Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1118; Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof

H344639 February 20, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H344639 ACC CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Joseph P. Reid Perkins Cole LLP 11452 El Camino Real Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 VIA EMAIL: JReid@perkinscoie.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1118; Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof Dear Mr. Reid: Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch, Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issues this administrative ruling, based on a request from Nortek, Inc., Nice North America LLC f/k/a Nortek Security & Control LLC and GTO Access Systems, LLC (“Nice” or “Nortek”), regarding (i) certain modified garage door operators (“GDOs”), as described below, and (ii) other GDOs that Nice argues have the same functionality as a legacy product found not to infringe during the underlying investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”), ITC Investigation No. 337-TA- 1118 (“the 1118 investigation”), resulting in the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) under Section 337 of the Tariff of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). We further note that determinations of the Commission resulting from the underlying investigation or a related proceeding under 19 C.F.R. Part 210 are binding authority on CBP and, in the case of conflict, will by operation of law modify or revoke any contrary CBP ruling or decision pertaining to Section 337 exclusion orders. This ruling is the result of a request for an administrative ruling (“Ruling Request”) under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that was 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, Nice, the ruling requester and respondent in the 1118 investigation; and (2) The Chamberlain Group, Inc. (“Chamberlain”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1118 investigation. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). The parties were asked to identify in their submissions confidential information, including information subject to the administrative protective order in the underlying investigation, with [[red brackets]]. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 177.8. Consistent with the above, the parties are directed to identify information in this ruling that should be bracketed because it constitutes confidential information, as defined below, and therefore should be redacted from the public version of the ruling that will be published in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 177.10. The parties are to contact the EOE Branch within ten (10) business days of the date of this ruling to identify such information with the brackets referenced above. 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); see also 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-1118 1. Procedural History At The ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1118 on June 11, 2018, based on a complaint filed by Chamberlain. Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components 2 Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118 (Remand), EDIS Doc. ID 839790, Commission Opinion (Public) (Dec. 20, 2024) (“Remand Comm’n Op.”) at 2 (citing 83 Fed. Reg. 27020-21 (June 11, 2018)). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged a violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,587,404 (“the ?404 patent”), 7,755,223 (“the ?223 patent”) and 6,741,052 (“the ?052 patent”). Remand Comm’n Op. at 2. The notice of investigation named Nortek as the sole respondent. Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 646899, Institution of Investigation (Public) (June 6, 2018). The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was not named as a party in the investigation. Remand Comm’n Op. at 2. On November 25, 2019, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued two initial determinations. Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 697391, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (Public) (Nov. 25, 2025) (“FID”); see also Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 697386, Initial Determination Granting Chamberlain Group, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Determination That It Has Satisfied the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement (Public) (Nov. 25, 2025) (“Order No. 38”). First, the ALJ issued Order No. 38, granting Chamberlain’s motion for summary determination that it satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry (“DI”) requirement for all three asserted patents. See Order No. 38 at 23. Second, the ALJ issued a final initial determination finding no violation of Section 337. See FID at 287. Specifically, the ALJ determined that no violation of Section 337 occurred because “(i) Nortek did not infringe claim 11 of the ?404 patent; (ii) Nortek did not infringe the ’223 patent and Chamberlain did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for that patent; and (iii) claim 1 of the ?052 patent is invalid as obvious.” Remand Comm’n Op. at 2. On April 22, 2020, the Commission, in reviewing the FID, adopted the FID’s no-violation finding for the ?404 patent and took no position on the FID’s finding that Nortek failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 11 of the ?404 patent is abstract and patent ineligible under section 101. Remand Comm’n Op. at 3; see also Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 708681, Commission Final Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337 as Two Patents, Remanding for Further Proceedings as to One Patent (Public) (April 22, 2020) (“Comm’n Notice”) at 3. However, the Commission vacated Order No. 38 and remanded the DI economic prong to the ALJ for further proceedings regarding the ’223 patent, while keeping under review the FID’s other findings with respect to that patent. Remand Comm’n Op. at 3. On July 10, 2020, the ALJ issued a Remand Initial Determination (“First RID”). Id. In the First RID, the ALJ found that that Chamberlain