OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H359443 JW
Mr. George C. Summerfield
K&L Gates
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]; [email protected]
RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order;
Investigation No. 337-TA-1394; Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in
Computers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same
Dear Mr. Summerfield:
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, dated January 20, 2026, from SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd. and
SilverStone Technology, Inc.; Enermax Technology; Enermax USA; and Shenzhen Apaltek Co.,
Ltd.; and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Apaltek” or
“ruling requester”) for an administrative ruling, which included three attachments (collectively,
“Ruling Request”). We find that the articles at issue, as described below, are subject to the limited
exclusion order (“LEO”) issued in U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “ITC”)
Investigation No. 337-TA-1394 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1394 investigation”),
pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”).
We 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.
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, Apaltek, the ruling requester and respondents in the 1394 investigation;
and (2) Cooler Master Co., Ltd.; CMI USA, Inc.; and CMC Great USA, Inc. (collectively, “Cooler
Master”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1394 investigation. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c).
The parties were asked to clearly identify confidential information with [[red brackets]] in
their submissions to CBP. See, e.g., EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated February 5, 2026; see
also 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2 and 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, the parties are directed 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).
Please note that disclosure of information related to administrative rulings under 19 C.F.R.
Part 177 is governed by, for example, 6 C.F.R. Part 5, 31 C.F.R. Part 1, 19 C.F.R. Part 103, and
19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3). See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.10(a). In addition, CBP is guided by the laws
relating to confidentiality and disclosure, such as the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), as
amended (5 U.S.C. § 552), the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1905), and the Privacy Act of 1974,
as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a). A request for confidential treatment of information submitted in
connection with a ruling requested under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 faces a strong presumption in favor
of disclosure. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.8(a)(3). The person seeking this treatment must overcome
that presumption with a request that is appropriately tailored and supported by evidence
establishing that: the information in question is customarily kept private or closely-held and either
that the government provided an express or implied assurance of confidentiality when the
information was shared with the government or there were no express or implied indications at the
time the information was submitted that the government would publicly disclose the information.
See Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2366 (2019) (concluding
that “[a]t least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated
as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the
information is ‘confidential’ within the meaning of exemption 4.”); see also U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Information Policy (OIP): Step-by-Step Guide for Determining if Commercial
or Financial Information Obtained from a Person is Confidential Under Exemption 4 of the FOIA
(updated 10/7/2019); and OIP Guidance: Exemption 4 after the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Food
Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media (updated 10/4/2019).
I. BACKGROUND
A. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1394
1. Procedural History at the ITC
The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1394 on March 21, 2024, based on
a complaint filed by Cooler Master. Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in
Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same,
Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID 858641, Public Commission Opinion (August 5, 2025)
(“Comm’n Op.”) at 2 (citing 89 Fed. Reg. 20247-48 (Mar. 21, 2024)). The complaint alleged a
violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1-3 and 14 of U.S. Patent No.
10,509,446 (“the ’446 patent”); claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,061,450 (“the ’450 patent”); and
the claim of U.S. Patent No. D856,941 1 (“the ’941 design patent”). Id. at 2-3. The notice of
investigation named SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan; SilverStone Technology, Inc.
1
The ’941 design patent was later terminated from the investigation by withdrawal of the complaint. Comm’n Op.
at 3.
2
of Chino, California; Enermax Technology Corp. of Taiwan; Enermax USA of Chino, California;
Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. of China; and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co.,
Ltd. of China as respondents. Id. at 3. The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(“OUII”) was not a party in the investigation. Id.
On March 21, 2025, a final initial determination issued finding a violation of section 337.
Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components iin Computers, Components Thereof, Devices
for Controlling Same, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID
848531, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommendation on Remedy and
Bond (March 21, 2025) (“FID”) at 3. Specifically, it was determined that a violation of section
337 occurred in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within
the United States after importation, of the accused products due to infringement of certain claims
of the ’446 patent and the ’450 patent. Id.
The Commission determined to review in part the FID and requested submissions
responding to the Commission’s questions on review and remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
Id. at 3-4 (citing 90 Fed. Reg. 22755-56). The Commission, in its review of the FID, found a
violation of section 337 as to the ’446 patent and the ’450 patent, and determined that the
appropriate remedy was a LEO and a cease and desist order. Id. at 36.
In the LEO, the Commission ordered:
Certain liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof,
and products containing same that infringe one or more of claims 1-3 and 14 of the
’446 patent or claims 1-4 of the ’450 patent and are manufactured abroad by, or on
behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of Respondents[ 2] or any of their affiliated
companies, parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or its
successors or assigns, are excluded from entry for consumption into the United
States, entry for consumption from a foreign-trade zone, or withdrawal from a
warehouse for consumption, for the remaining terms of the Asserted Patents, except
under license from, or with the permission of, the patent owner or as provided by
law.
Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components In Computers, Components Thereof, Devices
for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID
857700, Limited Exclusion Order (July 24, 2025) (“1394 LEO”) at 2, ¶ 1.
The Commission further defined:
liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof, and
products containing same subject to this exclusion order (i.e., “covered articles”) []
as follows: liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components
thereof, and products containing same.
2
Respondents are defined in the 1394 LEO as “Silverstone Technology Co., Ltd., SilverStone Technology, Inc.,
Enermax Technology Corp., Enermax USA, Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd., and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling
Technology Co., Ltd.” 1394 LEO at 1.
3
Id. at 2, ¶ 2.
2. The Patents and Claims in the 1394 LEO
The asserted patent claims in the 1394 LEO are claims 1-3 and 14 of the ’446 patent and
claims 1-4 of the ’450 patent. 1394 LEO at 2, ¶ 1. These patents are related, and their
specifications are materially the same. Comm’n Op. at 5. Both patents are titled “Cooling
Apparatus for Electronic Components.” Id. at 5. The specification for these patents describes a
cooling apparatus for dissipating heat generated by electronic components. Id. 3
1. The ’446 Patent
Of claims 1-3 and 14 of the ‘446 patent, claim 1 is the only independent claim: the text of
independent claim 1 of the ’446 patent is reproduced below:
Claim 1
A cooling apparatus, comprising:
a base plate configured to dissipate heat and including a heat exchange unit;
a cover member coupled to the base plate and at least partially enclosing the heat
exchange unit, the cover member and the base plate defining a heat exchange
chamber that includes the heat exchange unit, the cover member defining a first
opening and a second opening, and the cover member being coupled to the base
plate such that at least one of the first and second openings is above the heat
exchange unit;
a flow guidance plate disposed on a top surface of the cover member and including
a bottom surface facing the top surface of the cover member, wherein
the flow guidance plate at least partially defines a first cavity and a second cavity
separated from the first cavity, and
the first cavity and the second cavity are defined on the bottom surface of the flow
guidance plate; and
a housing disposed on the flow guidance plate.
FID at 7 citing ‘446 patent, claim 1. The general structure of the cooling apparatus is depicted in
the figures below:
3
For purposes of this ruling request, the parties only disputed infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘446 patent,
thus our focus will be on the ‘446 patent.
4
Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components In Computers, Components Thereof, Devices
for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID
837712, Claim Construction Order No. 10 (Nov. 20, 2024) (“Order No. 10”) at 2 to 3 citing ‘446
patent, Figs. 15C and 15D.
As illustrated above, cover member 1 couples to base plate 2 to enclose a heat
exchange unit. See id. at Abstract. Generally speaking, the cooling apparatus
functions by pumping fluid at a lower temperature into the heat exchange chamber,
circulating the fluid in the heat exchange chamber where it absorbs thermal energy
from and cools the base plate, and then circulating the fluid to an external heat
dissipating device to cool the fluid again. Id. at 1:33-44, 6:66-7:27.
Id. at 3. The terms below from, inter alia, claim 1 of the ‘446 patent were construed as follows:
______________________________________________________________________________
Claim Term Construction
“coupled” “[D]oes not require a direct or permanent
connection between the claimed cover member
and claimed base plate [and] will be construed
according to its plain and ordinary meaning.”
Id. at 8.
5
“chamber” “[F]ully or partially enclosed space or
compartment.” Id. at 8 (internal quotations
omitted).
“cavity” “The term ‘cavity’ will be construed according
to its plain and ordinary meaning, which may
encompass a space with a flow path passing all
the way through it.” Id. at 14. “[T]he plain and
ordinary meaning of ‘cavity’ is ‘a hollowed-
out space,’ and it does not foreclose the
hollowed-out space from having a passage all
the way through it.” Id. at 9.
“housing” “[S]omething that at least partially encloses
one or more components.” Id. at 14 (internal
citation omitted) (internal quotations omitted).
“cover member” “[N]ot a means-plus-function limitation and
will be afforded its plain and ordinary
meaning.” Id. at 15.
The limitation “defining a heat exchange chamber” was also addressed in the context of
invalidity. See FID at 128-37. In particular, the FID found that the “cover member and base plate
defining a heat exchange chamber” required the “cover member” and “base plate” to form a
chamber where heat exchange could occur. See id. at 129-31, 134-36; Comm’n Op. at 14.
B. 19 C.F.R. Part 177 Ruling Request
1. Procedural History
On January 21, 2026, 4 Apaltek filed a submission with CBP requesting an administrative
ruling pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, which included three attachments. Apaltek requested a
ruling from CBP that its following liquid cooler products: “1) the XE360 Series; 2) the GB Series;
3) the GP Series; 4) the SPX Series; 5) the SV Series; 6) the UI Series; and 7) the XA Series” do
not violate the 1394 LEO. See, e.g., Ruling Request at 1. Cooler Master was also copied on the
email from Apaltek transmitting the Ruling Request to the EOE Branch, and as such, was
provided a copy of the Ruling Request. See Apaltek Email to EOE Branch, dated January 21,
2026.
On February 9, 2026, the EOE Branch had an initial conference call with Apaltek and
Cooler Master. See EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated February 9, 2026. Subsequently, on
February 17, 2026, 5 the EOE Branch set a schedule for this inter partes proceeding that was in line
with the jointly proposed schedule from the parties. See EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated
February 17, 2026.
4
The email transmitting the Ruling Request was dated January 21, 2026, but the Ruling Request was dated January
20, 2026.
5
The date and time for the oral discussion was confirmed in a later email from the EOE Branch, dated February 24,
2026.
6
On February 20, 2026, Cooler Master provided its response to the Ruling Request (“Cooler
Master Response”). On February 27, 2026, Apaltek provided its reply, which included Exhibits
A and B (collectively, “Apaltek Reply”). On March 6, 2026, Cooler Master provided its sur-
reply, which included Exhibit A (collectively, “Cooler Master Sur-Reply”).
