OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H347983 WMW
Mr. Paul Brinkman
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order;
Investigation No. 337-TA-1370; Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing
Systems Containing the Same
Dear Mr. Brinkman:
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 Delta Electronics, Inc., Delta Electronics (Americas), Ltd.,
DET Logistics (USA) Corporation, Cyntec Co., Ltd., Quanta Computer Inc., and Quanta Computer
USA, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”), dated April 2, 2025 (“Ruling Request”). We find that,
due to the lack of opposition from Vicor Corporation, (“Vicor”), as detailed below, Respondents
have established through this inter partes proceeding that the redesigned power converter devices,
namely the Delta Single-sided Product (product number S54SS4P180PMDCF) and the Cyntec
Single-sided Products (product numbers MPN541383-PVP, MPN541383-PV and MPN5413125-
PV) (“articles at issue”), as described in this ruling, 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-1370 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1370
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. §
1
The LEO issued in the 1370 investigation bars the unlicensed entry for consumption into the United States of power
convert modules and computing systems, as described in ¶ 2 of the LEO, that infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
9,166,481 (“the ’481 patent”) or claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,516,761 (“the ’761 patent”), and are manufactured
or imported by or on behalf of Delta Electronics, Inc., Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd., DET Logistics (USA)
Corporation, Cyntec Co., Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. (d/b/a, Foxconn Technology Group), Foxconn
Industrial Internet Co. Ltd., FII USA Inc. (a/k/a Foxconn Industrial, Internet USA Inc.), Ingrasys Technology Inc.,
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 by operation of law any contrary CBP ruling or
decision pertaining to Section 337 exclusion orders.
As noted above, this administrative ruling is the result of a request 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, Respondents, the ruling requester; and (2) Vicor, the complainant from the underlying
investigation and owner of the asserted patents. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c).
On April 2, 2025, Respondents submitted their Ruling Request to the EOE Branch with a
copy sent to Vicor. Respondents Email to EOE Branch, dated April 2, 2025. The EOE Branch
replied the next day to confirm receipt of the ruling request and establish a preliminary meeting
with both parties to discuss the procedural schedule. EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated April 3,
2025. On April 11, 2025, a preliminary meeting was held with both parties to discuss the ruling
request, during which Vicor requested additional information in order to provide its response to
the ruling request. Additionally, both parties were asked to propose a procedural schedule and
present it to the EOE Branch. On April 17, 2025, Respondents sent an email notifying the EOE
Branch that the parties were unable to agree on a procedural schedule. Respondents Email to EOE
Branch, dated April 17, 2025. On April 18, 2025, the EOE Branch asked Vicor if it had received
the information and samples it felt were necessary to respond to the ruling request. EOE Branch
Email to Parties, dated April 18, 2025. Having not received a response, on April 24, 2025, the
EOE Branch sent an email to the parties establishing a procedural schedule for this inter partes
proceeding. EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated April 24, 2025.
Later that same day, Vicor responded to the EOE Branch noting that a determination
whether it had the information necessary to take a position in this proceeding was dependent on
review by its technical expert. Vicor Email to EOE Branch, dated April 24, 2025. Vicor also
noted that it had disclosed an expert to Respondents pursuant to the terms of the parties’ non-
disclosure agreement (“NDA”) and were awaiting expiration of the 4-day notice period provided
for in the NDA to share any Delta confidential business information exchanged thereunder. Id.
Lastly, Vicor confirmed that, as of that time, it had not yet received samples. Id. Respondents
replied with confirmation that Vicor could immediately provide the information to its technical
expert. Respondents Email to Parties, dated April 24, 2025. On April 28, 2025, Respondents
confirmed that a sample would arrive at the office of Vicor’s counsel the following day.
Respondents Email to Parties, dated April 28, 2025.
On May 9, 2025, consistent with the established procedural schedule, Vicor provided its
responsive submission in the form of an email in which it did not contend that the Delta Single-
sided Product and Cyntec Single-sided Products, the articles at issue in this proceeding, are subject
to the 1370 LEO.
Ingrasys Technology USA Inc., Quanta Computer Inc., and Quanta Computer USA Inc. See Certain Power Converter
Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1370, EDIS Doc. ID 843485,
Limited Exclusion Order (February 13, 2025) (“1370 LEO”).
A. Parties’ Arguments and EOE Branch Position
Respondents requested a ruling that “the Delta or Cyntec Single-Sided Products are outside
the scope of the LEO” Ruling Request at 1. According to Respondents, “the covered products [as
defined by the exclusion order] are ‘power converter modules used in data center server, artificial
intelligence and cloud computing systems, to power artificial intelligence (‘AI’) accelerators,
tensor processing units (‘TPU’), graphical processing units (‘GPU’) and central processing units
(‘CPU’), and computing systems containing the same’ ‘that infringe one or more of claim 1 of [the
’481 patent] and claims 1-7 of [the ’761 patent].’” Ruling Request at 8. As part of the findings in
the underlying investigation that Respondents reference, “the Commission affirmed the Final ID’s
finding that no Delta Accused Products infringed any claim of the ’481 patent” and “note[d] that
the parties stipulated to a list of products outside the scope of any remedial order.” Id.
