H345153

H345153 February 20, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H345153 ACC CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Stephanie L. Roberts Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 VIA EMAIL: stephanie.roberts@morganlewis.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1369; Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof Dear Ms. Roberts: 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 ruling letter, based on a request from Blue Air FSE, LLC and Bluenix Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Bluenix” or “Respondents”) submitted on February 18, 2025 (“Ruling Request”), holding that the redesigned icemaking machines, as described below, are not subject to the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1369 (“the 1369 investigation”) under Section 337 of the Tariff of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. 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 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 clients, Blue Air FSE, LLC and Bluenix Co., Ltd., the ruling requester and respondents in the 1369 investigation; and (2) Hoshizaki America, Inc. (“Hoshizaki”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1369 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 in red [[ ]] because it constitutes confidential information, as defined below, such that it should be redacted from the public version of this 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 letter to identify such information with brackets. 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-1369 1. Procedural History At The ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1369 on August 16, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Hoshizaki America, Inc. of Peachtree City, Georgia. Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1369, EDIS Doc. ID 844570, Commission Opinion (February 27, 2025) (Public) (“Comm’n Op.”) at 3 (citing 88 Fed. Reg. 55721–22 (Aug. 16, 2023)). The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1–3, 6–8, and 11–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,107,538 (“the ’538 patent”); claims 1– 4, 10–13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,113,785 (“the ’785 patent”); and claims 1, 2, 5–9, and 11– 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,458,692 (“the ’692 patent”). Comm’n Op. at 3. The notice of 2 investigation named Bluenix as respondent. Id. at 3. The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was named as a party in the investigation but ceased participating in the investigation on October 13, 2023. Id. On January August 30, 2024, the presiding Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) issued a final initial determination, Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1369, EDIS Doc. ID 832206, Final Initial Determination (August 30, 2024) (Public) (“FID”), finding a violation of section 337. Specifically, the CALJ determined that a violation of section 337 occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of the accused products due to infringement of certain claims of the ’539 patent, the ’785 patent, and the ’692 patent. Id. On November 25, 2024, the Commission determined to review in part the FID issued by the CALJ. Comm’n Op. at 2 (citing 89 Fed. Reg. 95233–35 (Dec. 2, 2024)). The Commission, in its review of the FID, found a violation of section 337 as to the ’539 patent, the ’785 patent, and the ’692 patent, and determined that the appropriate remedy was a limited exclusion order directed to Bluenix. Id. at 2. In the limited exclusion order, the Commission ordered that “icemaking machines and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 19 of [the ’538 patent], claims 1 and 10 of [the ’785 patent], and claims 1, 5, and 9 of [the ’692 patent], and are manufactured abroad by, or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of [Bluenix] or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or its successors or assigns, are excluded from entry for consumption into the United States, entry for consumption from a foreign-trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining terms of the Asserted Patents, except under license from, or with the permission of, the patent owner or as provided by law.” Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1369, EDIS Doc. ID 843470, Limited Exclusion Order (February 13, 2025) at 2, ¶ 1 (“1369 LEO”). The Commission further defined the articles covered by the limited exclusion order as “automatic icemaking machines, evaporators, and evaporator plate assemblies.” Id. at 2, ¶ 2. 2. The Patents And Claims In The 1369 LEO The 1369 LEO prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumptio

A. Admissibility Question Regarding Literal Infringement of Claim 1 From The ’538 Patent BlueNix first presents an argument that the Redesigned Products do not infringe claim 1 from the ’538 patent because “there are no dimples in the Redesigned Products.” Ruling Request at 65. Specifically, BlueNix argues that the Redesigned Products do not have the claimed dimples because an article “having an evaporator plate without slight ‘depressions’ or ‘indentations’ cannot meet the requirements of the claims.” Id. at 68. In support of this non-infringement theory, BlueNix provides the following images that compare the legacy and Redesigned Product: Accused Product Redesigned Product [[ ]] Front View (attached as Exhibit M) 13 

 [[ ]] Cross-Section View (attached as Exhibit M) Id. at 68-69. BlueNix further argues that “unlike the Accused Products, the Redesign Products [] have no dimples and the tubing coil is situated within protrusions that extend in the opposite direction, i.e., away from the midpoint of the evaporator plate assembly.” Id. at 69. Hoshizaki disagrees and argues that the Redesigned Products infringe claim 1 of the ’528 patent because “respondent fail[s] to show that the redesign product no longer contain dimples[.]” Response at 9. Specifically, Hoshizaki argues that “Respondent[] [has] not adequately explained why the flat portions between the outward protrusions of the tubing coil do not constitute dimples as disclosed in claim 1 of the ’538 Patent.” Furthermore, Hoshizaki takes the position that “the flat portions of the evaporator plates are depressed compared to the portions of the plate that protrude where the tubing coil is located.” Hoshizaki Response at 10. Without entirely abandoning its non-infringement theory above, BlueNix additionally argues that, assuming arguendo the flat portions of the evaporator plates are the claimed dimples, the articles at issue still “do not infringe the ’538 Patent” because “there is no tubing coil 30 between the sec