On March 18, 2026, the EOE Branch had an oral discussion with the parties and each of
the parties provided PowerPoints as part of their participation in the oral discussion (“Apaltek
PowerPoint” and “Cooler Master PowerPoint,” respectively). Following the oral discussion, on
March 25, 2026, Apaltek provided a post oral discussion submission (“Apaltek Post Oral
Discussion Submission”) and Cooler Master likewise provided a post oral discussion submission
that included Exhibit A and B (collectively, “Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion Submission”).
2. The Articles at Issue
Apaltek requested a ruling from CBP that “the following liquid cooler products do not
violate the [1394 LEO]: 1) the XE360 Series; 2) the GB Series; 3) the GP Series; 4) the SPX Series;
5) the SV Series; 6) the UI Series; and 7) the XA Series.” Ruling Request at 1. The chart below
from Apaltek summarizes the limitations it claims each of the respective articles at issue do not
meet:
Apaltek PowerPoint at 31. 6
Figures of each of the articles at issue from Apaltek are also provided in the chart below:
Article at Issue Figures
6
The “XL” product in the chart appears to possibly refer to the XE360 Series.
7
XE360 Series
Ruling Request at 4. Apaltek states that this figure is “the depiction of
the cold plate and pump” and “the two components are separate from one
another” and “[t]here is an upper cover on the copper plate and below the
nozzle fitting that connects to the pump tubes.” Id. citing Xiao Decl. ¶¶
3, 4.
SV Series
Id.at 5 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 6. Apaltek states that “the pump and cold
plate are separate from one another and the upper cover connects to the
pump nozzles[.]” Id. at 4.
8
GB Series
Id. at 6 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 9. Apaltek states “the cold plate in the GB
Series is separate from the pump[.]” Id. at 5. It further states “[t]he
copper upper cover of the GB series includes the nozzle connections for
the pump hoses.” Id. citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 10.
GP Series
Id. at 7 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 12. Apaltek states “the cold plate assembly
and the pump are each separately attached to the radiator[.]” Id. at 6.
SPX Series
Id. at 7 to 8 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 14. Apaltek states the SPX Series “has
a pump and cold plate that are attached separately from one another to the
radiator[.]” Id. at 7.
9
XA Series
Id. at 8 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 16. Apaltek states “the XA Series has a
cold plate and a pump mounted separately from one another on the
radiator[.]” Id.
UI Series
Id. at 9 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 18. Apaltek states “the pump is disposed
on the copper plate[.]” Id. It further states “[a]ssuming the pump cover
can be analogized to the claimed housing, the UI Series lacks a cover
member and a flow guidance plate, both of which are required to be
disposed between the claimed base plate and housing.” Id. citing Xiao
Decl. at ¶ 19.
II. ISSUE
Whether Apaltek has met its burden to show that the articles at issue do not infringe claims
1-3 and 14 of the ’446 patent and claims 1-4 of the ’450 patent and thus are not subject to the 1394
LEO. See, e.g., Ruling Request at 1.
III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Section 337 Exclusion Order Administration
The Commission shall investigate any alleged violation of Section 337 to determine, with
respect to each investigation conducted by it under this section, whether there is a violation of this
section. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1) and (c). If the Commission determines, as a result of an
10
investigation under this section, that there is a violation of this section, it shall direct that the
articles concerned, imported by any person violating the provision of this section, be excluded
from entry into the United States unless the Commission finds based on consideration of the public
interest that such articles should not be excluded from entry. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1).
When the Commission determines there is a violation of Section 337, it generally issues one
of two types of exclusion orders: (1) a limited exclusion order or (2) a general exclusion order.
See Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. ITC, 474 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Both types of orders
direct CBP to bar infringing products from entering the country. See Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong)
Wood Indus. Co. v. ITC, 535 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed Cir. 2008). “A limited exclusion order is
‘limited’ in that it only applies to the specific parties before the Commission in the investigation.
In contrast, a general exclusion order bars the importation of infringing products by everyone,
regardless of whether they were respondents in the Commission's investigation.” Id. A general
exclusion order is appropriate only if two exceptional circumstances apply. See Kyocera Wireless
Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1356. A general exclusion order may only be issued if (1) “necessary
to prevent circumvention of a limited exclusion order,” or (2) “there is a pattern of violation of this
section and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2);
see Kyocera, 545 F.3d at 1356 (“If a complainant wishes to obtain an exclusion order operative
against articles of non-respondents, it must seek a GEO [general exclusion order] by satisfying the
heightened burdens of §§ 1337(d)(2)(A) and (B).”).
In addition to the action taken above, the Commission may issue an order under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(i) directing CBP to seize and forfeit articles attempting entry in violation of an exclusion
order if their owner, importer, or consignee previously had articles denied entry on the basis of
that exclusion order and received notice that seizure and forfeiture would result from any future
attempt to enter articles subject to the same. An exclusion order under § 1337(d)—either limited
or general—and a seizure and forfeiture order under § 1337(i) apply at the border only and are
operative against articles presented for customs examination or articles conditionally released from
customs custody but still subject to a timely demand for redelivery. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d)(1)
(“The Commission shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury of its action under this subsection
directing such exclusion from entry, and upon receipt of such notice, the Secretary shall, through
the proper officers, refuse such entry.”); id., at (i)(3) (“Upon the attempted entry of articles subject
to an order issued under this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately notify all
ports of entry of the attempted importation and shall identify the persons notified under paragraph
(1)(C).”).
Significantly, unlike district court injunctions, the Commission can issue a general
exclusion order that broadly prohibits entry of articles that violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930 without regard to whether the persons importing such articles were parties to, or were related
to parties to, the investigation that led to issuance of the general exclusion order. See Vastfame
Camera, Ltd. v. ITC, 386 F.3d 1108, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Commission also has recognized
that even limited exclusion orders have broader applicability beyond just the parties found to
infringe during an investigation. See Certain GPS Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv.
No. 337-TA-602, Comm’n Op. at 17, n. 6, Doc ID 317981 (Jan. 2009) (“We do not view the
Court’s opinion in Kyocera as affecting the issuance of LEOs [limited exclusion orders] that
exclude infringing products made by respondents found to be violating Section 337, but imported
11
by another entity. The exclusionary language in this regard that is traditionally included in LEOs
is consistent with 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)–(D) and 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1).”).
Moreover, “[t]he Commission has consistently issued exclusion orders coextensive with
the violation of Section 337 found to exist.” See Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only
Memories, Inv. No. 337-TA-276, Enforcement Proceeding, Comm’n Op. at 11, Doc ID 43536
(Aug. 1991) (emphasis added). “[W]hile individual models may be evaluated to determine
importation and [violation], the Commission’s jurisdiction extends to all models of [violative]
products that are imported at the time of the Commission’s determination and to all such products
that will be imported during the life of the remedial orders.” See Certain Optical Disk Controller
Chips and Chipsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-506, Comm’n Op. at 56–57, USITC Pub. 3935, Doc ID
287263 (July 2007).
B. Patent Infringement
Determining patent infringement requires two steps. Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v.
X-Body Equip., Inc., 808 F.3d 1313, 1316 (2015). The first is to construe the limitations of the
asserted claims and the second is to compare the properly construed claims to the accused product.
Id. To establish literal infringement, every limitation recited in a claim must be found in the
accused product whereas, under the doctrine of equivalents, infringement occurs when there is
equivalence between the elements of the accused product and the claimed elements of the patented
invention. Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, Inc., 817 F.3d 1305, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016). One way to
establish equivalence is by showing, on an element-by-element basis, that the accused product
performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same
result as each claim limitation of the patented invention, which is often referred to as the function-
way-result test. See Intendis GmbH v. Glenmark Pharms., Inc., 822 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
As for the first step above, “claim construction is a matter of law.” SIMO Holdings, Inc.
v. H.K. uCloudlink Network Tech., Ltd., 983 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Moreover, the
ultimate construction of a claim limitation is a legal conclusion, as are interpretations of the
patent’s intrinsic evidence (the patent claims, specifications, and prosecution history).
UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., 816 F.3d 816, 822 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Teva Pharms.
USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841(2015)).
“Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not
only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of
the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by
aperson of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges.” Id. at 1314. In others,
courtslook to public sources such as “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder
of thespecification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific
principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id.
“To begin with, the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly
instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“To take a simple example, the claim in this case refers
to ‘steel baffles,’ which strongly implies that the term ‘baffles’ does not inherently mean objects
made of steel.”). The context in which a claim term is used also includes the full chain of
12
dependence as well as the remaining suite of claims and the written description. See Inline Plastics
Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, 799 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Since the specification explicitly
mentions the ‘alternative’ . . . there can be no debate concerning the application of the doctrine of
claim differentiation.”).
The second step to establish infringement involves a comparison of the claims, as properly
construed, to the accused product, which is a question of fact. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). We apply this two-step analysis below.
IV. INFRINGEMENT ANALYSIS
The infringement question related to the articles at issue is focused on claim 1 of the ‘446
patent. There is no dispute that if the articles at issue do not infringe the asserted claims of the
‘446 patent, then the articles at issue also do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘450 patent.
See e.g., Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at fn. 1. Thus, the focus of the infringement
analysis will be on the following bolded limitations of claim 1 7 of the ‘446 patent, which Apaltek
contends are missing from at least one or more of the articles at issue:
A cooling apparatus, comprising:
a base plate configured to dissipate heat and including a heat exchange unit;
a cover member coupled to the base plate and at least partially enclosing the heat
exchange unit, the cover member and the base plate defining a heat exchange
chamber that includes the heat exchange unit, the cover member defining a first
opening and a second opening, and the cover member being coupled to the base
plate such that at least one of the first and second openings is above the heat
exchange unit;
a flow guidance plate disposed on a top surface of the cover member and including
a bottom surface facing the top surface of the cover member, wherein
the flow guidance plate at least partially defines a first cavity and a second
cavity separated from the first cavity, and
the first cavity and the second cavity are defined on the bottom surface of the
flow guidance plate; and
a housing disposed on the flow guidance plate.
7
Of the asserted claims of the ‘446 patent, claim 1 is the only independent claim and the remaining asserted claims of
the ‘446 patent depend from claim 1. Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(“One who does not infringe an independent claim cannot infringe a claim dependent on (and thus containing all the
limitations of) that claim.”) (internal citation omitted).
13
FID at 7 citing ‘446 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added); see also e.g., Apaltek PowerPoint at 31.
