H349919

H349919 March 11, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H349919 ACC CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Michael T. Griggs Boyle Frederickson 840 North Plankinton Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 VIA EMAIL: mtg@boylefred.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1124; Certain Powered Cover Plates Dear Mr. Griggs: 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 AmerTac Holdings, Inc. (“AmerTac”) for an administrative ruling, dated June 20, 2025, which included Exhibits A-H (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find that the AmerTac’s powered cover plates incorporating the Universal design, as described below, are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order (“GEO”) issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) in Investigation No. 337-TA- 1124 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1124 investigation”), pursuant to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”).1 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 any contrary CBP ruling or decision pertaining to section 337 exclusion orders by operation of law. This ruling letter is the result of a request for an administrative ruling under 19 C.F.R. Part 177, which CBP 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, 1 The GEO issued in the 1124 investigation, inter alia, prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumption of powered cover plates that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,871,324 (“the ’324 patent”); claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,882,361 (“the ’361 patent”); claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,430 (“the ’430 patent”); and the claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D819,426 (“the ’D426 patent”) (collectively, “the asserted patents”). Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. ID 712488, General Exclusion Order (June 11, 2020) at 2 (“1124 GEO”). Amertac, the ruling requester and importer of the articles at issue; and (2) SnapRays LLC dba SnapPower (“SnapPower”), the complainant and patent owner in the 1124 investigation. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). AmerTac was not a named respondent in the underlying investigation at the Commission. I. 19 C.F.R. Part 177 Ruling Request Procedural History On June 20, 2025, AmerTac submitted the Ruling Request to the EOE Branch via email. AmerTac requested “a ruling letter that certain cover plates, i.e., the Universal design, manufactured by AmerTac Holdings, Inc. [] are outside the scope of and not subject to the General Exclusion Order (‘GEO’) issued on June 11, 2020, by the U.S. International Trade Commission [] in Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124[.]” Ruling Request at 1. On June 20, 2025, AmerTac also confirmed via email to the EOE Branch that it had transmitted the Ruling Request to SnapPower’s counsel. On July 3, 2025, the EOE Branch had an initial conference call with SnapPower and AmerTac, during which both parties agreed to conduct this proceeding on an inter partes basis as administered by the EOE Branch. During this initial call, the EOE Branch and the parties discussed the ground rules and scheduling for the inter partes proceeding. On July 8, 2025, AmerTac sent a proposed procedural schedule to the EOE Branch via email and SnapPower did not oppose it. see SnapPower Email to EOE Branch dated July 8, 2025 (“As to the Universal Design, SnapPower does not oppose the proposed schedule below and has sent a proposal to American Tack specific to that product.”). On July 8, 2025, the parties also provided an executed non-disclosure agreement to the EOE Branch. AmerTac Email to EOE Branch (dated July 8, 2025). On July 9, 2025, SnapPower sent an email to the EOE Branch indicating that “SnapPower does not intend to argue that the Universal Design … infringes the GEO patents” but that it does “intend[] to oppose the Ruling Request for the Universal Design to the extent necessary to preserve SnapPower’s rights to oppose any remedy AmerTac might seek for the Universal Design, including for example, the right to oppose any certification provision not agreed to by SnapPower and the right to oppose any modification of the seizure and forfeiture order issued by the ITC against AmerTac.” SnapPower Email to EOE Branch (dated July 9, 2025). On July 11, 2025, the EOE Branch had a conference call with the parties to discuss, inter alia, SnapPower’s enforcement concerns and the proper administration of this inter partes proceeding involving the powered cover plates with the Universal design. On July 14, 2025, after considering the parties’ positions, the EOE Branch sent the following response to the parties: “The EOE Branch believes that an immediate ruling is appropriate for the Universal products with the understanding that (1) such a ruling is conditioned on the drafting and submission of a certification; and (2) SnapPower has an opportunity to participate in the process for such a certification.” See EOE Branch Email to Parties (dated July 14, 2025). Further, the EOE Branch invited SnapPower to “provide a submission … noting its enforcement concerns and identifying how a certification, and the specific representations it would like to have included in such a certification, can address those concerns.” Id. On July 24, 2025, SnapPower filed a submission (“SnapPower Submission”) addressing the questions raised in the EOE Branch’s July 14, 2025, email to the parties. 2 II. The Articles at Issue The articles at issue in the Ruling Request are powered cover plates that incorporate AmerTac’s Universal design. Ruling Request at 1. Specifically, the powered cover plates that incorporate AmerTac’s Universal design (i.e., the products for which AmerTac requested this ruling) “include[] wires – not prongs or clips – that must be manually connected to the outlet body to supply power ot the cover plate” as shown below: Ruling Request at 13. Additionally, the powered cover plates that incorporate AmerTac’s Universal design “include[] a rectangular slit along the base of the face plate, rather than three space-part arc-shaped apertures” as shown below: 3 Id. at 12-13. III. The Articles at Issue Are Not Subject to Exclusion From Entry Based on The 1124 GEO In the SnapPower submission, counsel for SnapPower confirmed that it “does not intend to argue that the Universal design [] infringes the GEO Patents.” See SnapPower Submission at 1. As SnapPower does not contend that the articles at issue are infringing, like the ITC, we find no reason to conclude otherwise. See Certain Robotic Floor Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1252, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding, EDIS Doc. ID 783814 (Public) (October 7, 2022) at 10, FN 16 (“Given that [complainant] did not dispute that the [relevant] products in this category are non-infringing, this Initial Determination finds no reason to conclude otherwise.”) (emphasis added), aff’d, Notice of Commission Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337, EDIS Doc. ID 792838 (Public) (March 21, 2023) (“All findings in the FID that are not inconsistent with the Commission’s determination are affirmed.”). Accordingly, the EOE Branch finds that the articles at issue are not subject to the GEO issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1124. See Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008) (“In our adversary system, in b

Given that SnapPower stated that it “does not intend to argue that the Universal design [] infringes the GEO Patents”, see SnapPower Submission at 1, we find that the articles at issue are not subject to the GEO issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1124. Entry for consumption into the United States, entry for consumption from a foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption of the articles at issue, however, is conditioned on the drafting and submission of a certification, as provided for in this ruling. The parties were asked to clearly identify confidential information, including information subject to the administrative protective order in the underlying investigation, with [[red brackets]] in all of their submissions to CBP. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 177.8. AmerTac has not specifically identified any information in the Ruling Request as confidential information. As such, unless either party contacts the EOE Branch within ten (10) working days from the date of this ruling 6 

letter to indicate its belief that this ruling letter contains confidential information, the ruling letter will be published, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1625, as implemented by 19 C.F.R. Part 177, without any redactions. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3). The decision above is limited to the specific facts set forth herein. If articles differ in any material way from the articles at issue described above, or if future importations vary from the facts stipulated to herein, this decision shall not be binding on CBP as provided for in 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2(b)(1), (2), (4), and 177.9(b)(1) and (2). 
Sincerely,
 Alaina van Horn Chief, Intellectual Property Enforcement Branch/ Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch CC: Mr. Elliott J. Williams Stoel Rives LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 elliott.williams@stoel.com 7