H359213

H359213 May 15, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H359213 RPR CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Bryan Nese Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1101 VIA EMAIL: Bnese@mayerbrown.com; STIIIZY-177@mayerbrown.com; afs_stiiizy-pax_itc1392@afslaw.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1392; Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same Dear Mr. Nese, Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (“EOE Branch” or “Branch”), Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issues this ruling letter holding that STIIIZY IP LLC f/k/a STIIIZY, LLC and STIIIZY Inc. d/b/a Shryne Group Inc. (collectively, “STIIIZY” or “Ruling Requester”) has met its burden to show that its redesigned vaping cartridges are not subject to the limited exclusion order (“LEO” or “1392 LEO”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1392 (“the 1392 investigation”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Although STIIIZY requested the Branch to also rule on whether “the components associated with the Post-FD Redesigned Cartridge such as the vaporizer battery” are non-infringing, the Branch will issue a separate ruling (“STIIIZY II”) on these components by June 12, 2026. See STIIIZY Ruling Request at 38. 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 (“STIIIZY I”) is the result of a request for an administrative ruling under 19 C.F.R. Part 177, which 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, STIIIZY, the Ruling Requester and a respondent in the 1392 investigation; and (2) 2 PAX Labs, Inc. (“PAX”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1392 investigation (collectively, the “parties”). See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). 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 their submissions. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 177.8. If there is additional information in this ruling letter not currently bracketed in red [[ ]] that either party believes constitutes confidential information, and should be redacted from the published ruling, the parties are asked to contact the EOE Branch within ten (10) working days of the date of this ruling letter. 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, 588 U.S. 427, 440 (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); and 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-1392 1. Procedural History at the ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1392 on March 6, 2024 based on a complaint filed by PAX. Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 871272, Public Commission Opinion (February 3, 2026) (“Comm’n Op.”) at 3. The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,369,756 (“the ’756 patent”); 11,369,757 (“the ’757 patent”); 11,766,527 (“the ’527 patent”); and 11,759,580 (“the ’580 patent”) 3 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Id. at 2. The complaint also alleged that the accused products were “certain oil vaporizing devices, components thereof, and products containing the same” (collectively, “Accused Products”). Id. at 3. The complaint further alleged that the respondents “import into the United States, sell for importation into the United States, and/or sell in the United States after importation Accused Products that infringe, directly or indirectly, one or more claims” of the Asserted Patents. Complaint at 1, ¶ 2. The notice of institution named STIIIZY and ALD Group Limited and ALD (Hong Kong) Holding Limited (collectively, “ALD”) as respondents (collectively, “Respondents”). Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 815209, Notice of Institution of Investigation (February 29, 2024) (“notice of institution”) at 2-3. The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigation (“OUII”) was not a party to the investigation. Comm’n Op. at 3. Through various orders, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to certain claims of the Asserted Patents. Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 825702, Order No. 11 (July 11, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (July 30, 2024); and Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 831665, Order No. 20 (Sept. 6, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. ID. 834179, (Oct. 7, 2024). Then, after an evidentiary hearing, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) terminated the investigation with respect to additional claims. Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 836794, Order No. 32 (Nov. 8, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. Id. 838932 (Dec. 10, 2024). At some point during the investigation, the respondents introduced several redesigned products, including the STIIIZY-1G-REDESIGN(C), STIIIZY-ORIG-1G-REDESIGN, and STIIIZY-AIO-REDESIGN (collectively, “STIIIZY Redesigned Products”). Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 845893, Final Initial Determination (“FID”) (March 6, 2025), reviewed in part by Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. Id. 851435 (May 16, 202

STIIIZY argues that its Post-FD Redesigned Cartridges do not infringe the asserted claims of the ’580 patent, ’756 patent, ’757 patent, and ’527 patent. STIIIZY Ruling Request at 1. We consider whether STIIIZY has met its burden of proof with respect to each of the Asserted Patents in turn. 1. The Asserted Patents The ’580 patent (claims 1, 6-8, and 10) a. “an extension feature having a cylindrical shape, wherein the extension feature extends from the proximal side of the distal member” (limitations 580.1.g.iv and 580.8.h.iv) According to STIIIZY, the Post-FD Redesigned Cartridges do not meet the following limitation of claims 1 and 8 of the ’580 patent: “an extension feature having a cylindrical shape, wherein the extension feature extends from the proximal side of the distal member.” STIIIZY Ruling Request at 20, 22-23, and 28. Specifically, STIIIZY argues that the “[[ ]]” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1 ¶¶ 38-40; Ex. 2 ¶ 17) (emphasis in original). In fact, STIIIZY maintains that it “has [[ ]]” altogether and provides the following CAD drawings comparing the ITC Products to the Post-FD Redesigned Cartridges: [[ 
 25 ]] STIIIZY Ruling Request at 23. According to STIIIZY, the ALJ ruled that the above triangular-shaped extension feature (i.e., area inside the solid red rectangle) in the ITC Products satisfied the “extension feature having a cylindrical shape” limitation under the doctrine of equivalents and that this finding was adopted by the Commission. Id. at 22. STIIIZY claims that it has avoided infringement in the Post-FD Redesigned Cartridges by removing this extension feature in its entirety. Id. at 20. As such, STIIIZY maintains that “the Post-FD Redesigned Cartridge cannot infringe because [[ ]], required by claim limitations 580.1.g.iv and 580.1.g.v.” Id. at 23 (emphasis in original). PAX does not address whether STIIIZY’s Post-FD Redesigned Cartridges practice this limitation. See PAX Response; PAX Sur-Reply; PAX Oral Discussion Presentation; and PAX Post Oral D