Apaltek does not contend that any other limitations in claim 1 of the ‘446 patent are not met. See
e.g., Cooler Master Response at 2. The articles at issue are discussed in turn below:
XE360 Series
We find that Apaltek has failed to meet its burden to show that the XE360 Series does not
infringe claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
Apaltek’s Position
For claim 1 of the ‘446 patent, Apaltek argues that “[t]here is nothing in the XE360 Series
corresponding to the claimed flow guidance plate [or] the housing[.]” Ruling Request at 4 citing
Xiao Decl. at ¶ 5; see also e.g., Reply at 3; see also Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 3
(“Because Requestors have shown that the XE360 Series lacks a ‘housing’ ‘disposed on’ a flow
guidance plate, that series does not infringe the claims of the ‘446 Patent.”).
Cooler Master’s Position
Cooler Master, on the other hand, argues that all the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘446
patent are met. Specifically, Cooler Master states:
• The claimed “base plate” is the “copper plate.” Cooler Master Response at 2.
• The claimed “cover member” corresponds to the “upper cover” “excluding the upper half of
the thickness of the top surface of the ‘upper cover.’” Id. at 2; see also id. at 4 (“the portion of
that component that excludes the upper half of the thickness of the top surface.”).
• “[T]he claimed ‘flow guidance plate’ corresponds to the remaining portion of the ‘upper cover’
(i.e., the upper half of the thickness of the top surface, including the upper half of the two holes
in the upper cover) in conjunction with two ‘nozzle fittings[.]’” Id. at 4.
• “[T]he claimed ‘housing’ corresponds to the ‘bracket[.]’” Id.; see also Cooler Master
PowerPoint at 6.
Before we reach the respective claim terms, we first address Apaltek’s argument that
Cooler Master relies only on attorney argument and not evidence, citing Telemac Cellular Corp.
v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 8 Apaltek Reply at 1 to 2; see also
Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 2. First, we note that Apaltek also primarily relies on
attorney argument along with a conclusory declaration from the founder of Apaltek. See e.g.,
Ruling Request and Xiao Declaration (providing figures and statements without further
explanation that certain claim limitations are not practiced). Thus, to the extent Telemac applies
to Cooler Master’s arguments, it also applies equally to Apaltek’s arguments.
Moreover, Apaltek made a similar argument in the underlying investigation in the context
of the flow guidance plate cavity limitation. In particular, the FID noted:
8
This argument is repeated by Apaltek in relation to the other articles at issue as well. However, rather than repeating
our response multiple times, we incorporate by reference our response to the extent Apaltek makes this same argument
in the context of the other articles at issue.
14
Respondents argue that “this is exclusively attorney argument; Dr. Trumper never
provided this explanation or explained what it means to be a ‘hollowed-out space’
in the context of the accused devices.” RRB at 21. Respondents further argue that
“Complainants point to only attorney argument to supplement Dr. Trumper’s
conclusory testimony that structures highlighted in yellow and green are ‘cavities’”
and that this “‘because I said so’ testimony is insufficient” to carry Cooler Master’s
burden to show this limitation is satisfied. Id. at 22 (citing NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast
Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 119 F.4th 1355, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2024)).
FID at 16 to 17. This argument was found to be unpersuasive and the FID stated, inter alia:
Expert testimony is not necessarily required for a factfinder to determine that an
accused product satisfies a claim limitation. See, e.g., Lee v. Mike’s Novelties, Inc.,
543 F. App’x 1010, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[n]o expert testimony was required”
where jurors could handle and assess the physical evidence of the accused product);
see also Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(no expert testimony needed to explain technology involving plastic bags in the
validity context).
Id. at 17. Thus, in instances where there is straightforward evidence, more detailed expert
testimony may not be required. See e.g., id. at 18 (“Here, photographs of the SilverStone PF240
show the claimed first cavity and second cavity. More detailed testimony from Dr. Trumper is not
required to understand that straightforward evidence.”). Next, we address each of the claim terms,
below.
Base Plate
There appears to be no dispute that the claimed “base plate” is the “copper plate.” See e.g.,
Ruling Request at 4 (no contention that the XE360 Series does not have the claimed base plate);
see also Cooler Master Response at 2. Thus, we find that this limitation is met.
Cover Member
While the parties appear to agree that there is a “cover member”, they disagree as to what
portion of the XE360 Series product is the “cover member.” Cooler Master points to the “upper
cover” “excluding the upper half of the thickness of the top surface of the ‘upper cover’” as the
“cover member.” Cooler Master Response at 2. Apaltek disagrees that this is the “cover member”
but does not identify what it believes is the “cover member.” See generally, Ruling Request and
Apaltek Reply. Rather, in response to Cooler Master’s alleged “cover member,” Apaltek argued:
[I]f the cover member excludes “the upper half of the thickness of the top surface”
of the upper cover, then the component corresponding to the claimed “cover
member,” according to Cooler Master, does not define a first opening and a second
opening. Rather, it is the upper half of the thickness of the upper cover (the claimed
“flow guidance plate”) that defines those openings, as shown below:
15
Apaltek Reply at 1 to 2. Apaltek does not dispute that the “cover member” identified by Cooler
Master is “coupled to the base plate and at least partially enclosing the heat exchange unit [and]
the cover member and the base plate defining a heat exchange chamber that includes the heat
exchange unit[.]” See Apaltek Reply at 1 to 2.
Regarding Apaltek’s argument that the “cover member” alleged by Cooler Master “does
not define a first opening and a second opening,” Apaltek Reply at 2, Cooler Master responds:
Because the two holes in the top surface of the upper cover pass all the way through
that top surface, they also necessarily pass all the way through both the upper half
of the thickness of the top surface and the lower half of the thickness of the top
surface. Thus, the cover member—which includes the lower half of the thickness
of the top surface of the upper cover—has two holes (i.e., a first opening and a
second opening) that pass all the way through it.
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 4.
We agree with Cooler Master that the lower half of the thickness of the top surface of the
upper cover has two holes, which can correspond to the first opening and second opening. 9 As
shown in the picture below of the bottom view of the “upper cover,” there are two holes in the
lower half of the thickness of the top surface of the upper cover.
Hole
Hole
9
If there is an argument that those two holes cannot be both the first and second opening in the cover member and
also the first and second cavity on the bottom of the flow guidance plate, see e.g., Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco
Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010), it was Apaltek’s burden to clearly make the argument and
provide the corresponding support. Apaltek did not do so.
16
See e.g., Apaltek Reply at 1 (annotations added). These two holes then define the first opening
and second opening. See also Apaltek Reply at 2 (referring to the holes on the upper half of the
thickness of the upper cover as “openings.”). Further, we note that as shown in the picture below,
the openings are above the heat exchange unit.
Ruling Request at 4 (cropped and annotations added).
Moreover, as Cooler Master noted, with respect to the domestic industry products in the
underlying investigation, the FID found “the ‘cover member’ of the claims can be comprised of
only a portion (or portions) of a single physical component (or multiple components) in a design.”
Cooler Master Response at 2. The claim chart cited in the FID finding that the domestic industry
products met the “cover member” limitation is reproduced below:
17
Id. (citing FID at 47 (affirmed by Comm’n Op. at 2.)). It was explained in the underlying
investigation that:
[T]he “cover member” in this domestic industry product “is made up of both the
rubber membrane and walls defined by a portion of a covering and guiding
element. Specifically, when the Masterliquid ML360R RGB is assembled, the
rubber membrane forms the top of the cover member, and the walls of the covering
and guiding element…form the sides of the cover member.” Id. (emphasis added).
Thus, the ID found that portions of components (like the ML360R RGB’s rubber
membrane and covering and guiding element) can together form the “cover
member,” which, in turn—with the “base plate”—defines the heat exchange
chamber. ID at 48-49 (affirmed, Commission Op. at 2); see also Commission Op.
at 24-25.
18
Id. at 3 (emphasis in the original). This supports Cooler Master’s argument that a portion of the
“upper cover” as the “cover member” is not contrary to the Commission’s findings in the
underlying investigation.
Thus, as the “cover member” identified by Cooler Master is not inconsistent with the claim
limitation or the Commission’s findings in the underlying investigation, and Apaltek did not
provide its own identification of a “cover member,” we agree with Cooler Master that the “cover
member” of the XE360 series is the “upper cover” “excluding the upper half of the thickness of
the top surface of the ‘upper cover.’” The remainder of the infringement analysis will proceed
accordingly.
Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “flow guidance plate,” but in support all it provides is a
figure containing two exploded views and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]here is nothing
in the XE360 Series corresponding to the claimed flow guidance plate[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 5;
see also Ruling Request at 4. Cooler Master, on the other hand, identifieswhat it believes is the
“flow guidance plate” namely, “the upper half of the thickness of the top surface, including the
upper half of the two holes in the upper cover” “in conjunction with two ‘nozzle fittings.’” See
e.g., Cooler Master Response at 4; Cooler Master Oral Discussion PowerPoint at 6. The remaining
arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s contentions. In response to
what Cooler Master alleges is the claimed “flow guidance plate,” Apaltek states:
If, as Cooler Master suggests, the claimed “cover member” corresponds to that
portion of the “upper cover” excluding “the upper half of the thickness of the top
surface,” then any cavities would be defined by the bottom surface of the cover
member, as shown below, and not the bottom surface of the flow guidance plate,
as required by the claims.
Apaltek Reply 1 to 2.
In reply to Apaltek’s contention that “any cavities would be defined by the bottom surface
of the cover member, as shown below, and not the bottom surface of the flow guidance plate, as
required by the claims,” Apaltek Reply at 2 (emphasis in the original), Cooler Master states:
[T]he claims are agnostic as to whether there are such cavities on the bottom surface
of the cover member. What matters is that there are cavities on the bottom surface
of the flow guidance plate—which there clearly are here.
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 3. Cooler Master further explains:
19
As is apparent, there are two holes in the top surface of the upper cover. And
because these holes are visible both from above and from below, the holes pass all
the way through the top surface of the upper cover. Thus, the holes also pass all the
way through the upper half of the thickness of the top surface (as well as the lower
half of the thickness of the top surface)[.] And these holes in the upper half of the
thickness of the top surface of the XE360 Series’ upper cover are cavities in the
bottom surface of the XE360 Series’ flow guidance plate—they are hollowed-out
spaces in that structure with flow paths passing all the way through them. See Inv.
No. 337-TA-1394, Order No. 10 at 9-14.
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 3 to 4.
