (5%) of the entered value for infringing products entered during the Presidential review period. Id. On September 5, 2024, the Commission determined to review the FID in in its entirety. Id. at 6. On review, inter alia, the Commission affirm