H359443

H359443 April 15, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H359443 JW CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. George C. Summerfield K&L Gates VIA EMAIL: george.summerfield@klgates.com; Apaltek-Silverstone1394@klgates.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1394; Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same Dear Mr. Summerfield: 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, dated January 20, 2026, from SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd. and SilverStone Technology, Inc.; Enermax Technology; Enermax USA; and Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd.; and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Apaltek” or “ruling requester”) for an administrative ruling, which included three attachments (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find that the articles at issue, as described below, are subject to the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) issued in U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “ITC”) Investigation No. 337-TA-1394 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1394 investigation”), pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). We 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 from CBP 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, Apaltek, the ruling requester and respondents in the 1394 investigation; and (2) Cooler Master Co., Ltd.; CMI USA, Inc.; and CMC Great USA, Inc. (collectively, “Cooler Master”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1394 investigation. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). The parties were asked to clearly identify confidential information with [[red brackets]] in their submissions to CBP. See, e.g., EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated February 5, 2026; see also 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2 and 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 directed to contact CBP 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, 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); 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-1394 1. Procedural History at the ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1394 on March 21, 2024, based on a complaint filed by Cooler Master. Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID 858641, Public Commission Opinion (August 5, 2025) (“Comm’n Op.”) at 2 (citing 89 Fed. Reg. 20247-48 (Mar. 21, 2024)). The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1-3 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,509,446 (“the ’446 patent”); claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,061,450 (“the ’450 patent”); and the claim of U.S. Patent No. D856,9411 (“the ’941 design patent”). Id. at 2-3. The notice of investigation named SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan; SilverStone Technology, Inc. 1 The ’941 design patent was later terminated from the investigation by withdrawal of the complaint. Comm’n Op. at 3. 2 of Chino, California; Enermax Technology Corp. of Taiwan; Enermax USA of Chino, California; Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. of China; and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. of China as respondents. Id. at 3. The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was not a party in the investigation. Id. On March 21, 2025, a final initial determination issued finding a violation of section 337. Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components iin Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID 848531, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommendation on Remedy and Bond (March 21, 2025) (“FID”) at 3. Specifically, it was 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 ’446 patent and the ’450 patent. Id. The Commission determined to review in part the FID and requested submissions responding to the Commission’s questions on review and remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. at 3-4 (citing 90 Fed. Reg. 22755-56). The Commission, in its review of the FID, found a violation of section 337 as to the ’446 patent and the ’450 patent, and determined that the appropriate remedy was a LEO and a cease and desist order. Id. at 36. In the LEO, the Commission ordered: Certain liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more of claims 1-3 and 14 of the ’446 patent or claims 1-4 of the ’450 patent and are manufactured abroad by, or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of Respondents[2] 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, exc

below. IV. INFRINGEMENT ANALYSIS The infringement question related to the articles at issue is focused on claim 1 of the ‘446 patent. There is no dispute that if the articles at issue do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘446 patent, then the articles at issue also do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘450 patent. See e.g., Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at fn. 1. Thus, the focus of the infringement analysis will be on the following bolded limitations of claim 17 of the ‘446 patent, which Apaltek contends are missing from at least one or more of the articles at issue: A cooling apparatus, comprising: a base plate configured to dissipate heat and including a heat exchange unit; a cover member coupled to the base plate and at least partially enclosing the heat exchange unit, the cover member and the base plate defining a heat exchange chamber that includes the heat exchange unit, the cover member defining a first opening and a second opening, and the cover member being coupled to the base plate such that at least one of the first and second openings is above the heat exchange unit; a flow guidance plate disposed on a top surface of the cover member and including a bottom surface facing the top surface of the cover member, wherein the flow guidance plate at least partially defines a first cavity and a second cavity separated from the first cavity, and the first cavity and the second cavity are defined on the bottom surface of the flow guidance plate; and a housing disposed on the flow guidance plate. 7 Of the asserted claims of the ‘446 patent, claim 1 is the only independent claim and the remaining asserted claims of the ‘446 patent depend from claim 1. Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“One who does not infringe an independent claim cannot infringe a claim dependent on (and thus containing all the limitations of) that claim.”) (internal citation omitted). 13 

FID at 7 citing ‘446 patent, claim 1 (emphas