Specifically, “[t]he Commission found that ‘neither of the redesigned products [at issue in
the underlying investigation] (U50SU4P1A2PMDAF and MPN541382-PVA1) infringe[d] any
asserted claim in this investigation.’” Ruling Request at 9 (quoting Comm’n Op. at 114). “Both
products have all of their power semiconductor devices mounted on their top surface.” Id. (citing
RX-0812C.0002 and RX-0807C.0001-02). Similarly, “[t]he Commission affirmed the Final ID’s
determination that the Delta Accused Modules (including the U50SU4P162PMDRF) and the Delta
redesign U50SU4P1A2PMDAF did not infringe the ’481 patent.” Id. at 10 (citing Comm’n Op.
13-14, 20, 126). And lastly, “[t]he Cyntec MPN541382-PVA1 redesign was also found not to
infringe any asserted claim in the Final ID.” Id. at 12 (citing Comm’n Op. at 114).
Based on the above, Respondents argue that “[t]he Delta and Cyntec Single-Sided Products
[at issue in this inter partes proceeding] do not infringe the ’761 or ’481 patents.” Ruling Request
at 13. Respondents note that “Vicor does not dispute that the Delta Single-Sided Product does not
infringe the ’761 patent.” Id. Furthermore, Respondents point out that the “Cyntec Single-Sided
Products do not have ‘a second set of the power semiconductor devices,’ as required by limitations
1[d] and [e], because, like the adjudicated redesigns, they lack PSDs mounted on their bottom
surface just like the MPN541382-PVA1 redesign that was found non-infringing.” Id. However,
Respondents acknowledge Vicor’s view “that Delta had not demonstrated [ ] that the Delta Single-
Sided Product avoids infringement of the ’481 patent.” Id. Accordingly, Respondents submitted
the ruling request to demonstrate that “the Delta and Cyntec Single-Sided Products do not infringe
for the same reasons as the accused Delta Products, namely, they do not practice limitation 1[g]
because their registers are fixed and cannot be set.” Id. Accordingly, for these reasons,
Respondents’ position is that the “Delta Single-Sided Products and Cyntec Single-Sided Products
are not excluded by the LEO.” Id.
The printed circuit board (“PCB”) layout schematics for the S54SS4P180PMDCF are
depicted below.
[[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]]
Ruling Request at 15.
The PCB layout for the MPN541383-PV (which [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
MPN541383-PVP) is depicted below.
[[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]]
Id. at 19.
Lastly, the PCB layout for the MPN5413125-PV module is depicted below.
[[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]]
Ruling Request at 22.
As noted above, in its responsive submission to the Ruling Request, Vicor has not raised
any arguments alleging that the articles at issue infringe the asserted claims of the ’481 patent or
the ’761 patent. To the contrary, Vicor has represented that Respondents’ “four products (product
numbers S54SS4P180PMDCF, MPN541383-PVP, MPN541383-PV and MPN5413125-PV) and
computing systems that incorporate them are outside the scope of the LEO issued in ITC
Investigation No. 337-TA-1370.” Vicor Email to Parties, dated May 9, 2025. Due to the lack of
an infringement contention from Vicor that the articles at issue are covered by the asserted claims
of the ’481 patent or the ’761 patent, the EOE Branch finds that Respondents have established that
the articles at issue are not subject to exclusion from entry pursuant to the 1370 LEO. 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.”).
On May 12, 2025, Respondents requested guidance regarding the next steps in the process
due to Vicor’s lack of an infringement contention regarding the articles at issue. Respondents
Email to EOE Branch, dated May 12, 2025. On May 13, 2025, the EOE Branch replied that the
typical approach when a complainant does not contest the infringement question in an inter partes
proceeding under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 is for the EOE Branch to issue an abbreviated ruling that
notes the concession or lack of an infringement contention but nevertheless reflects the binding
position of the agency. EOE Email to Parties, dated May 13, 2025. Additionally, on May 21,
2025, the EOE Branch confirmed that, given Vicor did not contest non-infringement or
admissibility of the articles at issue in this proceeding, Respondents acting as the importer of record
did not need to wait for the issuance of this ruling to begin entering the articles at issue. EOE
Email to Parties, dated May 21, 2025. Furthermore, a certification reflecting the text as previously
agreed to by the parties and approved by the EOE Branch was appropriate in this circumstance.
Notwithstanding the above, to the extent that Respondents attempt to enter articles for
consumption that differ materially from the articles 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. Louis Mastriani
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
1700 K St. N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
[email protected]