Protest 2704-17-101966; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation Nos. 337-TA-723; Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof

HQ H282919 February 21, 2017 OT:RR:BSTC:IPR H282919 WMW CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Amando Taboada Director of Machinery Center of Excellence & Expertise U.S. Customs and Border Protection 109 Shiloh Dr., Ste 300 Laredo, TX 78045 Attn: William Kaufman, Import Specialist (Buffalo, NY) RE: Protest 2704-17-101966; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation Nos. 337-TA-723; Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components Thereof Dear Mr. Taboada: This is in response to the application for further review of the above-referenced protest filed by Green Project Inc. (“Protestant”) challenging the exclusion of certain ink cartridges, ink jet supplies and inkjet cartridges refused entry for consumption as well as the seizure of certain toner cartridges at the port of Los Angeles based on the above-referenced general exclusion orders issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”). Protestant has advised that the disclosure of certain information relative to this matter should be considered confidential. Based on our review of the matter we have concluded that the information in question is eligible for confidential treatment under 19 C.F.R. § 103.12; accordingly, we have granted the request for confidentiality. See also 6 C.F.R. part 5. Appropriate steps will therefore be taken to ensure that the information remains confidential and, to this end, the bracketed portions of the text will be redacted from any published versions of this decision. A public version of this decision is enclosed for your files. However, Protestant should note that U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be guided in this regard by the laws relating to confidentiality and disclosure, to include the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552), the Trade Secrets Act (TSA) (18 U.S.C. § 1905) and/or the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a). Investigation 337-TA-723 ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-723 was instituted based on a complaint filed by Hewlett-Packard Company of California; Hewlett-Packard Development Company L.P. of California (“HP”), which named seven companies located in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United States, as respondents to the investigation. See Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) Final Initial and Recommended Determination (“ID”) at 1 (dated June 10, 2011). The ALJ found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which was affirmed in part by the Commission on review. See Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-723, Commission Opinion (“ITC CO”) at 1 (dated October 24, 2011). The Commission decided to provide relief in the form of a general exclusion order that bars the entry for consumption into the United States of ink cartridges that infringe claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,234,598; claims 1-6 and 8-17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,309,053; claims 1-6 and 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,398,347; claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,481,817; and claims 9-16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,402,279. Id. at 1; 723 General Exclusion Order (“723 GEO”) (dated October 24, 2011). Subsequent to the issuance of the 723 GEO, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) excluded from entry articles of Protestant, resulting in the ITC, on June 11, 2015, issuing a seizure and forfeiture order against Protestant pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(i). FACTS: On December 23, 2016, CBP officials at the port of Long Beach issued a notice to Protestant indicating that a shipment of ink cartridges was excluded from entry for consumption because the articles in question were subject to the 723 GEO. See CBP Exclusion Notice (December 23, 2016). On January 20, 2017, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514, as implemented by 19 C.F.R. Part 174, Protestant timely filed a protest challenging the exclusion and claimed the excluded articles were not subject to the 723 GEO. Specifically, Protestant argues that the excluded articles fall into two categories, remanufactured ink cartridges whose cores were originally purchased in the United States and cartridges that do not have the print heads required in the underlying patents at issue in the 723 GEO. See Protest, at 2. (January 20, 20167. The cartridge models making up the first category are as follows: 970XL, 62XL, 61XL, 96, 27, 60XL. Figures 1 and 2 respectively show sample cartridges belonging to these two cartridges. This protest was given the reference number 2704-17-101966 by CBP.