We agree with Cooler Master that the claims require that there be cavities on the bottom of
the flow guidance plate and are agnostic as to whether there are cavities on the bottom surface of
the cover member. See claim 1 of ‘446 patent (“the first cavity and the second cavity are defined
on the bottom surface of the flow guidance plate”) (emphasis added). Moreover, as is clearly
shown in the pictures, there are two holes in the top surface of the upper cover, which corresponds
to the “bottom surface” of Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate.” See Cooler Master
Sur Reply at 3. These holes also are consistent with the Commission’s construction of “cavity,”
i.e., a hollowed out space. See Order No. 10 at 9. Apaltek does not point out any other reasons
why Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate” is wrong and provides no substantive
explanation to support its position that there is no “flow guidance plate.” As such, we find that the
“flow guidance plate” limitations are met and will use Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance
plate” in this infringement analysis.
Housing Disposed on the Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “housing,” but in support provides only a figure containing
two exploded views and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]here is nothing in the XE360
Series corresponding to [ ] the housing[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 5; see also Ruling Request at 4.
Cooler Master disagrees and identifies the “bracket” as the “housing.” See Cooler Master
Response at 4. The remaining arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s
contentions. In response to what Cooler Master alleges is the claimed “housing disposed on the
flow guidance plate,” Apaltek responds:
[A]ccording to Cooler Master, the flow guidance plate consists of “the upper half
of the thickness of the top surface” of the upper cover in conjunction with the two
nozzle fittings, it is clear that the bracket (green) is not “disposed on” that portion
of the “upper cover” (red), but sits below it:
20
Apaltek Reply at 2 to 3. Apaltek does not explicitly state what it believes the plain and ordinary
meaning of “disposed on,” is, but appears to imply that the plain and ordinary meaning of
“disposed on” is limited to an “up-down dimension” and does not include “configuration where
two things are side-by-side.” See Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 2 to 3.
In response to Apaltek’s argument that the “housing” alleged by Cooler Master is not
“disposed on” the “flow guidance plate,” Apaltek Reply at 2 to 3, Cooler Master states:
Apaltek appears to be arbitrarily selecting an up-down dimension and narrowly
construing the words “disposed on” to require that the housing be “above” the flow
guidance plate in Apaltek’s chosen dimension. There is no basis for this narrow
claim construction. The XE360’s bracket—which corresponds to the housing—is
clearly disposed on the flow guidance plate because the housing is held in place
and surrounding the flow guidance plate on four sides. In this regard, Apaltek’s
annotations in green on page 3 of its reply letter are incorrect and misleading.
Apaltek highlighted only the outer portion of two of the four sides of the bracket
(housing), whereas in reality the entire bracket— as shown in the image in
Apaltek’s opening letter—corresponds to the housing[.]
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 4. Cooler Master further notes that its analysis of the “housing” term
is in line with the Commission’s analysis of the prior art. Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion
Submission at 2. In particular, Cooler Master explains:
As shown in Apaltek’s technical drawing of the XE360 Series [ ], the bracket is not
a flat piece that is merely resting on top of something (like the base 164 in the prior
art Chinese Utility Model). Rather, the bracket surrounds and contacts the other
components of the cold plate on four sides. Accordingly, the bracket does “partially
enclose” those other components, in accordance with the ITC’s construction of
“housing.”
Id. at 3 (emphasis in the original). In addition, with respect to the term “disposed on,” while Cooler
Master agrees with Apaltek that the term should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning,” Cooler
Master and Apaltek appear to disagree as to what that “plain and ordinary meaning is.” Id. at 5.
Specifically, Cooler Master states that:
There is no requirement here that a structure be disposed on another structure in a
particular dimension (e.g., “above”). There is also no requirement of direct
21
contact—consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning, it is fine for there to be
intervening structures between a component and another component that the first
component is “disposed on.”
Id. at 6. In support of this broader understanding of “disposed on,” Cooler Master provided both
extrinsic evidence, e.g., two court cases discussing “disposed on” in the context of different patents
and technologies and two dictionary definitions, and intrinsic evidence, e.g., Cooler Master points
out that
when the ‘446 patent intended to require that a structure be disposed on another
structure in a particular dimension, the patent said so explicitly. In this regard, in
‘446 claim 1, the “housing” must only be “disposed on” the flow guidance plate
generally. In stark contrast, the same claim requires that the flow guidance plate be
“disposed on a top surface of the cover member and including a bottom surface
facing the top surface of the cover member” (emphasis added).
Id.
The Commission construed “housing” to mean “something that at least partially encloses
one or more components.” Order No. 10 at 14 (internal citation omitted) (internal quotations
omitted). We find that the “bracket” fits within this definition of “housing” as the bracket at least
partially encloses one or more components, e.g., the cover member.
That said, the primary contention between the parties for this limitation centers on whether
the bracket is “disposed on” the flow guidance plate. Apaltek implies that the plain and ordinary
meaning of “disposed on” is limited to an “up-down dimension” and does not include
“configuration where two things are side-by-side,” see Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission
at 2 to 3, but Apaltek points to no support for this interpretation. Rather, as Cooler Master notes,
when the ‘446 patent intended to require that a structure be disposed on another structure in a
particular dimension, the patent said so, which can be seen in claim 1, which requires the “housing”
be “disposed on” the flow guidance plate, but requires that the flow guidance plate be “disposed
on a top surface of the cover member.” Cooler Master Sur Reply at 6 (emphasis in the original).
As such we find that “disposed on” is not limited to purely an “up-down dimension.” We further
note that the configuration of the bracket which Cooler Master identifies as the “housing” is not
merely in a “side-by-side” configuration with the “flow guidance plate,” rather, it surrounds the
flow guidance plate on all four sides. Thus, we find that Apaltek has not established that this
limitation, i.e., “a housing disposed on the flow guidance plate,” is not met.
Taken together, we find that Apaltek has not met its burden to establish that the XE360
Series does not infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
SV Series
We find that Apaltek has failed to meet its burden to show that the SV Series does not
infringe claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
22
Apaltek’s Position
For claim 1 of the ‘446 patent, Apaltek argues that “the SV Series lacks the claimed flow
guidance plate [and] housing[.]” Ruling Request at 5 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 8. Apaltek also notes
that “[t]he only meaningful distinction in componentry is that the SV Series has a middle cover
where the XE360 Series does not.” Id. citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 7.
Cooler Master’s Position
Cooler Master, on the other hand, argues that all the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘446
patent are met. Specifically, Cooler Master states:
• “[T]he SV series includes a claimed ‘base plate’ in the form of the ‘copper plate.’” Cooler
Master Response at 4.
• “[T]he claimed ‘cover member’ corresponds to the ‘copper middle cover’ and ‘copper
upper cover’ in the SV series, excluding the upper half of the thickness of the top surface
of the ‘copper upper cover.’” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘flow guidance plate’ corresponds to the remaining portion of the ‘copper
upper cover’ (i.e., the upper half of the thickness of the top surface, including the upper
half of the two holes in the copper upper cover) in conjunction with the two ‘nozzle fittings’
in the SV series.” Id. at 5.
• “[T]he claimed ‘housing’ corresponds to the four ‘fasteners’ in the SV series.” Id.
We address each of the claim terms in turn, below.
Base Plate
There appears to be no dispute that the claimed “base plate” is the “copper plate.” See e.g.,
Ruling Request at 5 (no contention that the SV Series does not have the claimed base plate); see
also Cooler Master Response at 4. Thus, we find that this limitation is met.
Cover Member
In the context of the ‘446 patent, Apaltek does not appear to take issue with what Cooler
Master identified as the “cover member.” 10 See e.g., Apaltek Reply at 3 to 4. Thus, we find that
this limitation is met.
Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “flow guidance plate,” but in support all it provides is a
figure containing an exploded view and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]he SV Series
10
Later on in the context of the GB Series, Apaltek appears to note that it generally argued that the “cover member”
identified by Cooler Master in the SV Series does not define a first and second opening. Apaltek Reply at 4. However,
the reasons underlying our finding that the “cover member” identified by Cooler Master in the XE360 Series had a
first opening and second opening, apply to the SV Series as well: the lower half of the thickness of the top surface of
the copper upper cover has two holes, which correspond to the first opening and second opening.
23
does not have a flow guidance plate[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 8; see also Ruling Request at 5.
However, Cooler Master identified what it believes is the “flow guidance plate,” namely, “the
remaining portion of the ‘copper upper cover’ (i.e., the upper half of the thickness of the top
surface, including the upper half of the two holes in the copper upper cover) in conjunction with
the two ‘nozzle fittings’ in the SV series.” See e.g., Cooler Master Response at 5. The remaining
arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s contentions. In response to
what Cooler Master alleges is athe claimed “flow guidance plate,” Apaltek states:
Cooler Master also fails to explain how the bottom of that structure [i.e., the upper
half of the thickness of the top surface of the “copper upper cover”] defines cavities,
as required by the claims of the ‘446 Patent. Indeed, as shown in the depiction
below, any cavities are defined in the top portion of the “copper middle cover,”
which Cooler Master identifies as part of the claimed “cover member,” rather than
the “flow guidance plate.”
Apaltek Reply at 3.
In response, Cooler Master states:
Again, the fact that additional cavities might be present in the cover member does
not mean that there are no cavities in the bottom surface of the flow guidance plate.
In the SV Series, the copper upper cover has two holes that pass all the way through
it. These two holes thus pass through the upper half of the thickness of the top
surface of the copper upper cover (as well as the lower half of the thickness of the
top surface of the copper upper cover), and are “cavities” in the bottom surface of
the flow guidance plate based on the ITC’s construction of “cavity.” See Inv. No.
337-TA-1394, Order No. 10, at 9-14.
As with the XE360 Series, these two holes in the SV Series’ copper upper cover
also mean that there are first and second openings in the cover member (the copper
middle cover and copper upper cover in the SV Series, excluding the upper half of
the thickness of the top surface of the copper upper cover).
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 5.
Similar to our reasoning for the “flow guidance plate” of the XE360 Series, we agree with
Cooler Master here. As is clearly shown in the picture, there are two holes in the top surface of
the copper upper cover, which correspond to the “bottom surface” of Cooler Master’s identified
“flow guidance plate.”
24
Ruling Request at 5 (cropped). These holes also are consistent with the Commission’s construction
of “cavity,” i.e., a hollowed out space. See Order No. 10 at 9. Apaltek does not point out any
other reasons why Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate” is wrong and it provides no
substantive explanation to support its position that there is no “flow guidance plate.” As such, we
find that the “flow guidance plate” limitations are met and will use Cooler Master’s identified
“flow guidance plate” in this infringement analysis.
