H349920

H349920 March 11, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H349920 ACC CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. 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 AmerTac Holdings, Inc. (“AmerTac”) request for an administrative ruling, dated June 27, 2025, which included Exhibits A-G (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find that AmerTac has not met its burden to show that the powered cover plates incorporating the Gen 3 Redesign, 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 (“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 from CBP under 19 C.F.R. Part 177, which was conducted on an inter partes basis. The process involved the two 1 The 1124 GEO, issued June 11, 2020, 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”). parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by the ruling request: (1) your client, 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, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). AmerTac was not a named respondent in the underlying investigation at the Commission. I. BACKGROUND A. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1124 1. Procedural History at the ITC The Commission instituted the underlying investigation on July 23, 2018, based on a complaint filed by SnapPower. Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. ID 714335, Public Commission Opinion (Jul. 10, 2020) (“Comm’n Op.”) at 1 (citing 83 Fed. Reg. 34871-72 (Jul. 23, 2018)). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of the ’324 and ’430 patents, as well as U.S. Patent No. 9,882,361 (“the ’361 patent”) and U.S. Design Patent No. D819,426 (“the ’D426 patent”). Comm’n Op. at 3. The notice of investigation named thirteen respondents, two of which participated throughout the investigation, including in the hearing before the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), four of which settled, four of which defaulted, and three of which had the complaint withdrawn due to an inability to serve the complaint. Id. at 3-4. As noted above, AmerTac was not a named respondent in the underlying investigation. Lastly, the Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was named as a party in the investigation. Id. at 2. The ALJ granted SnapPower’s motions for summary determination on importation and infringement because the participating respondents did not contest these issues. Id. at 3-4 (internal citations omitted). On August 12, 2019, the ALJ issued her final initial determination finding a violation of Section 337. Id. at 6; Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. ID 687137, Public Final Initial Determination (August 12, 2019) (“FID”). Specifically, the ALJ 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 ’324, ’430, ’361, and ’D426 patents. Comm’n Op. at 4. On October 11, 2019, the Commission issued a notice in which it determined to review in part the FID. Id. at 6-7 (citing 84 Fed. Reg. 55985-96 (Oct. 18, 2019)). The Commission, in its review of the FID, adopted the FID’s finding of a violation of Section 337 as to the asserted patent claims. Id. at 7. On March 12, 2020, the Commission issued its notice determining not review the remand initial determination and requested written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. (citing 85 Fed. Reg. 21457-59 (Apr. 17, 2020)). On July 10, 2020, the Commission found a violation of Section 337 with regard to infringement of the asserted claims of the ’324, ’430, ’361, and ’D426 patents and determined that the appropriate remedy was a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to various respondents. Id. at 32. 2 In the general exclusion order, the Commission ordered that “power cover plates,” which are electrical receptacle covers with built-in functionally, that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of the ’324 patent; claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of the ’361 patent; claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of the ’430 patent; and the claim of the D’436 patent 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 patents, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law.” 1124 GEO at 2. On May 30, 2025, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(i), the Commission issued a seizure and forfeiture order against “American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc., 250 Boulder Drive, Breinigsville, PA 18031, or any affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or any of their successors or assigns.” See Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. 852374, Seizure and Forfeiture Order for American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc. (May 30, 2025) (Public) (“AmerTac SFO”). The SFO against AmerTac is the result of a previous exclusion based on the GEO from the underlying investigation with appropriate notice of that action. Accordingly, the Commission SFO directs that “[p]owered cover plates that are imported in violation of the general exclusion order issued in the above-captioned investigation is to be seized and forfeited to the United States, if imported by the following firm: American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc[.]” Id. 2. The Patents and Claims in the 1124 GEO The 1124 GEO 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 the ’324 patent; claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of the ’361 patent; claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of the ’430 patent; and the claim of the D’436 patent. 1124 GEO at 2. For purposes of this ruling request, SnapPower has only alleged that the articles at issue infringe claim 13 of the ’324 patent and claim 1 of the ’430 patent, so the discussion of the patents below is limited to these patent claims. Further, we note that, with regard to the ’430 patent, the burden of establishing noninfringement requires a showing that the articles at issue fail to meet a limitation of an independent cl

below. 3 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. 11 

IV. ANALYSIS AmerTac argues that the “Gen 3 design does not infringe any claim of … the ’430 [P]atent” because “[t]he Gen 3 design does not have an “insulated portion contacting a wall” as recited in independent claim 1 of the ‘430 Patent.” Ruling Request at 2.4 SnapPower disagrees and argues that “the Gen 3 [Design] meets each and every limitation of claim 1 of the ’430 Patent.” SnapPower Response at 8. 1. Issuance of a Ruling Is Not Contrary to the Sound Administration of the Customs and Related Laws As an initial matter, SnapPower argues that “AmerTac’s request for a ruling that its Gen 3 Product is not subject to the GEO can and should be refused on the basis that AmerTac comes to the Branch with unclean hands.” SnapPower Response at 4. Specifically, SnapPower argues that AmerTac allegedly “imported sufficient inventory of Gen 2” after the Issuance of CBP HQ Ruling H334472, which found that the Gen 2 Design was infringing and thus subject to the 1124 GEO. See SnapPower Response at 5. Under 19 C.F.R. § 177.7(a), “[n]o ruling letter will be issued with regard to transactions or questions which are essentially hypothetical in nature or in any instance in which it appears contrary to the sound administration of the Customs and related laws to do so.” 19 C.F.R. § 177.7(a). Additionally, it has long been the position of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (including its predecessor, the U.S. Customs Service) and the Treasury Department that, to further the sound administration of the Customs and related laws, “persons engaging in any transaction affected by those laws fully understand the consequences of that transaction prior to its consummation[.]” For this reason, CBP “will give full and careful consideration to written requests from importers and other interested parties f