On January 27, 2017, Protestant submitted additional evidence regarding the protest, including bills of lading/packing lists from [******] to Protestant, invoices to [******] from Protestant as well as invoices from [*******] to Protestant. See E-Mail from Elon Pollack, Counsel for Protestant to William Kaufman, Import Specialist, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (January 27, 2017). Protestant sent additional documentation regarding remanufacturing process on February 10, 2017. See E-Mail from Elon Pollack, Counsel for Green Project Inc., to William Wittwer, Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (February 10, 2017). The independent claims of the patents at issue in the 723 GEO are listed below with the specific parts relevant to this protest highlighted in bold. The independent claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,234,598 (‘598 patent) A printhead for an inkjet printer, comprising: a substrate; a plurality of heater resistors disposed on said substrate and electrically arranged into a first group and a second group; a first electrical conductor disposed on said substrate coupled to each heater resistor in said first group, and terminating in a first terminal disposed on said substrate whereby electrical current is sourced to each heater resistor in said first group; a second electrical conductor disposed on said substrate coupled to each heater resistor in said group, and terminating in a second terminal disposed on said substrate whereby electrical current is sourced to each heater resistor in said second group; and a third electrical conductor disposed on said substrate, coupled to each heater resistor in both said first group and said second group, and terminating in third and fourth terminals disposed spaced apart from each other on said substrate whereby electrical current is returned to complete an electrical circuit. 10. A print cartridge for an inkjet print apparatus, comprising: a cartridge body; an ink storage reservoir disposed within said cartridge body; an electrical interconnect circuit affixed to said cartridge body; a printhead fluidically coupled to said ink storage reservoir and electrically coupled to said electrical interconnect circuit whereby ink drops are ejected from said printhead, said printhead comprising: a substrate; a plurality of heater resistors disposed on said substrate and electrically arranged into at least eight groups; at least eight electrical conductors disposed on said substrate, each electrical conductor of said at least eight electrical conductors coupled to each resistor of a respective one of said at least eight groups, and each conductor of said at least eight electrical conductors terminating in a respective one of at least eight terminals disposed on said substrate and connecting to said electrical interconnect circuit whereby electrical current is sourced to each heater resistor in each of said at least eight groups; and a return electric al conductors disposed on said substrate coupled to each heater resistor in said at least eight groups, and terminating in two output terminals disposed spaced apart from each other on said substrate and connecting to said electrical interconnect circuit whereby electrical current is returned to complete an electrical circuit. The independent claims 1, 8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,309,053 (‘053 patent) An ink jet printing apparatus comprising: a printhead structure formed of a substrate and a plurality of thin film layers; a columnar array of ink drop generators defined in said printhead structure; a columnar array of FET circuits formed in said printhead structure and respectively connected to said ink drop generators, said FET circuits including active regions each comprised of drain regions, source regions, and a gate; power traces including a ground bus electrically connected between (a) bond pads and (b) said ink drop generators and said FET circuits; and said ground bus generally extending along a longitudinal extent of said columnar array of FET circuits, and partially overlying said active regions. An ink jet printing apparatus comprising: a printhead structure formed of a substrate and a plurality of thin film layers, said printhead structure having a longitudinal extent and longitudinally separated ends; a longitudinal array of ink drop generators defined in said printhead structure and aligned with said printhead longitudinal extent; a longitudinal array of FET circuits formed in said printhead structure adjacent said ink drop generators and aligned with said printhead longitudinal extent, said FET circuits respectively connected to said ink drop generators and including active regions each comprised of drain regions, source regions, and a gate; bond pads disposed at said longitudinally separated ends; power traces including a ground bus electrically connected between (a) said contact pads and (b) said ink drop generators and said FET circuits; and said ground bus generally extending along said printhead longitudinal extent and partially overlying said active regions. An ink jet printing apparatus comprising: a printhead structure formed of a substrate and a plurality of thin film layers; an array of ink jet drop generators defined in said printhead structure; an array of FET circuits formed in said printhead structure and respectively connected to said ink drop generators said FET circuits including active regions each comprised of drain regions, source regions, and a gate; power traces including a ground bus electrically connected between (a) bond pads and (b) said ink drop generators and said FET circuits; and said ground bus partially overlying said active regions. The independent claims 1, 3 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,398,347 (‘347 patent) An ink jet printing apparatus comprising: a printhead structure formed of a substrate and a plurality of thin film layers; a plurality of ink drop generators defined in said printhead structure; a plurality of FET circuits formed in said printhead structure and respectively connected to said ink drop generators; power traces electrically connected between (a) bond pads and (b) said ink drop generators and said FET circuits; and wherein respective on-resistances of said FET circuits are selected to compensate for variation of a parasitic resistance presented by said power traces. An ink jet printing apparatus comprising: a printhead structure formed of a substrate and a plurality of thin film layers; a plurality of ink drop generators defined in said printhead structure; a plurality of FET circuits formed in said printhead structure and respectively connected to said ink drop generators, wherein each of said FET circuits includes drain electrodes, drain regions, drain contacts electrically connecting said drain electrodes to said drain regions, source electrodes, source regions, and source contacts electrically connecting said source electrodes to said source regions; power traces electrically