Housing Disposed on Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “housing,” but in support all it provides is a figure
containing an exploded view and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]he SV Series does not
have a [ ] housing[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 8; see also Ruling Request at 5. Cooler Master disagrees
and identifies the “four fasteners” as the “housing.” See Cooler Master Response at 5. The
remaining arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s contentions. In
response to what Cooler Master alleged as the claimed “housing disposed on the flow guidance
plate,” Apaltek responds:
As can be seen from the depiction below, characterizing the brackets as a “housing”
at all, let alone a housing the upper half of the thickness of the top surface of the
“copper upper cover” is specious:
Apaltek Reply at 3. Apaltek further argues that:
[A]lthough Cooler Master invokes the Commission’s construction of “housing” in
labeling the brackets, it ignores that portion of the Initial Determination finding that
“[a]n ordinary artisan would not understand a flat piece resting on top of fins
enclose the fins, even partially.” See Initial Determination at 132. Clearly, if a flat
piece of metal does not “enclose,” then a set of brackets would not “enclose,” either.
As if to illustrate this point, Cooler Master argues that “the four brackets partially
enclose the copper plate, copper middle cover, and copper upper cover in four
places (roughly at the four corners of the assembled structure).” Sur-Reply at 6
(emphasis added). The specious nature of this argument did not deter Cooler Master
from labeling the brackets as a “housing.”
25
Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 3.
Cooler Master, in support of its contention that the four fasteners correspond to the
“housing,” argues:
As shown in the image below, the four brackets in the SV Series at least partially
enclose the copper plate, copper middle cover, and copper upper cover:
In particular, the four brackets partially enclose the copper plate, copper middle
cover, and copper upper cover in four places (roughly at the four corners of the
assembled structure).
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 6. Cooler Master further states that in contrast to the base 164 in the
prior art Chinese Utility Model, which was a flat piece that was merely resting on top of something:
In the SV Series, the “fasteners” do not merely rest on top of the copper upper
cover. Rather, they wrap around the copper upper cover, copper middle cover, and
copper plate so as to “fasten” these components together. This necessarily involves
“partially enclosing” these other components. If it did not, the “fasteners” would
not be fastening anything—the other components would simply fall apart from each
other.
Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion Submission at 4. While the underlying investigation found
that a “flat piece of metal does not enclose,” Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 3, as
Cooler Master points out there are differences between a flat piece of metal resting on top of a
surface compared to fasteners, Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion Submission at 4, and as such,
it’s not as “clear” as Apaltek alleges that “a set of brackets would not ‘enclose,’ either.” Apaltek
Post Oral Discussion Submission at 3. Apaltek provided no other support for its contention. Thus,
we find that Apaltek failed to establish that the SV Series does not meet the “housing” limitation.
Taken together, we find that Apaltek has not met its burden to establish that the SV Series
does not infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
GB Series
We find that Apaltek has failed to meet its burden to show that the GB Series does not
infringe claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
26
Apaltek’s Position
For claim 1 of the ‘446 patent, Apaltek argues that “[t]here is nothing in the GB Series
corresponding to the claimed flow guidance plate [or] the housing[.]” Ruling Request at 6 citing
Xiao Decl. at ¶ 11.
Cooler Master’s Position
Cooler Master, on the other hand, argues that all the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘446
patent are met. Specifically, Cooler Master states:
• “[T]he GB series includes a claimed ‘base plate’ in the form of the ‘copper plate.’” Cooler
Master Response at 5.
• “[T]he claimed ‘cover member’ corresponds to the ‘copper middle cover’ and ‘copper
upper cover’ in the GB series, excluding the upper half of the thickness of the top surface
of the ‘copper upper cover.’” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘flow guidance plate’ corresponds to the remaining portion of the ‘copper
upper cover’ (i.e., the upper half of the thickness of the top surface, including the upper
half of the two holes in the upper cover, and the nozzle connections) in the GB series.” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘housing’ corresponds to the ‘bracket’ and ‘fixed plates’ in the GB series.”
Id.
We address each of the claim terms in turn, below.
Base Plate
There appears to be no dispute that the claimed “base plate” is the “copper plate.” See e.g.,
Ruling Request at 6 (no contention that the GB Series does not have the claimed base plate); see
also Cooler Master Response at 5. Thus, we find that this limitation is met.
Cover Member
While the parties appear to agree that there is a “cover member,” they disagree as to what
portion of the GB Series product is the “cover member.” Cooler Master points to the “‘copper
middle cover’ and ‘copper upper cover’ in the GB series, excluding the upper half of the thickness
of the top surface of the ‘copper upper cover.’” Cooler Master Response at 5. Apaltek disagrees
that this is the “cover member” but does not identify what it believes is the “cover member.” See
generally, Ruling Request and Apaltek Reply. Rather, in response to Cooler Master’s alleged
“cover member,” Apaltek argues:
[T]he “cover member” does not define a first and second opening (“two holes in
the upper cover,” which is described by Cooler Master as part of the claimed “flow
guidance plate,” rather than the “cover member”).
Apaltek Reply at 4. However, as was explained with respect to a similar argument Apaltek made
for the “cover member” identified by Cooler Master in the XE360 Series: the lower half of the
27
thickness of the top surface of the copper upper cover has two holes, which correspond to the first
opening and second opening. We find this limitation is met.
Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “flow guidance plate,” but in support all it provides is an
exploded view figure and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]here is nothing in the GB Series
corresponding to the claimed flow guidance plate[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 11; see also Ruling
Request at 6. However, Cooler Master identified what it believes is the “flow guidance plate,”
namely, “the remaining portion of the ‘copper upper cover’ (i.e., the upper half of the thickness of
the top surface, including the upper half of the two holes in the upper cover, and the nozzle
connections) in the GB series.” See e.g., Cooler Master Response at 5. The remaining arguments
from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s contentions.
In response to what Cooler Master alleged as the claimed “flow guidance plate,” Apaltek
stated, “the bottom of what Cooler Master identified as the ‘flow guidance plate’ does not define
cavities[.]” Apaltek Reply at 4. However, similar to our reasoning for the “flow guidance plate”
of the XE360 Series and SV Series, we agree with Cooler Master here. As shown in the picture,
there are two holes in the top surface of the copper upper cover, which correspond to the “bottom
surface” of Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate.”
Hole Hole
Ruling Request at 6 (cropped) (annotations added). These holes also are consistent with the
Commission’s construction of “cavity,” i.e., a hollowed out space. See Order No. 10 at 9. Apaltek
does not point out any other reasons why Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate” is
wrong and it provides no substantive explanation to support its position that there is no “flow
guidance plate.” As such, we find that the “flow guidance plate” limitations are met and will use
what Cooler Master identified as the “flow guidance plate” in this infringement analysis.
Housing Disposed on Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “housing,” but in support all it provides is an exploded view
figure and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]here is nothing in the GB Series corresponding
to [ ] the housing[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 11; see also Ruling Request at 6. Cooler Master disagrees
and identifies the “bracket” and “fixed plates” as the “housing.” See Cooler Master Response at
5. The remaining arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s contentions.
In response to what Cooler Master alleged as the claimed “housing disposed on the flow guidance
plate,” Apaltek responds:
28
[T]hese components clearly do not comprise a “housing,” nor are they disposed on
the upper half of the thickness of the top surface of the “copper upper cover,” which
Cooler Master identifies as corresponding the claimed “flow guidance plate.” As
the claims of both patents require that the “housing” be disposed on the “flow
guidance plate,” this limitation is missing from the GB Series products.
Apaltek Reply at 4 to 5. Apaltek further states:
As discussed, the Commission, whose construction Cooler Master relies upon so
heavily, found that a flat piece of metal (such as the fixed plates in the case of the
GB Series) does not “enclose.” Further, the fixed plates are on the sides of what
Cooler Master identified as the flow guidance plate (copper upper cover), and the
bracket is below that component. As noted above, allowing componentry to be
anywhere while still being “disposed on” requires a specialized definition of that
term that Cooler Master never urged.
Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 4 (emphasis in the original). For reference, Apaltek
also included an annotated figure highlighting the “bracket” and “fixed plates” that Cooler Master
claimed was the “housing.” Id. at 3. That figure is reproduced below:
Id. at 4.
Cooler Master argues:
[T]he bracket and fixed plate at least partially enclose the copper plate, copper
middle cover, and copper upper cover in the assembled structure.
29
Moreover, the bracket and fixed plate are “disposed on” the flow guidance plate for
reasons similar to those explained above in connection with the XE360 Series.
Apaltek’s attempt to narrow the meaning of “disposed on” to require that the
housing be “above” the flow guidance plate in an arbitrary dimension that Apaltek
selects should be rejected.
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 7. Cooler Master further explains:
In the GB Series, the bracket is arranged similarly to the bracket in the XE360
Series and thus partially encloses other components for the same reasons as in the
XE360 Series. The bracket is not merely a flat piece resting on top of something.
Moreover, the GB Series also includes “fixed plates” that further make up the
housing (in conjunction with the bracket) and serve to partially enclose the
components within those fixed plates to an even greater extent than the bracket
alone does.
Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion Submission at 3 - 4.
As Cooler Master notes, the arguments pertaining to this limitation in the context of the
GB Series are similar to those that were discussed in relation to the XE360 Series; the primary
difference being that in addition to a “bracket” there are also “fixed plates” alleged to form the
“housing disposed on the flow guidance plate.” Id. Thus, for at least the reasons noted in relation
to the XE360 Series, we find that the “bracket” and “fixed plates” fit within the Commission’s
definition of “housing” as they at least partially enclose one or more components, e.g., the copper
plate, copper middle cover, and copper upper cover. We further note that the “bracket” and “fixed
plates” here are distinguishable from the flat piece of metal in the prior art the Commission found
did not “enclose.” The bracket fully surrounds one or more components and the fixed plates (as
shown by the anchor bolts) are anchored down in the assembled structure rather than merely resting
on top of a structure.
As noted, Apaltek also argues that the “housing” as alleged by Cooler Master is not
“disposed on the flow guidance plate.” See e.g., Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 4.
Apaltek’s and Cooler Master’s arguments were similar to those made with respect to the XE360
Series. For the reasons previously noted, we found that “disposed on” is not limited to purely an
“up-down dimension.” Apaltek did not provide any support to show that the plain and ordinary
meaning of “disposed on” is limited to an up-down dimension. Thus, we find that Apaltek has not
established that this limitation, i.e., “a housing disposed on the flow guidance plate,” is not met.
Taken together, we find that Apaltek has not met its burden to establish that the GB Series
does not infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
GP Series
We find that Apaltek has failed to meet its burden to show that the GP Series does not
infringe claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
30
Apaltek’s Position
For claim 1 of the ‘446 patent, Apaltek argues that “[t]here is nothing in the GB[ 11] Series
corresponding to the claimed flow guidance plate [or] the housing[.]” Ruling Request at 7 citing
Xiao Decl. at ¶ 13.
