H347983

H347983 February 5, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H347983 WMW CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Paul Brinkman Kirkland & Ellis LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004 VIA EMAIL: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1370; Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same Dear Mr. Brinkman: 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 administrative ruling in response to the request from Delta Electronics, Inc., Delta Electronics (Americas), Ltd., DET Logistics (USA) Corporation, Cyntec Co., Ltd., Quanta Computer Inc., and Quanta Computer USA, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”), dated April 2, 2025 (“Ruling Request”). We find that, due to the lack of opposition from Vicor Corporation, (“Vicor”), as detailed below, Respondents have established through this inter partes proceeding that the redesigned power converter devices, namely the Delta Single-sided Product (product number S54SS4P180PMDCF) and the Cyntec Single-sided Products (product numbers MPN541383-PVP, MPN541383-PV and MPN5413125- PV) (“articles at issue”), as described in this ruling, are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1370 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1370 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 modified pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 1 The LEO issued in the 1370 investigation bars the unlicensed entry for consumption into the United States of power convert modules and computing systems, as described in ¶ 2 of the LEO, that infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,166,481 (“the ’481 patent”) or claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,761 (“the ’761 patent”), and are manufactured or imported by or on behalf of Delta Electronics, Inc., Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd., DET Logistics (USA) Corporation, Cyntec Co., Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. (d/b/a, Foxconn Technology Group), Foxconn Industrial Internet Co. Ltd., FII USA Inc. (a/k/a Foxconn Industrial, Internet USA Inc.), Ingrasys Technology Inc., 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 administrative ruling is the result of a request under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that the EOE Branch 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, Respondents, the ruling requester; and (2) Vicor, the complainant from the underlying investigation and owner of the asserted patents. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). On April 2, 2025, Respondents submitted their Ruling Request to the EOE Branch with a copy sent to Vicor. Respondents Email to EOE Branch, dated April 2, 2025. The EOE Branch replied the next day to confirm receipt of the ruling request and establish a preliminary meeting with both parties to discuss the procedural schedule. EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated April 3, 2025. On April 11, 2025, a preliminary meeting was held with both parties to discuss the ruling request, during which Vicor requested additional information in order to provide its response to the ruling request. Additionally, both parties were asked to propose a procedural schedule and present it to the EOE Branch. On April 17, 2025, Respondents sent an email notifying the EOE Branch that the parties were unable to agree on a procedural schedule. Respondents Email to EOE Branch, dated April 17, 2025. On April 18, 2025, the EOE Branch asked Vicor if it had received the information and samples it felt were necessary to respond to the ruling request. EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated April 18, 2025. Having not received a response, on April 24, 2025, the EOE Branch sent an email to the parties establishing a procedural schedule for this inter partes proceeding. EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated April 24, 2025. Later that same day, Vicor responded to the EOE Branch noting that a determination whether it had the information necessary to take a position in this proceeding was dependent on review by its technical expert. Vicor Email to EOE Branch, dated April 24, 2025. Vicor also noted that it had disclosed an expert to Respondents pursuant to the terms of the parties’ non- disclosure agreement (“NDA”) and were awaiting expiration of the 4-day notice period provided for in the NDA to share any Delta confidential business information exchanged thereunder. Id. Lastly, Vicor confirmed that, as of that time, it had not yet received samples. Id. Respondents replied with confirmation that Vicor could immediately provide the information to its technical expert. Respondents Email to Parties, dated April 24, 2025. On April 28, 2025, Respondents confirmed that a sample would arrive at the office of Vicor’s counsel the following day. Respondents Email to Parties, dated April 28, 2025. On May 9, 2025, consistent with the established procedural schedule, Vicor provided its responsive submission in the form of an email in which it did not contend that the Delta Single- sided Product and Cyntec Single-sided Products, the articles at issue in this proceeding, are subject to the 1370 LEO. Ingrasys Technology USA Inc., Quanta Computer Inc., and Quanta Computer USA Inc. See Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1370, EDIS Doc. ID 843485, Limited Exclusion Order (February 13, 2025) (“1370 LEO”). A. Parties’ Arguments and EOE Branch Position Respondents requested a ruling that “the Delta or Cyntec Single-Sided Products are outside the scope of the LEO” Ruling Request at 1. According to Respondents, “the covered products [as defined by the exclusion order] are ‘power converter modules used in data center server, artificial intelligence and cloud computing systems, to power artificial intelligence (‘AI’) accelerators, tensor processing units (‘TPU’), graphical processing units (‘GPU’) and central processing units (‘CPU’), and computing systems containing the same’ ‘that infringe one or more of claim 1 of [the ’481 patent] and claims 1-7 of [the ’761 patent].’” Ruling Request at 8. As part of the findings in the underlying investigation that Respondents reference, “the Commission affirmed the Final ID’s finding that no Delta Accused Products infringed any claim of the ’481 patent” and “note[d] that the parties stipulated to a list of products outside the scope of any remedial order.” Id. Specifically, “[t]he Commission found that ‘neither of the redesigned products [at issue in the underlying investigation] (U50SU4P1A2PMDAF and MPN541382-PVA1) infringe[d] any asserted claim in this investigation.’” Ruling Request at 9 (quoting Comm’n Op. at 114). “Both products have all of their power semiconductor devices mounted on their top surface.” Id. (citing RX-0812C.0002 and RX-0807C.0001-02). Similarly, “[t]he Commission affirmed the Final ID’s determination that the Delta Accused Modules (including the U50SU4P162PMDRF) and the Delta redesign U50SU4P1A2PMDAF did not infringe the ’481 patent.” Id. at 10 (citing Comm’n Op. 13-14, 20, 126). And lastly, “[t]he Cyntec MPN541382-PVA1 redesign was also found not to infringe any asserted claim in the Final ID.” Id. at 12 (citing Comm’n Op. at 114). Based on the above, Respondents argue that “[t]he Delta and Cyntec Single-Sided Products [at issue in this inter part