H359753

H359753 April 17, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H359753 ACC CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition George C. Summerfield K&L GATES 1601 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 VIA EMAIL: george.summerfield@klgates.com RE: Request for Reconsideration of CBP HQ Ruling H351104; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1394; Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same Dear Mr. Summerfield: 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, based on a request for reconsideration from SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd., SilverStone Technology, Inc., Enermax Technology, Enermax USA, Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd., and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Apaltek” or “respondent”) submitted on March 20, 2026 (“Request for Reconsideration”), holding that we decline to modify or revoke CBP HQ Ruling H351104 (dated February 20, 2026), which found that certain redesigned liquid coolers for electronic components in computer (“articles at issue”) were subject to the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1394 (“the 1394 investigation” or “underlying investigation”) under section 337 of the Tariff of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. 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 is the result of a request for an administrative ruling under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that 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, Apaltek, the ruling requester and respondent 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, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). The parties were asked to identify in their submissions confidential information, including information subject to the administrative protective order in the underlying investigation, with [[red brackets]]. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 177.8. Consistent with the above, the parties are directed to identify information in this ruling that should be bracketed in red [[ ]] because it constitutes confidential information, as defined below, such that it should be redacted from the public version of this ruling that will be published in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 177.10. The parties are to contact the EOE Branch within ten (10) business days of the date of this ruling letter to identify such information with brackets. 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); see also 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 2 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. D856,941 (“the ’941 design patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”). Comm’n Op. at 2-3. The notice of investigation named SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan; SilverStone Technology, Inc. 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, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) issued a final initial determination, 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 848531, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommendation on Remedy and Bond (March 21, 2025) (“FID”), finding a violation of section 337. Id. at 3. Specifically, the CALJ 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 limited exclusion order (“1394 LEO”) and a cease and desist order (“CDO”). Id. at 36. In the 1394 LEO, the Commission ordered that “[c]ertain 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 

below. IV. INFRINGEMENT ANALYSIS Apaltek makes the following arguments in its Request for Reconsideration based on the PTO’s recent Intent to Issu? Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the ’450 Patent: In its Intent to Issu? Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the ‘450 Patent, the PTO stated that, “[i]f 164 of Tsai is seen as the cover member and 166 is the flow guidance plate, there is no housing on the flow guidance plate.” U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 90/015,394, Notice of Intent to Issu? Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Feb. 20, 2026) [] at 2. This reexamination decision is now part of the prosecution history for the patents at issue and is therefore part of the intrinsic evidence used to interpret claim scope for those patents. See, e.g., Northpeak Wireless, LLC v. 3COM Corp., 674 F. App’x 982, 986 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Courts often issue supplemental claim constructions to address pertinent developments that occur in concurrent reexamination proceedings. See, e.g., 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United States, 167 Fed. Cl. 719, 730 (2023), citing Cloud Farm Assocs., L.P. v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No. 10-502-LPS, 2015 WL 4730898 at *1, 9 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2015); and VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 2:13-cv- 00011-JRG, 2014 WL 807588, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2014). In this case, the PTO found that the configuration shown in the Tsai reference does not include a housing “disposed on” the flow guidance plate, as required by the claims of the patents at issue. See, e.g.,‘450 Patent, claim 1; and ‘446 Patent. *** The juxtaposition of the housing relative to the top cover (the only thing that could arguably correspond to the claimed “flow guidance plate”) in Respondents’ redesigned products is identical to the juxtaposition of elements 14 and 166 in the Tsai reference. Xiao Decl., ¶ 3. If Tsai’s housing 14 is not “disposed on” flow guidance plate 166, as required by the claims of the patents at issue, then the same would be true for the