OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H327461 FKM
Mr. Johnathan D. Baker
Dickinson Wright RLLP
800 W. California Avenue Suite 110
Sunnyvale, California 94086
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]; [email protected]
RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1200; Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remotes Controllers, and Components Thereof
Dear Mr. Baker:
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 Roku, Inc.’s (“Roku”) request for an administrative ruling, dated June 27, 2022, which included Exhibits A-M and two declarations (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find that Roku has established, through this inter partes proceeding, that its “Box,” “Stick,” and “Soundbar” streaming players—model numbers 3920RW, 3930R, 3930RW, 3930CA, 3930MX, 3931RW, 3930S3, 3930S4, 3932RD, 3960R, 3960RW, 3960CA, 3960MX, 3940RW, 3940CA, 3940MX, [[ ]] 3941R, 3941RW, [[ ]] 4802R, 4802RW, 4802CA, 4800R, 4800RW, 4801RW, 3820R, 3820RW, 3820CA, 3820MX, [[ ]] 3821R, [[ ]] 3811R, 9101R, 9101R2, 100002421, 100015705, 9102R, 9102RW, 9102CA, and 9102MX (collectively, “articles at issue”)—are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1200 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1200 investigation”), pursuant to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”), unless and until this ruling letter is revoked or modified pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.12. 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.
As noted above, 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 process involved the two parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by the ruling request: (1) your client, Roku, the ruling requester and respondent in the 1200 investigation; and (2) Universal Electronics, Inc. (“UEI”), complainant in the 1200 investigation. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c).
Roku requested a ruling that “a new design for certain Roku ‘Box,’ ‘Stick,’ and ‘Soundbar’ streaming players” is not subject to the 1200 LEO. Ruling Request at 1. Specifically, the request “relates to a new design for the remote control functionality of Roku OS—the [[ ]].” Roku argued, inter alia, that:
[l]ike the prior design that CBP found to be non-infringing, the [[ ]] allows the user to control a television connected to the Roku Device using either IR control or CEC control. However, whereas the prior non-infringing design attempted IR control first and then attempted CEC control if IR control failed, [[
]] . . . As such, Roku Devices implementing the [[ ]] cannot infringe the ’196 patent because they do not configure the Roku Device to use CEC control or IR control based on “first data” that indicates whether the TV will be responsive or unresponsive to CEC commands.
Ruling Request at 1-2.
In an e-mail to the EOE Branch and counsel for Roku, dated August 20, 2022, counsel for UEI confirmed that “UEI will not be submitting a responsive reply brief to Roku’s 177 ruling request.” Due to the lack of a contention from UEI that the articles at issue infringe the asserted claims of the ’196 patent, the EOE Branch finds that Roku has established that the articles at issue are not subject to exclusion from entry on the basis of the 1200 LEO.
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. 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, then the parties are asked 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).
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,
Dax Terrill
Chief, Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch
CC: Mr. Adam D. Swain
Alston & Bird LLP
950 F Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
[email protected]