Cooler Master’s Position
Cooler Master, on the other hand, argues that all the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘446
patent are met. Specifically, Cooler Master states:
• “[T]he GP series includes a claimed ‘base plate’ in the form of the ‘copper plate.’” Cooler
Master Response at 6.
• “[T]he claimed ‘cover member’ corresponds to the ‘silicone pad,’ along with certain walls
of the radiator assembly in the GP series (visible in ‘module explosion image 2’).” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘flow guidance plate’ corresponds to the portion of the radiator assembly
that is directly above the cover member and that ‘mates’ with the cover member in the GP
series.” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘housing’ corresponds to the remainder of the radiator assembly (i.e.,
everything except the portions that form the flow guidance plate and a portion of the cover
member) in the GP series.” Id.
We address each of the claim terms in turn, below.
Base Plate
There appears to be no dispute that the claimed “base plate” is the “copper plate.” See e.g.,
Ruling Request at 7 (no contention that the GP Series does not have the claimed base plate); see
also Cooler Master Response at 6. Thus, we find that this limitation is met.
Cover Member
While the parties appear to agree that there is a “cover member,” they disagree as to what
portion of the GP Series product is the “cover member.” See e.g., Ruling Request at 7 (only
alleging there is no flow guidance plate, housing and outer casing). Cooler Master points to the
“‘silicone pad,’ along with certain walls of the radiator assembly in the GP series (visible in
‘module explosion image 2’).” Cooler Master Response at 6. Apaltek disagrees that this is the
“cover member” but does not identify what it believes is the “cover member.” See generally,
Ruling Request and Apaltek Reply. Rather, in response to Cooler Master’s alleged “cover
member,” Apaltek argued:
[A]part from the dubious proposition that the same element can be disposed on
itself - not once, but twice (flow guidance plate disposed on cover member, and
housing disposed on flow guidance plate) - this mapping requires Cooler Master to
11
Apaltek wrote this as “the GB Series” in the Ruling Request under the portion for “GP Series.” See Ruling Request
at 6 - 7. We presume this is a typo and Apaltek meant “GP Series.”
31
rely upon an element that Cooler Master clearly identifies as a “housing” to form
part of the “heat exchange chamber.” As Cooler Master told the Patent Office
during reexamination of the ‘446 Patent, the ITC “found that prior art references
requiring additional housing components beyond the cover member and base plate
failed to meet” the “defining a heat exchange chamber” limitation.[ ] U.S. Appl.
Ser. No. 90/015,395, Reply to Office Action (Jan. 26, 2026) [Ex. A] at 18. This
mapping is also inconstant with what Cooler Master told the Enforcement Branch
during the first Section 177 proceeding:
[I]f there’s another separate piece called a housing and that comes in and
defines part of the heat exchange chamber, well, then that's not covered
because then the cover member and the base plate don’t define the heat
exchange chamber as the claims require.
Tr. (Sept. 23, 2025) [Ex. B] at 61:16-21.
Apaltek Reply at 5 (third alteration in the original). Apaltek further noted, “Cooler Master never
explained which “certain walls” of the radiator comprise the cover member” and “[a]s with the
other products discussed above, Cooler Master engages in random labeling in the name of covering
more products with its patent claims.” Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 5.
In response, Cooler Master states, “Apaltek flatly mischaracterizes Cooler Master’s
statements from the first Section 177 proceeding and the reexamination of the ‘446 patent[.]”
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 7. Cooler Master explains:
The key point is that the claims require that the heat exchange chamber be defined
by the cover member and the base plate. If a third part (whether called a “housing”
or not) that is not part of the cover member or base plate is necessary to define the
heat exchange chamber, then the heat exchange chamber is not defined by the cover
member and base plate, and the structure is thus outside the scope of the claims.
Id. at 8. Cooler Master adds:
Cooler Master told the USPTO the same thing during the reexamination
proceeding. Reply Letter at 5 (citing Ex. A at 18) (the ITC “found that prior art
references requiring additional housing components beyond the cover member and
base plate failed to meet” the “defining a heat exchange chamber” limitation.”
(emphasis added)). Cooler Master fully stands by these statements, and there is no
inconsistency between them and the current mapping of the GP Series and other
proffered designs to claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
[I]n the GP Series, distinct parts of the so-called “radiator assembly” form a portion
of the cover member, the flow guidance plate, and the housing. But crucially, each
of the cover member, flow guidance plate, and housing is formed from different
parts of the radiator assembly—there is no overlap. And, as with every other design
that is covered by claim 1 of the ‘446 patent, the heat exchange chamber in the
32
GP Series is defined by the cover member (silicone pad along with certain walls of
the radiator assembly) and base plate (copper plate) alone.
...
Thus, no part is “disposed on itself.” The portion of the radiator assembly that forms
the housing is disposed on the different part of the radiator assembly that form the
flow guidance plate, which itself is disposed on the top surface of the still-different
part of the radiator assembly that forms the cover member (along with the silicone
pad).
Id.
As Apaltek states, it is not clear which walls of the radiator Cooler Master believes are part
of the “cover member.” Further, it is not clear whether the “cover member” alleged by Cooler
Master has a first opening and second opening as required by claim 1. As shown in the exploded
figures of the GP Series, the silicone pad looks to only have one opening.
opening
opening
Ruling Request at 7 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 12 (annotations added). Nevertheless, it is not Cooler
Master’s burden to show infringement, rather it is Apaltek’s burden to show noninfringement.12
As both parties appear to agree the “cover member” limitation is satisfied, we will proceed with
that assumption.
Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “flow guidance plate,” but in support all it provides is a
figure with two exploded views and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]here is nothing in the
G[P] Series corresponding to the claimed flow guidance plate[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 12; see also
Ruling Request at 7. However, Cooler Master identified what it believes is the “flow guidance
12
Moreover, in the context of the UI Series, when Apaltek argued that the cover member alleged by Cooler Master
did not define a first and second opening, Cooler Master replied that “these openings must be present to allow for heat
exchange (cold in and hot out).” Cooler Master Sur Reply at 11. Apaltek did not address this point subsequently in
its Post Oral Discussion Submission.
33
plate” namely, “the portion of the radiator assembly that is directly above the cover member and
that ‘mates’ with the cover member in the GP series.” See e.g., Cooler Master Response at 6. The
remaining arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s contentions.
In response to what Cooler Master alleged as the claimed “flow guidance plate,” Apaltek
stated, “Cooler Master fails to explain how the bottom portion of the radiator it considers to be the
“flow guidance plate” identifies cavities, as required by the claims of the ‘446 Patent. See, e.g.,
‘446 Patent, claim 1.” Apaltek Reply at 5. Apaltek also states, “Cooler Master never explained [
] which portion of the radiator is ‘directly above’ and ‘mates’ with the cover member[.]” Apaltek
Post Oral Discussion Submission at 5.
Cooler Master however notes:
[T]he cavities (“hollowed-out spaces” per the ITC’s claim construction) in the
bottom surface of GP Series’ flow guidance plate are plainly visible in “module
explosion image 2,” reproduced here:
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 8 to 9. The annotated picture provided by Cooler Master clearly shows
the cavities.
As shown in the figure above, there are three holes in bottom portion of the radiator Cooler
Master’s identified “flow guidance plate.” These holes also are consistent with the Commission’s
construction of “cavity,” i.e., a hollowed out space. See Order No. 10 at 9. Apaltek also contends
that Cooler Master did not explain which portion of the radiator is “directly above” and “mates”
with the cover member. However, as also shown in the picture above, the portion with the three
holes is directly above and mates with the silicone pad portion of the “cover member” alleged by
Cooler Master. Apaltek does not point to any other reasons why Cooler Master’s identified “flow
guidance plate” is incorrect and it provides no substantive explanation to support its position that
there is no “flow guidance plate.” As such, we find that the “flow guidance plate” limitations are
met and will use Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate” in this infringement analysis.
Housing Disposed on Flow Guidance Plate
34
Apaltek asserts that there is no “housing,” but in support all it provides is a figure with two
exploded views and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]here is nothing in the G[P] Series
corresponding to [ ] the housing[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 13; see also Ruling Request at 7. Cooler
Master disagrees and identifies “the remainder of the radiator assembly (i.e., everything except the
portions that form the flow guidance plate and a portion of the cover member) in the GP series.”
See Cooler Master Response at 6. The remaining arguments from Apaltek are directed at
addressing Cooler Master’s contentions. In response to what Cooler Master alleged as the claimed
“housing disposed on the flow guidance plate,” Apaltek responds:
Cooler Master never explained [ ] what the remainder of the radiator comprising
the housing is. This is especially problematic given that the only portion of the
radiator that could arguably be segregated into a housing extends away from the
components that are purportedly housed, assuming the manner in which Cooler
Master parsed the various “parts” of the radiator is legitimate:
Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 5 (emphasis in the original) (annotation in the
original).
Cooler Master contends:
In the GP Series, the remainder of the radiator assembly (i.e., the portion of the
radiator assembly that does not make up the cover member or flow guidance plate)
is clearly nothing like the flat base 164 in the prior art Chinese Utility Model. This
housing at least partially encloses other components, such as the pump.
Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion at 5.
We find that this “housing” limitation is met. While the majority of the housing may extend
away from the components that are purportedly housed, the picture shows that there are
nonetheless components, e.g., the pump as noted by Cooler Master, that is at least partially
enclosed by this housing. 13 That is all that is required for a “housing” as construed in the
underlying investigation. Moreover, as show in the picture above, this “housing” sits on top of the
“flow guidance plate” alleged by Cooler Master. Thus, even accepting Apaltek’s position that
“disposed on” is only in the up-down dimension, the “housing” would still be “disposed on” the
“flow guidance plate” pursuant to this interpretation.
Indeed, this portion of the radiator that at least partially encloses the pump appears similar to the pump cover in the
13
UI Series, which Apaltek seemingly agrees could be a “housing.” See e.g., Ruling Request at 9.
35
Taking together the claim limitations discussed above in relation to the GP Series, we find
that Apaltek has not met its burden to establish that the GP Series does not infringe at least claim
1 of the ‘446 patent. Further, we note that for the GP Series, while we did not use Cooler Master’s
alleged “cover member” as part of the infringement analysis because it was not clear what it was,
Apaltek never alleged that the GP Series did not meet the “cover member” limitation. As such, it
was presumed met. In addition, Apaltek’s later arguments regarding the “flow guidance plate”
and “housing” limitations were not premised on the “cover member” being any particular structure.
