H344639

H344639 February 20, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H344639 ACC CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Joseph P. Reid Perkins Cole LLP 11452 El Camino Real Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 VIA EMAIL: JReid@perkinscoie.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1118; Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof Dear Mr. Reid: Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch, Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issues this administrative ruling, based on a request from Nortek, Inc., Nice North America LLC f/k/a Nortek Security & Control LLC and GTO Access Systems, LLC (“Nice” or “Nortek”), regarding (i) certain modified garage door operators (“GDOs”), as described below, and (ii) other GDOs that Nice argues have the same functionality as a legacy product found not to infringe during the underlying investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”), ITC Investigation No. 337-TA- 1118 (“the 1118 investigation”), resulting in the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) under Section 337 of the Tariff 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 is the result of a request for an administrative ruling (“Ruling Request”) under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that was conducted on an inter partes basis. The proceeding involved the two parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by the Ruling Request: (1) your client, Nice, the ruling requester and respondent in the 1118 investigation; and (2) The Chamberlain Group, Inc. (“Chamberlain”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1118 investigation. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). The parties were asked to identify in their submissions confidential information, including information subject to the administrative protective order in the underlying investigation, with [[red brackets]]. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 177.8. Consistent with the above, the parties are directed to identify information in this ruling that should be bracketed because it constitutes confidential information, as defined below, and therefore should be redacted from the public version of the ruling that will be published in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 177.10. The parties are to contact the EOE Branch within ten (10) business days of the date of this ruling to identify such information with the brackets referenced above. 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); see also 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-1118 1. Procedural History At The ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1118 on June 11, 2018, based on a complaint filed by Chamberlain. Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components 2 Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118 (Remand), EDIS Doc. ID 839790, Commission Opinion (Public) (Dec. 20, 2024) (“Remand Comm’n Op.”) at 2 (citing 83 Fed. Reg. 27020-21 (June 11, 2018)). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged a violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,587,404 (“the ?404 patent”), 7,755,223 (“the ?223 patent”) and 6,741,052 (“the ?052 patent”). Remand Comm’n Op. at 2. The notice of investigation named Nortek as the sole respondent. Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 646899, Institution of Investigation (Public) (June 6, 2018). The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was not named as a party in the investigation. Remand Comm’n Op. at 2. On November 25, 2019, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued two initial determinations. Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 697391, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (Public) (Nov. 25, 2025) (“FID”); see also Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 697386, Initial Determination Granting Chamberlain Group, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Determination That It Has Satisfied the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement (Public) (Nov. 25, 2025) (“Order No. 38”). First, the ALJ issued Order No. 38, granting Chamberlain’s motion for summary determination that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry (“DI”) requirement for all three asserted patents. See Order No. 38 at 23. Second, the ALJ issued a final initial determination finding no violation of Section 337. See FID at 287. Specifically, the ALJ determined that no violation of Section 337 occurred because “(i) Nortek did not infringe claim 11 of the ?404 patent; (ii) Nortek did not infringe the ’223 patent and Chamberlain did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for that patent; and (iii) claim 1 of the ?052 patent is invalid as obvious.” Remand Comm’n Op. at 2. On April 22, 2020, the Commission, in reviewing the FID, adopted the FID’s no-violation finding for the ?404 patent and took no position on the FID’s finding that Nortek failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 11 of the ?404 patent is abstract and patent ineligible under section 101. Remand Comm’n Op. at 3; see also Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 708681, Commission Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 as Two Patents, Remanding for Further Proceedings as to One Patent (Public) (April 22, 2020) (“Comm’n Notice”) at 3. However, the Commission vacated Order No. 38 and remanded the DI economic prong to the ALJ for further proceedings regarding the ’223 pat

A. Admissibility Of The Redesigned GDOs For Purposes Of Section 337 4 Although claim construction is a question of law, the consideration of extrinsic evidence may constitute a subsidiary finding of fact. Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841, 190 L. Ed. 2d at 733. 18 

 1. The Federal Circuit and Commission’s Understanding of the Scope of the ’404 Patent and The Direct Infringement Question Presented As an initial point, the Federal Circuit’s understanding and description of the ’404 patent from above is instructive on the question whether the Redesigned GDOs are covered by claim 11. To repeat, the Federal Circuit described the invention in the ’404 patent as follows: The ’404 patent, entitled “Movable Barrier Operator and Transmitter with Imminent Barrier Moving Notification,” teaches a movable barrier operator that plays a sound — for instance, an alarm — indicating that a barrier is imminently about to move, but only does so when the barrier is operated remotely. The sound is not played when the movable barrier operator is operated locally. The system determines whether to sound the imminent barrier warning by distinguishing between whether it received a signal from a remote source, such as a smartphone, or from a local source, such as a button on a garage wall. Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10273 at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (emphasis and annotations added). Significantly, the Federal Circuit has made clear in the passage above that the ’404 patent is directed to “a movable barrier operator that plays a sound [when the] barrier is imminently about to move, but only … when the barrier is operated remotely.” Id. (emphasis added). Additionally, for a barrier claimed by the ’404 patent, “the sound is not played when the movable barrier operator is operated locally” because, as noted above, a system that practices the claimed invention “only does so when the barrier is operated remotely.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, under the Federal Circuit’