OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H343308 WMW
Mr. Scott D. Barnett
Honigman LLP
39400 Woodward Ave., Suite 101
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order;
Investigation No. 337-TA-1353; Certain Pick-Up Truck Folding Bed Cover Systems and
Components Thereof (III)
Dear Mr. Barnett:
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 administrative
ruling in response to the request from Hangzhou Golden Sun Autoparts Co., Ltd (“Golden Sun”),
dated November 21, 2024 (“Ruling Request”). We find that, due to the concession of Extang
Corporation and Laurmark Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries, (collectively “Complainants”),
as detailed below, Golden Sun has established through this inter partes proceeding that its pick-up
truck folding bed cover system designated as “Design A” (“article at issue”), as described in this
ruling, is not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order (“GEO”) issued
by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1353
(“the underlying investigation” or “the 1353 investigation”), under Section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”), 1 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
1
The GEO issued in the 1353 investigation bars the unlicensed entry for consumption into the United States of pick-
up truck folding bed cover systems and components thereof, as defined in ¶ 2 of the GEO, that infringe any of claims
2-4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,758 (“the ’758 patent”) or claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 7,484,788 (“the ‘788 patent”),
regardless of the parties involved in the manufacture or importation of such articles. See Certain Pick-Up Truck
Folding Bed Cover Systems and Components Thereof (III), Investigation No. 337-TA-1353, EDIS Doc. ID 832662,
General Exclusion Order (September 19, 2024) (“1353 GEO”).
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 by
operation of law any contrary CBP ruling or decision pertaining to Section 337 exclusion orders.
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
proceeding involved the two parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question
presented by the ruling request: (1) your client, Golden Sun, the ruling requester; and (2) the
Complainants from the underlying investigation as the owner of the asserted patents. See 19
C.F.R. § 177.1(c). Golden Sun was not a respondent during the underlying investigation at the
Commission.
On November 21, 2024, Golden Sun submitted its Ruling Request to the EOE Branch but
advised that the ruling request had not been shared with counsel for Complainants. Golden Sun
Email to EOE Branch, dated November 21, 2024. The EOE Branch replied the same day to
confirm receipt of the ruling request and provide additional instructions for Golden Sun to take in
connection with this proceeding. EOE Branch Email to Golden Sun, dated November 21, 2024.
When Golden Sun did not take these additional steps, the EOE Branch reached out on December
10, 2024, for a status update. EOE Branch Email to Golden Sun, dated December 10, 2024.
Ultimately, in response to the EOE Branch’s emails, Golden Sun: (1) confirmed the counsel for
Complainants to whom the ruling request was sent and (2) shared a revised version of the ruling
request with confidential information properly identified. Golden Sun Email to EOE Branch, dated
January 10, 2025.
After additional emails between the parties with the EOE Branch and a conference call to
discuss certain issues, the EOE Branch took the views of the parties into consideration and on
February 6, 2025, established the procedural schedule for this inter partes proceeding. EOE
Branch Email to Parties, dated February 6, 2025. Specifically, the EOE Branch set the target date
for issuance of the ruling in this inter partes proceeding as May 14, 2025.
The EOE Branch received a fully executed NDA between the parties on February 10, 2025.
Golden Sun Email to EOE Branch, dated February 10, 2025. On March 26, 2025, consistent with
the established procedural schedule, Complainants provided a response to the Ruling Request
(“Complainants Response”) stating that they do not contend that Design A is subject to the 1353
Exclusion Order.
A. Parties’ Arguments and EOE Branch Position
Golden Sun requested a ruling “that Design A … is not within the scope of the GEO”
Ruling Request at 2. The article at issue is depicted below:
Ruling Request at 5.
Id. at 6.
Id. at 7.
As noted above, in response to the Ruling Request, Complainants have not raised any
arguments alleging that the article at issue infringes the asserted claims of the ’788 patent or the
‘758 patent. To the contrary, “Complainants do not contend that ‘Design A’ as represented in
Golden Sun’s November 21, 2024 letter is subject to the 1353 General Exclusion Order.”
Response at 1. Due to the lack of a contention from Complainants that the article at issue infringes
the asserted claims of the ’788 patent or ‘758 patent, and as further cemented with its non-
infringement concession, the EOE Branch finds that Golden Sun has established that the article at
issue is not subject to exclusion from entry pursuant to the 1353 GEO. 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 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.”); see also 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.”).
However, to the extent that Golden Sun attempts to enter articles for consumption that
differ materially from the article at issue as depicted above, this ruling would not be applicable.
As such, the decision above is limited to the specific facts set forth herein. If articles differ in any
material way from the article 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).
Lastly, 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 to CBP. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 177.8. If there is information
in this administrative ruling not currently bracketed in red [[ ]] that either party believes constitutes
confidential information, and should be redacted from the published ruling, the parties are to
contact CBP within ten (10) working days of the date of this ruling letter to indicate the same. See,
e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3).
Sincerely,
Dax Terrill
Chief, Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch
CC: Mr. Jonathan Redway
Dickinson Wright PLLC
1825 Eye St. N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
[email protected]