Thus, we find that Apaltek has failed to meet its burden to show that the GP Series does not infringe
claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
SPX Series
We find that Apaltek has failed to meet its burden to show that the SPX Series does not
infringe claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
Apaltek’s Position
For claim 1 of the ‘446 patent, Apaltek argues that “[t]here is nothing in the SPX Series
corresponding to the claimed flow guidance plate [or] the housing[.]” Ruling Request at 8 citing
Xiao Decl. at ¶ 15.
Cooler Master’s Position
Cooler Master, on the other hand, argues that all the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘446
patent are met. Specifically, Cooler Master states:
• “[T]he SPX series includes a claimed ‘base plate’ in the form of the ‘copper plate.’” Cooler
Master Response at 6.
• “[T]he claimed ‘cover member’ corresponds to the ‘copper plate cover’ in the SPX series,
excluding the upper half of the thickness of the top surface of the ‘copper plate cover.’”
Id. at 7.
• “[T]he claimed ‘flow guidance plate’ corresponds to the remaining portion of the ‘copper
plate cover’ (i.e., the upper half of the thickness of the top surface, including the upper half
of the two holes in the copper plate cover) in conjunction with the ‘faucet cover block’ and
two nozzles in the SPX series.” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘housing’ corresponds to the ‘bracket’ in the SPX series.” Id.
We address each of the claim terms in turn, below.
Base Plate
There appears to be no dispute that the claimed “base plate” is the “copper plate.” See e.g.,
Ruling Request at 7 to 8 (no contention that the SPX Series does not have the claimed base plate);
see also Cooler Master Response at 6. Thus, we find that this limitation is met.
36
Cover Member
While the parties appear to agree that there is a “cover member,” they disagree as to what
portion of the SPX Series product is the “cover member.” See e.g., Ruling Request at 8 (only
alleging there is no flow guidance plate, housing and outer casing). Cooler Master points to the to
“the ‘copper plate cover’ in the SPX series, excluding the upper half of the thickness of the top
surface of the ‘copper plate cover.’” Cooler Master Response at 7. Apaltek disagrees that this is
the “cover member” but does not identify what it believes is the “cover member.” See generally,
Ruling Request and Apaltek Reply. Apaltek also did not point out any specific reasons why Cooler
Master’s interpretation of what is the “cover member” was wrong. Thus, we find that this
limitation is met. The remainder of the infringement analysis will proceed accordingly.
Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “flow guidance plate,” but in support all it provides is a
figure with an exploded view and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]here is nothing in the
SPX Series corresponding to the claimed flow guidance plate[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 15; see also
Ruling Request at 7 to 8. However, Cooler Master identified what it believes is the “flow guidance
plate” namely, “the remaining portion of the ‘copper plate cover’ (i.e., the upper half of the
thickness of the top surface, including the upper half of the two holes in the copper plate cover) in
conjunction with the ‘faucet cover block’ and two nozzles in the SPX series.” See e.g., Cooler
Master Response at 7. The remaining arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler
Master’s contentions.
In response to what Cooler Master alleged as the claimed “flow guidance plate,” Apaltek
stated:
Cooler Master does not identify how cavities are defined in the bottom of upper
half of the “copper plate cover” as required by the claims of the ‘446 Patent. See,
e.g.,‘446 Patent, claim 1.
Apaltek Reply at 6.
In response, Cooler Master states:
Cavities are defined on the bottom surface of the flow guidance plate (the upper
half of the thickness of the top surface of the copper plate cover) because the holes
in the copper plate cover pass all the way through the structure:
37
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 9 to 10.
We find that, as shown in the picture above, there are two holes in the top surface of the
copper plate cover, which correspond to the “bottom surface” of Cooler Master’s identified “flow
guidance plate.” See Cooler Master Sur Reply at 9 to 10. These holes also are consistent with the
Commission’s construction of “cavity,” i.e., a hollowed out space. See Order No. 10 at 9. Apaltek
does not point to any other reasons why Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate” is
incorrect and it provides no substantive explanation to support its position that there is no “flow
guidance plate.” As such, we find that the “flow guidance plate” limitations are met and will use
Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate” in this infringement analysis.
Housing Disposed on Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “housing,” but in support all it provides is a figure with an
exploded view and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]here is nothing in the SPX Series
corresponding to the [ ] housing[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 15; see also Ruling Request at 7 to 8.
Cooler Master disagrees and identifies the “housing” as “the ‘bracket’ in the SPX series.” See
Cooler Master Response at 7. The remaining arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing
Cooler Master’s contentions. In response to what Cooler Master alleged as the claimed “housing
disposed on the flow guidance plate,” Apaltek responds:
[M]erely looking at the product’s configuration, it is apparent that the bracket is not
“disposed on” the upper part of the “copper plate cover,” which Cooler Master
identified as the “flow guidance plate (see Cooler Master Resp. at 7):
38
Apaltek Reply at 6. Apaltek also noted:
In sur-reply, Cooler Master offered the further “explanation” that “the bracket in
the SPX Series qualifies as a ‘housing’ under the ITC’s claim construction because
it at least partially encloses one or more components,” and “is ‘disposed on’ the
flow guidance plate because there is no basis to restrict the ‘disposed on’ term to a
particular dimension arbitrarily selected by Apaltek.” Sur-Reply at 10. These
arguments have both been addressed in connection with the XE360 and other
products. That said, it is indeed ironic that the party urging that “disposed on”
includes positioning one component literally anywhere relative to another
component – directly or indirectly above, below, or to the sides – is levying
accusations of arbitrariness.
Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 6.
In response Cooler Master states:
[T]he bracket in the SPX Series qualifies as a “housing” under the ITC’s claim
construction because it at least partially encloses one or more components. And it
is “disposed on” the flow guidance plate because there is no basis to restrict the
“disposed on” term to a particular dimension arbitrarily selected by Apaltek. In this
regard, Apaltek’s annotation of the bracket in its reply letter is incorrect and
misleading because it only highlights one small piece of the bracket, not the entire
bracket (which is what actually corresponds to the claimed “housing”):
See Reply Letter at 6. The actual bracket (housing) is the entire piece highlighted below.
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 10. Cooler Master also points out that “[i]n the SPX Series [ ] the
bracket is arranged similarly to the bracket in the XE360 series and thus partially encloses other
39
components for the same reasons as in the XE360 Series.” Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion
Submission at 5.
As Cooler Master notes the “bracket” is the entire highlighted piece as shown in its
annotated pictures above. This bracket is similar to the one in the XE360 Series and as both parties
note, the arguments here for this limitation are in line with the ones made with respect to the XE360
Series. As such, for the reasons we found for the XE360 Series, we also find that Apaltek has not
established that this limitation, i.e., “a housing disposed on the flow guidance plate,” is not met for
the SPX Series.
Taken together, we find that Apaltek has not met its burden to establish that the SPX Series
does not infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
XA Series
We find that Apaltek has failed to meet its burden to show that the XA Series does not
infringe claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
Apaltek’s Position
For claim 1 of the ‘446 patent, Apaltek argues that “[t]he XA Series lacks the claimed flow
guidance plate [and] the housing[.]” Ruling Request at 8 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 17.
Cooler Master’s Position
Cooler Master, on the other hand, argues that all the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘446
patent are met. Specifically, Cooler Master states:
• “[T]he XA series includes a claimed ‘base plate’ in the form of the ‘copper plate.’” Cooler
Master Response at 7.
• “[T]he claimed ‘cover member’ corresponds to the ‘upper cover’ in the XA series,
excluding the upper half of the thickness of the top surface of the ‘upper cover.’” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘flow guidance plate’ corresponds to the remaining portion of the ‘upper
cover’ (i.e., the upper half of the thickness of the top surface, including the upper half of
the two holes in the upper cover) in conjunction with the ‘nozzle fitting’ and two nozzles
in the XA series.” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘housing’ corresponds to the ‘bracket’ in the XA series.” Id.
We address each of the claim terms in turn, below.
Base Plate
There appears to be no dispute that the claimed “base plate” is the “copper plate.” See e.g.,
Ruling Request at 8 (no contention that the XA Series does not have the claimed base plate); see
also Cooler Master Response at 7. Thus, we find that this limitation is met.
40
Cover Member
While the parties appear to agree that there is a “cover member,” they disagree as to what
portion of the XA Series product is the “cover member.” See e.g., Ruling Request at 8 (only
alleging there is no flow guidance plate, housing and outer casing). Cooler Master points to “the
‘upper cover’ in the XA series, excluding the upper half of the thickness of the top surface of the
‘upper cover.’” Cooler Master Response at 7. Apaltek disagrees that this is the “cover member”
but does not identify what it believes is the “cover member.” See generally, Ruling Request and
Apaltek Reply. Apaltek also did not point out any specific reasons why Cooler Master’s alleged
“cover member” was wrong. Thus, we find that this limitation is met. The remainder of the
infringement analysis will proceed accordingly.
Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “flow guidance plate,” but in support all it provides is a
figure with two exploded views and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]he XA Series lacks
the claimed flow guidance plate [and] the housing[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 17; see also Ruling
Request at 8. However, Cooler Master identified what it believes is the “flow guidance plate,”
namely, “the remaining portion of the ‘upper cover’ (i.e., the upper half of the thickness of the top
surface, including the upper half of the two holes in the upper cover) in conjunction with the
‘nozzle fitting’ and two nozzles in the XA series.” See e.g., Cooler Master Response at 7. The
remaining arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s contentions.
In response to what Cooler Master alleged as the claimed “flow guidance plate,” Apaltek
stated:
Cooler Master fails to show how the bottom upper half of the upper cover defines
cavities as required by the claims of the ‘446 Patent. See, e.g., ‘446 Patent, claim
1.
Apaltek Reply at 7.
Cooler Master explains:
The bottom surface of the flow guidance plate (upper half of the thickness of the
top surface of the upper cover) defines cavities because the holes in the upper cover
necessarily pass all the way through the upper cover. It is clear that these holes pass
all the way through the upper cover (and thus through the bottom surface of the
flow guidance plate) because fluid must be able to flow through the nozzles and
nozzle fittings into the heat exchange chamber and then back out again after heat is
exchanged.
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 11. We agree. As shown in the picture, there are two holes in the top
surface of the upper cover, which correspond to the “bottom surface” of Cooler Master’s identified
“flow guidance plate.”
