OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H349919 ACC
Michael T. Griggs
Boyle Frederickson
840 North Plankinton Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53203
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
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 both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance
and on appeal, we follow the principle of party presentation. That is, we rely on the parties to
4
frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties
present.”) (emphasis added); see also Astellas Pharma, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS
23669, at *12 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“It is for the parties—not the court—to chart the course of the
litigation.”).
A. Certification
Despite this ruling’s determination that the articles at issue are not subject to the 1124
GEO, the EOE Branch acknowledges SnapPower’s concerns regarding the possibility of
circumvention. See SnapPower Submission. Thus, these concerns warrant conditioning entry for
consumption of the articles at issue into the United States on the drafting and submission of a
certification pursuant to paragraph 3 of the 1124 GEO. In the 1124 GEO, the Commission
directed that “[a]t the discretion of CBP and pursuant to the procedures it establishes, persons
seeking to import articles that are potentially subject to this Order may be required to certify that
they are familiar with the terms of this Order, that they have made appropriate inquiry, and
thereupon state that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the products being imported are
not excluded from entry under paragraph 1 of this Order. At its discretion, CBP may require
persons who have provided the certification described in this paragraph to furnish such records
or analyses as are necessary to substantiate the certification.” Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv.
No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. ID 712488, General Exclusion Order (June 11, 2020) at ¶ 3.
Significantly, an importer’s ability to enter for consumption into the United States an
article addressed in a ruling under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that resulted from an inter partes proceeding
has previously been conditioned by CBP to require a certification drafted with the participation
of the complainant. The EOE Branch previously explained the reasoning for this approach in HQ
H329187:
[I]n appropriate circumstances, the EOE Branch has conditioned an importer’s
ability to enter for consumption into the United States the article at issue according
to a ruling under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that resulted from an inter partes proceeding.
See CBP Headquarters Ruling H324813 (dated June 3, 2022) at 47 (“Thus, it is
CBP’s position that the articles at issue are subject to exclusion from entry for
consumption based on the 1191 LEO until Google: (1) disables or renders
inoperable the Device Utility app such that it can no longer be used with the articles
at issue and provide notice of this action or (2) establishes non-infringement for the
articles at issue pursuant to an ancillary proceeding at the Commission or an inter
partes proceeding requested from CBP under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that addresses
operation of the Device Utility app on the articles at issue.”). Additionally, in
certain cases, the Intellectual Property Rights Branch (the predecessor to the EOE
Branch) treated the filing of a certification as a condition for entry following a
favorable ruling under 19 C.F.R. Part 177. See CBP Headquarters Ruling H282234
(dated May 16, 2017) at 9 (“Because there is currently no simple method to test
whether a particular GFCI utilizes three electrically isolated conductors without
disassembling the GFCI, we are requiring that Royal Pacific Corporation file a
certification upon ENTRY (along with any other required entry documents) for any
imported GFCIs certifying that said merchandize does not utilize three electrically
5
isolated conductors and thus does not satisfy the independent claim limitations of
the ’809 patent.”); see also CBP Headquarters Ruling H311351 (dated August 19,
2020) at 29 (“In addition, with each entry of the articles at issue, CBP will require
from persons importing the articles at issue (1) a certification, as approved by CBP;
and (2) upon request by CBP, to furnish such records or analyses necessary to
substantiate the certification.”) (internal citation omitted). Based on the concerns
raised by the potential to modify the articles at issue post-importation, we find that
the use of a certification as a condition of entry is appropriate.
Moreover, while [the complainant] is on notice, as provided in this ruling, … the
EOE Branch considers it appropriate that [the complainant] have an opportunity to
participate in the drafting process for the proposed certification[.] While there is
no statutory or regulatory requirement that [the complainant] be apprised as to the
drafting or use of a certification, the EOE Branch may, in its discretion, provide for
such participation and has decided to exercise that discretion in this case. See CBP
Headquarters Ruling H326291 at 2 n.2 (dated August 5, 2022) (“[U]nless the EOE
Branch expressly indicates otherwise, individual communications during an inter
partes proceeding are prohibited only to the point that the EOE Branch issues its
ruling on the question presented in a request. Therefore, as a general matter, once
a ruling has issued and the question presented by the ruling request is answered, the
inter partes proceeding will conclude and individual communications may resume.
For example, after a ruling issues, the certification a party may propose to use in
connection with its future importations is not automatically required to be shared
with the other interested party, unless the EOE Branch expressly indicates
otherwise.”).
HQ H329187 (dated July 18, 2023) at 20-21.
Thus, the EOE Branch finds that conditioning the entry for consumption into the United
States of the articles at issue on the submission of a certification is appropriate. SnapPower will
have the opportunity to participate in the drafting of such certification.
IV. HOLDING
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
[email protected]
7