connected between (a) bond pads and (b) said ink drop generators and said FET circuits; and wherein said drain regions are configured to set an on-resistance of each of said FET circuits to compensate for variation in a parasitic resistance presented by said power traces. An ink jet printing apparatus comprising: a printhead structure formed of a substrate and a plurality of thin film layers, said printhead structure having a longitudinal extent and longitudinally separated ends; a longitudinal array of ink drop generators defined in said printhead structure and aligned with said printhead longitudinal extent; bond pads disposed at said longitudinally separated ends; a longitudinal array of FET circuits formed in said printhead structure adjacent said ink drop generators and aligned with said printhead longitudinal extent, wherein said each of said FET circuits includes drain electrodes, drain regions, drain contacts electrically connecting said drain electrodes to said drain regions, source electrodes, source regions, source contacts electrically connecting said source electrodes to said source regions; power traces electrically connected between (said bond pads and (b) said ink drop generators and said FET circuits; and wherein said drain regions are configured to set an on-resistance of each of said FET circuits to compensate for variation in parasitic resistance presented by said power traces. The independent claims 1, 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,481,817 (‘817 patent) An ink jet printhead having a plurality of drop generators responsive to drive current and address signals for dispensing ink, the inkjet printhead comprising: a plurality of subgroups of first and second drop generators disposed on the printhead that together form a group of drop generators with each drop generator of the group of drop generators configured for connection to a drive current source wherein within each subgroup, the first and second drop generators are configured to receive address signals from a common address source, and wherein each subgroup of first and second drop generators is configured for connection to a different source of address signals; and a first switching device connected between the common address source and each of the first and second drop generators of a subgroup, the switching device responsive to enable signals for selectively providing the address signal to only one of the first and second drop generators of the subgroup. An ink jet printhead for use in an inkjet printing system for selectively depositing ink on media, the inkjet printhead comprising: a first switching device having a pair on controlled terminals connected in series with a first heating element between a pair of drive current conductors and a control terminal, the first switching device responsive to an actuation signal at the control terminal for conducting current between the controlled terminals to activate the first heating device; and a second switching device having a pair of controlled terminals connected between an address terminal and the control terminal of the first switching device and a control terminal configured for connection to a source of enable signals, the second switching device responsive to enable signals for selectively allowing address signals at the address terminal to be provided to the control terminal of the first switching device. An ink jet printhead for use in an inkjet printing system for depositing ink on media, the inkjet printhead comprising: a plurality of drive current contacts each configured for connection to a source of drive current; a plurality of address contacts each configured for connection to a source of address signals; a plurality of enable contacts each configured for connection to a source of enable signals; a plurality of drop generators arranged in groups, with each group electrically connected to one of the plurality of drive current contacts, with each of the plurality of drive current contacts connected to a different source of drive current, with each group of drop generators having individual drop generators arranged in pairs, with each pair electrically connected to one of the plurality of address contacts, and with each of the pairs of drop generators in each group connected to a different address contact, and wherein each drop generator is activated if drive current is provided to the drive current contact and the address contact corresponding to the drop generator is active and wherein only one drop generator associated with the pair of drop generators is active with the active drop generator selected based on the enable signal. The independent claims 9, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,402,279 (‘279 patent) An ink jet printhead having a plurality of drop generators that selectively eject ink in response to activation, the ink jet printhead comprising: a pair of drive current contacts configured for connection to a source of drive current; an address contact configured for connection to an address signal source; first and second enable contacts configured for connection to a source of first and second enable signals; and a first and second drop generator configured for activation based on the address signal active and the drive current provided at the pair of drive current contacts with the first drop generator configured to be responsive to activation of the first enable signal and the second drop generator configured to be responsive to activation to the second enable signal. An ink jet printhead having a plurality of drop generators that selectively eject ink in response to activation, the ink jet printhead comprising: a pair of drive current contacts configured for connection to a source of drive current; a plurality of address contacts configured for connection to a source of plurality of periodic address signals; first and second enable contacts configured for connection to a source of first and second enable signals; and a plurality of drop generators with each of the plurality of drop generators connected between the pair of drive current contacts and with each of the drop generators connected to at least one of the plurality of address contacts wherein for each address of the periodic address signal more than one drop generators are enable d for actuation in a sequential manner based on the first and second enable signals wherein the enabled drop generators are actuated based on the presence of drive current from the drive current source. An ink jet printhead having a plurality of drop generators that selectively eject ink in response to activation, the ink jet printhead comprising: a pair of drive current contacts configured for connection to a source of drive current; a plurality of address contacts configured for connection to a corresponding plurality of sources of address signals with the plurality of address signals providing a repeating pattern of address signals with only one of the plurality of address signals active at a time