41
See Apaltek Reply at 7 (cropped) (annotations added). These holes also are consistent with the
Commission’s construction of “cavity,” i.e., a hollowed out space. See Order No. 10 at 9. Apaltek
does not point tot any other reasons why Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate” is
incorrect and it provides no substantive explanation to support its position that there is no “flow
guidance plate.” As such, we find that the “flow guidance plate” limitations are met and will use
Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance plate” in this infringement analysis.
Housing Disposed on Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “housing,” but in support all it provides is a figure with two
exploded views and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]he XA Series lacks [ ] the housing[.]”
See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 17; see also Ruling Request at 8. Cooler Master disagrees and identifies the
“housing” as “the ‘bracket’ in the XA series.” See Cooler Master Response at 7. The remaining
arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s contentions. In response to
what Cooler Master alleged as the claimed “housing disposed on the flow guidance plate,” Apaltek
responds:
[T]he bracket is not disposed on the upper half of the “upper cover” – rather, it is
disposed on the outer circumference of the lower half of the upper cover:
Apaltek Reply at 7. Apaltek also added that:
Cooler Master argues in sur-reply that “the bracket would still be ‘disposed on’ [the
purported flow guidance plate] because it would be surrounding it and using it for
support, and contacting it at least indirectly by way of the lower part of the upper
cover.” Sur-Reply at 11 (emphasis added). The notion that one component
indirectly surrounding another component falls within the plain meaning of
“disposed on” is simply unsupported.
42
Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 7.
Cooler Master contends:
As to the housing, there is nothing in the figures of the XA Series that Apaltek has
provided that supports Apaltek’s assertion that “the bracket is not disposed on the
upper half of the ‘upper cover’ – rather, it is disposed on the outer circumference
of the lower half of the upper cover.” Reply at 7. But even if it were true that the
bracket does not actually contact the upper half of the thickness of the top surface
of the upper cover (which Apaltek has not shown), the bracket would still be
“disposed on” that structure because it would be surrounding it and using it for
support, and contacting it at least indirectly by way of the lower part of the upper
cover. See, e.g., Bombardier Rec. Prods. v. Arctic Cat Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
26517, at *32 (D. Minn. Feb. 24, 2017) (rejecting argument that “disposed on”
meant “placed directly on”).
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 11. Cooler Master also notes that:
In the [ ] XA Series [ ] the bracket is arranged similarly to the bracket in the XE360
series and thus partially encloses other components for the same reasons as in the
XE360 Series.
Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion Submission at 5.
It is Apaltek’s burden to establish noninfringement, but as Cooler Master notes, the figures
do not show that the bracket is only disposed on the outer circumference of the lower half of the
upper cover as Apaltek claims. Moreover, while Apaltek argues that an indirect contact does not
fall within the plain and ordinary meaning of “disposed on,” it has provided no evidence to support
its claim. Many of these arguments are also similar to the arguments for this limitation raised in
the context of the XE360 Series, and for the reasons noted here and also for the reasons noted with
respect to similar arguments in relation to the XE360 Series, we also find that Apaltek has not
established that this limitation, i.e., “a housing disposed on the flow guidance plate,” is not met for
the XA Series.
Taken together, we find that Apaltek has not met its burden to establish that the XA Series
does not infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
UI Series
We find that Apaltek has failed to meet its burden to show that the UI Series does not
infringe claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
Apaltek’s Position
43
For claim 1 of the ‘446 patent, Apaltek argues that “[a]ssuming the pump cover can be
analogized to the claimed housing, the UI Series lacks a cover member and a flow guidance plate,
both of which are required to be disposed between the claimed base plate and housing.” Ruling
Request at 9 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 19.
Cooler Master’s Position
Cooler Master, on the other hand, argues that all the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘446
patent are met. Specifically, Cooler Master states:
• “[T]he UI series includes a claimed ‘base plate’ in the form of the ‘copper plate.’” Cooler
Master Response at 8.
• “[T]he claimed ‘cover member’ corresponds to the portion of the ‘pump cover’ in the UI
series directly above the copper plate, including the lowest portion of the pump cover that
extends out in the plane parallel to the copper plate and mates with the copper plate.” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘flow guidance plate’ corresponds to the remaining portion of the ‘pump
cover’ in the UI series.” Id.
• “[T]he claimed ‘housing’ corresponds to the ‘bracket’ and ‘cover’ in the UI series.” Id.
We address each of the claim terms in turn, below.
Base Plate
There appears to be no dispute that the claimed “base plate” is the “copper plate.” See e.g.,
Ruling Request at 9 (no contention that the UI Series does not have the claimed base plate); see
also Cooler Master Response at 8. Thus, we find that this limitation is met.
Cover Member
Apaltek asserts that there is no “cover member,” but in support all it provides is a figure
with an exploded view and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]he UI Series lacks a cover
member[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 19; see also Ruling Request at 9. However, Cooler Master
identified what it believes is the “cover member” namely, “the portion of the ‘pump cover’ in the
UI series directly above the copper plate, including the lowest portion of the pump cover that
extends out in the plane parallel to the copper plate and mates with the copper plate.” See e.g.,
Cooler Master Response at 8. The remaining arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing
Cooler Master’s contentions.
Apaltek argues that “Cooler Master fails to explain [ ] where the cover member ends [ ] in
the pump cover” and “how the lower portion of the pump cover defines a first and second opening.”
Apaltek Reply at 8.
Cooler Master responds:
44
Apaltek also argues that the cover member does not define a first and second
opening. Reply Letter at 8. But again, these openings must be present to allow for
heat exchange (cold in and hot out).
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 11.
While Apaltek argues that Cooler Master did not explain where the cover member ends,
we find that Cooler Master’s description of its identified “cover member” described the portion of
the “pump cover” that was included, and as such, the cover member would “end” outside those
portions. Apaltek also argued that Cooler Master did not explain how the lower portion of the
pump cover defines a first and second opening, however Cooler Master later responded that to
allow for heat exchange there is an inference that these openings must be there. See Apaltek Reply
at 8; see also Cooler Master Sur Reply at 11. Apaltek did not dispute this inference from Cooler
Master. See Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission at 7. Moreover, Apaltek could have
provided a figure or photograph of the disputed portion of the pump cover to support its contention
that there were no openings, but failed to do so.
Apaltek does not point to any other reasons why Cooler Master’s identified “cover
member” is incorrect and it provides no substantive explanation to support its position that there
is no “cover member.” As such, we find that the “cover member” limitation is met.
Flow Guidance Plate
Apaltek asserts that there is no “flow guidance plate,” but in support all it provides is a
figure with an exploded view and a declaration from its founder saying “[t]he UI Series lacks [ ] a
flow guidance plate[.]” See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 19; see also Ruling Request at 9. However, Cooler
Master identified what it believes is the “flow guidance plate” namely, “the remaining portion of
the ‘pump cover’ in the UI series.” See e.g., Cooler Master Response at 8. The remaining
arguments from Apaltek are directed at addressing Cooler Master’s contentions.
Apaltek argues that:
Cooler Master fails to explain how cavities are formed in the bottom of the upper
portion of the pump cover as required by the claims of the ‘446 Patent (see, e.g.,
‘446 Patent, claim 1), or even where [ ] the flow guidance plate begins in the pump
cover. See id.
Apaltek Reply at 8.
Cooler Master responds:
While the bottom surface of the flow guidance plate (remaining portion of the pump
cover above the portion that forms the cover member and mates with the base plate)
is not visible in the figures that Apaltek has provided, there are necessarily at least
two holes in both the flow guidance plate and the cover member to allow relatively
cold fluid to flow into the heat exchange chamber and relatively hot fluid to flow
45
out of the heat exchange chamber after heat exchange. As discussed above, e.g., in
connection with the XE360 Series, these holes (or portions of holes) define
“cavities” under the ITC’s construction. See Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, Order No. 10,
at 9- 14. In any event, it is Apaltek’s burden to prove non-infringement here (e.g.,
by proving that there are no cavities defined in the bottom surface of the flow
guidance plate), and Apaltek has not come close to doing that. Again, the bottom
surface of the flow guidance plate is not even visible in the figures that Apaltek has
provided.
Cooler Master Sur Reply at 11.
While Apaltek argues Cooler Master did not explain how cavities are formed in the bottom
of the upper portion of the pump cover, Cooler Master later responded that there are necessarily at
least two holes in both the flow guidance plate and the cover member to allow relatively cold fluid
to flow into the heat exchange chamber and relatively hot fluid to flow out of the heat exchange
chamber after heat exchange. See Apaltek Reply at 8 and Cooler Master Sur Reply at 11. Apaltek
did not dispute this inference from Cooler Master. See Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission
at 7. Moreover, Apaltek could have provided a figure or photograph of the disputed portion of the
pump cover to support its contention that there were no cavities but failed to do so.
Apaltek does not point to any other reasons why Cooler Master’s identified “flow guidance
plate” is incorrect and it provides no substantive explanation to support its position that there is no
“flow guidance plate.” As such, we find that the “flow guidance plate” limitations are met.
Housing Disposed on Flow Guidance Plate
The parties agree that there is a “housing” but disagree as to what portion of the product
the “housing” is. Apaltek asserts that the “pump cover can be analogized to the claimed housing.”
See Xiao Decl. at ¶ 19; see also Ruling Request at 9. Cooler Master disagrees and identifies the
“housing” as “the ‘bracket’ and ‘cover’ in the UI series.” See Cooler Master Response at 8. Cooler
Master further notes that:
In the [ ] UI Series, the bracket is arranged similarly to the bracket in the XE360
series and thus partially encloses other components for the same reasons as in the
XE360 Series. The UI Series also includes a ‘cover’ piece that, in conjunction with
the bracket, further partially encloses components to an even greater extent.
Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion Submission at 5.
Apaltek did not provide a substantive explanation with respect to its assertion that the pump
cover is the “housing.” In addition, Apaltek’s arguments touching on the pump cover were in the
context of the other limitations. Moreover, Apaltek did not provide any reasons in the context of
the UI Series why Cooler Master’s identification of the “bracket” and “cover” in the UI Series as
the “housing” was incorrect.
46
As such, and for the reasons we noted with respect to the “housing” limitation for the
XE360 Series (as the bracket in the UI Series appears similar), we find that this limitation is met
through the “housing” identified by Cooler Master.
Taken together, we find that Apaltek has not met its burden to establish that the XA Series
does not infringe at least claim 1 of the ‘446 patent.
IV. HOLDING
We find that Apaltek has not met its burden to show that the articles at issue do not infringe
at least claim 1 of the ‘446 patent are not subject to the 1394 LEO, as explained above.
The decision 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: Eric W. Schweibenz; Donald R. McPhail and Alexander B. Englehart
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
47