OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H354463 JW
Mr. Hua Chen
ScienBiziP, P.C.
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2825
Los Angeles, CA 90071
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General and Limited Exclusion
Orders; Investigation No. 337-TA-1364; Certain Blood Flow Restriction Devices with
Rotatable Windlasses and Components Thereof
Dear Mr. Chen:
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 Wuxi Emsrun Technology Co. Ltd.’s (“Emsrun”) 1 request for an administrative ruling,
dated October 27, 2025, which included Exhibits 1-4 (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find
that Emsrun has established, through this inter partes proceeding, that its “Wuxi Tourniquet New
Design 1” (“article at issue”) is not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion
order (“GEO”) or limited exclusion order (“LEO”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission
(“Commission”) issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-1364 (“the underlying investigation” or “the
1364 investigation”), pursuant to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §
1337 (“section 337”) 2 unless and until this ruling letter is revoked or modified pursuant to 19
1
Emsrun notes that Rhino, Inc., one of the entities identified in the limited exclusion order, is Emrun’s U.S. affiliate,
but was dissolved in September 2023 and the Ruling Request “does not seek permission for Rhino Inc. to import
tourniquet products.” Ruling Request at 2.
2
The GEO issued in the 1364 investigation, inter alia, bars the unlicensed entry for consumption into the United States
of blood flow restriction devices with rotatable windlasses and components thereof (as defined in ¶ 2 of the GEO) that
infringe one or more of claims 1, 4, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,842,067. See Certain Blood Flow Restriction
Devices with Rotatable Windlasses and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1364, EDIS Doc. ID 833667,
General Exclusion Order (September 30, 2024) (“1364 GEO”). The LEO issued in the 1364 investigation, inter alia,
bars the unlicensed entry for consumption into the United States of blood flow restriction devices with rotatable
windlasses and components thereof (as defined in ¶ 2 of the LEO) that infringe U.S. Trademark Registration Nos.
3,863,064 and 5,064,378 and certain trade dress described in the complaint (see Compl. ¶ 156) and are manufactured
1
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 by operation of law modify or revoke 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, Emsrun, the ruling requester; and (2) Composite
Resources, Inc. and North American Rescue LLC, complainants in the 1364 investigation. See,
e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c).
Emsrun requested a ruling from CBP that its “tourniquet products bearing the design of
‘Wuxi Tourniquet New Design 1’ as identified in the photographs submitted in Exhibit 3 [of the
Ruling Request], or any tourniquet products having minor variations of the same” are not subject
to the 1364 GEO or 1364 LEO. See Ruling Request at 3. Various pictures 3 from Exhibit 3 of the
Ruling Request are reproduced below:
abroad by, or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf, inter alia, Rhino Inc. or any of its related entities. See Certain
Blood Flow Restriction Devices with Rotatable Windlasses and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-
1364EDIS Doc. ID 834244, Corrected Limited Exclusion Order (October 8, 2024) (“1364 LEO”).
3
We note that “confidential/attorneys eyes only” was on each of the pictures in Exhibit 3, however, it is not clear
whether Emsrun was attempting to designate this as confidential information such that Emsrun is requesting that it be
redacted from the published ruling. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 177.8. Nevertheless, as noted below, if there is
information in this ruling not currently bracketed in red [[ ]] that either party believes 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. See, e.g.,
19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3).
2
3
Exhibit 3 of Ruling Request.
Emsrun also noted, inter alia, in its Ruling Request that “[b]y mid-June, 2025, the parties [
] fully executed an agreement entitled ‘Design Around Agreement[,]’ [which provided] the
relevant terms indicating Complainants’ consent for the importation of the redesigned Wuxi
Tourniquet New Design 1 tourniquet model.” Ruling Request at 3.
Complainants indicated to the EOE Branch in an email (dated October 29, 2025) that they
“do not contest the admissibility of the article that is the subject of Wuxi Emsrun Technology Co.,
Ltd.’s Part 177 ruling request.” Given that Complainants do not contest admissibility of the article
at issue, the EOE Branch finds that Emsrun has established that the article at issue is not subject
to the 1364 GEO or 1364 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
4
792838 (Public) (March 21, 2023) (“All findings in the FID that are not inconsistent with the
Commission’s determination are affirmed.”).
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).
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).
Sincerely,
Dax Terrill
Chief, Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch
CC: Mr. Jeffrey M. Telep
King & Spalding LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006
[email protected]
5