and with the plurality of address signals each having a frequency of f; first and second enable contacts configured for connection to a source of first and second periodic enable signals with each of the first and second enable signals having an activation frequency of greater than f and with only one of the first and second enable signals active at a time; and wherein the plurality of drop generators are configured so that only a single drop generator of the plurality of drop generators is enabled for activation based on the signals at the first and second enable contacts and the signals at the plurality of address contacts and wherein each of the plurality of drop generators are activated if enabled and drive current is provided at the drive current contacts. ISSUE: The issues presented are whether the patent rights in the refurbished ink cartridges and inkjet cartridges of the excluded shipment have been exhausted by a first sale and have been permissibly repaired and consequentially whether they are subject to the ITC’s general exclusion order in Investigation Nos. 337-TA-723 or whether the products in question practice the patent claims underlying the same exclusion order. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, the ITC has authority to conduct investigations into imported articles that allegedly infringe United States patents and impose remedies if the accused products are found to be infringing. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B), (b)(1), (d), (f). Specifically, 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) provides the Commission authority to direct the exclusion from entry of articles found to be infringing. Moreover, when the Commission determines that there has been a violation of section 337, it may issue two types of exclusion orders: a limited exclusion order and/or a general exclusion order. See Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 474 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-565, Commission Opinion (October 19, 2007). Both types of orders direct CBP to bar the infringing products from entering the country. See Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 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. Id. In contrast, a general exclusion order bars importation of the infringing products by everyone, regardless of whether they were respondents in the Commission’s investigation. Id. A general exclusion order is appropriate if two exceptional circumstances apply. See Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 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 also 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 by satisfying the heightened burdens of §§ 1337(d)(2)(A) and (B).”). Additionally, a seizure and forfeiture order issued under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(i) directs CBP to seize and forfeit articles imported in violation of an exclusion order when the importer previously had articles denied entry and received notice that seizure and forfeiture would result from any future attempt to import covered articles. The issuance of a general exclusion order by the ITC binds named parties and non-named parties alike and shifts to would-be importers, “as a condition of entry, the burden of establishing noninfringement.” Hyundai Electronics Industries Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.2d 1204, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the burden is on Protestant to establish that the cartridges at issue are not covered by one or more of the claims from the patents listed in the 723 GEO. The Protestant does claim that a portion of the cartridges do not practice the claims of the patents in question as well as the fact that the remainder of the cartridges were originally purchased in the United States and have been remanufactured. Patent infringement determinations for utility patents entail two steps. The first step is to interpret the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is to compare the properly construed claims to the accused device. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The first step is a question of law; the second step is a question of fact. See Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Company, 420 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In patent law, there are two types of infringement: direct and indirect infringement. One variety of direct infringement is literal infringement. Literal infringement is when every limitation recited in a claim is found in the accused device. See Strattec Security Corp. v. General Automotive Specialty Co., 126 F.3d 1411, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Circ. 1998) (“An accused device cannot infringe, as a matter of law, if even a single limitation is not satisfied.”). However, a dependent claim cannot be found to infringe if the independent claim from which it depends is not found to infringe. See Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard Inc., 922 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The holding of noninfringement of claim 1 applies as well to all claims dependent on claim 1.”). “The longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item.” Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 625 (2008). As such, the “sale of [a patented article] exhausts the monopoly in that article and the patentee may not thereafter, by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition of the article.” United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 250 (1942). Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has stated that the unrestricted sale of a patented article, by or with the authority of the patentee, exhausts the patentee’s right to control further sale and use of that article by enforcing the patent under which it was first sold. Jazz Photo Corp. v. ITC, 264 F.3d 1094, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, the Federal Circuit added that “when a patented device has been lawfully sold in the United States, subsequent purchasers inherit the same immunity under the doctrine of patent exhaustion.” Id. In other words, “United States patent rights are not exhausted by products of foreign provenance” and an accused infringer or U.S. importer of record seeking to invoke the protection of the first sale doctrine must establish that an authorized first sale of the patented article occurred within the United States. Id. at 1105. The party raising the affirmative defense has the burden establishing it by a preponderance of the evidence. Jazz Photo at 1102. The ITC, in a different context, has provided that this affirmative defense must be proven on an article-by-article basis. See Commission Opinion, In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-565, Consolidated Enforcement Proceeding and Enforcement Proceeding II at 18, 2009 ITC LEXIS 1773 (dated September 24, 2009). However, the Federal Circuit, in the context of a protest challenging a Customs exclusion from entry pursuant to a Section 337 exclusion order, held that an importer may carry its burden through presentation of circumstantial evidence. Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States, 439 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“To be sure, Jazz did not present direct evidence that each of the subject LFFPs [lens-fitted film packages] processed using Photo Recycling's shells were first sold in the United States; Jazz's case is circumstantial. However, Jazz may carry its burden by presenting its case based upon circumstantial evidence. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325, 330, 81 S. Ct. 6, 5 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1960)) ("It is hornbook law that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary. 'Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.'"). For example, in Jazz Photo, the president of Photo Recycling presented general evidence showing that the photo shells being recycled were collected from the locations which they were originally purchased, but was unable account for each photo shell. Id. at 1350-1351. The Federal Circuit required that “Jazz must meet its evidentiary burden through factual evidence establishing first sale that goes beyond the mere fact that the shells were obtained in the United States.” Id. at 1352. This testimony was found sufficient by the trial court and the Federal Circuit found that the burden had been met. Therefore, the burden is upon the Protestant to establish that the articles in question were subject to such an exhausting first sale. Certain rights accompany the purchase of a patented article, one of them being the right of repair. As stated by the Supreme Court, “replacement of individual unpatented parts ... is no more than the lawful right of the owner to repair his property.” Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336, 346 (1961). The Federal Circuit additionally stated that “infringement will occur only when there is a complete ‘reconstruction’ of the device.” Kendall Co. v. Progressive Medical Tech., 85 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Aro, 365 U.S. at 346). Accordingly, the burden is on the Protestant to show that the ink cartridges at issue have been the subject of permissible repair and not a complete reconstruction of the ink cartridges. PROTESTANT’S ARGUMENT Protestant does not contest that the ink cartridges belonging to the remanufactured cartridge category practice the patents at issue in the 723 GEO rather that the products are original inkjet cartridges sold by HP which have been refurbished for sale. To establish the original sale of the ink and inkjet cartridges in question, Protestant first identified the source of these cartridges as having come from [******], which collects used ink cartridges from their customers who originally purchased the cartridges in the United States. Protestant then acquires these empty cartridges and exports them to [******] in China for cleaning and refilling. A shipping company, [******], then ensures that the remanufactured cartridges are sent to Protestant here in the United States. Protestant has submitted various emails and invoices which relate to the cartridges at issue as they move through the remanufacturing process. From the information provided, it would appear that the excluded articles were indeed originally purchased within the United States. They were collected ostensibly from the same customers that originally purchased them in the United States by the retailer [*******]. Given the difficulty in obtaining an original receipt or bill of sale from each of the original customers of the ink cartridges, the emails from the retailer is sufficient to support a finding that that the cartridges were originally purchased in the United States. Protestant then describes the process used to restore the ink cartridges at issue. Each of the cartridges is cleaned, the remaining ink is cleaned from inside of the empty cartridge, is refilled, has its outlets sealed, has its original chip reset and is relabeled. Protestant has also supplied documentation describing the steps taken to ensure that empty United States sourced cartridges are kept separate from other empty cartridges. Namely that the cartridges are kept sorted by brand, region, series and model number and that the model numbers are all for cartridges originally sold in the United States. The process detailed by the Protestant makes the printer cartridges usable by replacing the parts necessary for function of the product, namely the ink that was used previously. The original ink cartridge is still recognizable as such after undergoing the refurbishment process and therefore would fall under permissible repair. Protestant contests that the remainder of the excluded goods making up the second category of cartridges lack a printhead and therefore fall outside the scope of the patents at issue in the 723 GEO. All of the claims at issue in the 723 GEO depend from at least one of the following independent claims: claims 1 and 10 of the ‘598 patent; claims 1, 8, and 14 of the ‘523 patent; claims 1, 3, and 8 of the ‘347 patent; claims 1, 10, and 14 of the ‘817 patent; claims 9, 13, and 14 of the ‘279 patent. If these independent claims are not infringed, then none of the dependent claims in these patents are infringed. “It is axiomatic that dependent claims cannot be found infringed unless the claims from which they depend have been found to have been infringed[.]” Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1989); See also Becton, 922 F.2d, at 798. Thus, the GEO applies to articles manufactured or imported by Protestant only if they infringe the listed claims above for any of the ‘598, ‘053, ‘347, ‘817, and ‘279 patents. To infringe on any of the independent claims of the ‘598, ‘053, ‘347, ‘817, and ‘279 patents, an ink cartridge must possess a printhead as described and highlighted in bold in each patent listed in the FACTS section. The photographs of the products making up the second category of ink cartridge show that these ink cartridges do not possess the required printhead. Therefore, based on the evidence in the record, the remaining cartridges do not infringe upon the independent claims of the ‘598, ‘053, ‘347, ‘817, and ‘279 patents and thus these articles are outside the scope of the 723 GEO. HOLDING: With the receipt of accompanying evidence, Protestant has demonstrated that the cartridges in question were either permissibly repaired or did not fall within the scope of the 723 GEO issued by the ITC. Therefore, the protest challenging exclusion from entry is GRANTED. In accordance with the Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (CIS HB, December 2007), you are to mail this decision, together with the Customs Form 19, to the Protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision, Regulations and Rulings of the Office of International Trade will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, Charles R. Steuart Chief, Intellectual Property Branch