satisfied the DI economic prong for the ?223 patent under Section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B), by making significant investments in plant and equipment, and labor and capital, respectively with respect to articles protected by that patent. Id. The First RID, however, made no findings regarding the ?404 patent because it was no longer at issue after the Commission adopted the FID’s no-violation finding based on non-infringement of the ?404 patent. Id. 3 On December 3, 2020, the Commission, in its review of the First RID, found a violation of Section 337 solely as to the ’223 patent and determined that the appropriate remedy was a limited exclusion order directed to Nortek. Remand Comm’n Op. at 3-4. Specifically, the Commission determined that Nortek infringed the ?223 patent, that Chamberlain satisfied the DI technical prong for the ?223 patent, and to adopt the First RID’s findings that Chamberlain satisfied the DI economic prong for the ’223 patent. Id. For confirmation, during the underlying investigation, Complainant accused the following products1 of infringing the asserted patents: Accused Product Name Asserted Patents LDCO800 including private label versions The ’223 patent and the ’052 patent. (i.e., 800N, Megacode, DC Operator; 800N, Mega, DC Oper, Pvt, Lbl; 800N, Mega, DC Oper, Pvt Lbl; 800N, MEGA, DC OPER “ASSA ABLOY”; 800N, Megacode, DC Operator, Pvt; GD DEPOT LOCO; and DGD Private Label DC Opener) LDCO850 including private label versions The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 (i.e., Smart DC Megacode Oper 1 Led Light; patent. AFS LDCO850 PVT; and DGD LDCO850) LDCO852 including private label versions The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 (i.e., DGD LDCO852; and Smart DC patent. LDCO852 No Batt) Amarr840 including private label versions The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 (i.e., Ent840 1 Led GDO) patent. Amarr860 including private label versions The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 (i.e., Ent860 3 Led GDO; and PDS Ultra 900) patent. MM9434K The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. MM9545M The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. MM9333H The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. LDCO800A The ’223 patent and the ’052 patent. LDCO850A The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. LDCO852A The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. 1 During the underlying investigation, Chamberlain also accused the following “Original Gate Operator Products” of only infringing the now expired ’052 patent (and for which the Commission found no violation): BGU, BGU-D, BGUS, BGUS-D, SG, SG-D, VS-GSLG, GSLG-A, HSLG, SLR, SLC, SLD, SWG, SWR, SWC, SWD, TYM-VS2, TYM 1000, TYM 2000, BGUA, BGU-DA, BGUSA, BGUS-DA, SGA, SGDA, VS-GSLGA, GLSG-AA, HSLGA, SLRA, SLCA, SLDA, SWGA, SWRA, SWCA, SWDA, TYM-VS2A, TYM-l000A, TYM-2000A, MM371 W, MM372W, MM571 W, MM572W, TS571W. FID at 19-20. 4 Amarr840A The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. Amarr860A The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. MM9434KA The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. MM9545MA The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. MM9333HA The ’404 patent; the ’223 patent; and the ’052 patent. FID at 17-20. Accordingly, in the limited exclusion order issued on December 3, 2020, the Commission ordered that “Movable barrier operator systems and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1 and 21 of the ’223 patent and are manufactured abroad by, or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of [Nortek] 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 Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 727094, Limited Exclusion Order (Public) (Dec. 3, 2020) at ¶ 1 (“1118 LEO”). The 1118 LEO as originally issued expired on April 22, 2024, given the expiration of the ’223 patent. Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 727095, Letter to CBP Regarding Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order (Public) (Dec. 3, 2020) at 1 (“The expiration date of the subject patent is April 22, 2024.”). 2. Federal Circuit Appeal And Remand On June 16, 2020, Chamberlain appealed the Commission’s determination of no violation with respect to the ’404 patent and the ?052 patent2 -- the latter of which expired while the appeal was pending -- to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). Remand Comm’n Op. at 4. On April 1, 2021, Nortek cross-appealed the Commission’s violation determination for the ?223 patent. Id. On April 27, 2023, the Federal Circuit issued a decision that (i) affirmed the Commission’s violation determination for the ?223 patent; (ii) with respect to the ’404 patent, reversed the Commission’s construction of the term “movable barrier operator,” vacated the Commission’s non-infringement, waiver, and no violation determination, and remanded with instructions for the Commission to re-evaluate infringement of the ?404 patent under the Federal Circuit’s construction of “movable barrier operator”; and (iii) vacated the Commission’s determinations for the expired ?052 patent and remanded with instructions for the Commission to dismiss the action with respect to that patent as moot. Id. at 4. 2 Regarding the ’052 patent, in the final initial determination issued on November 25, 2019, the ALJ found that claim 1 of the ’052 patent was infringed by Nortek’s original door operator products but found no violation of Section 337 because the asserted claim was found to be invalid. FID at 286-287. On April 22, 2020, the Commission affirmed the FID’s findings that there was no violation of Section 337 with respect to the ’052 patent. Comm’n Notice at 3. 5 On October 4, 2023, the Commission determined not to reopen the record with respect to the issues of infringement and patent eligibility of the ’404 patent and remanded the investigation to the ALJ for the sole purpose of determining whether Chamberlain has satisfied the DI economic prong for the ?404 patent. Remand Comm’n Op. at 5. On May 8, 2024, the ALJ issued a Remand Initial Determination (“Second RID”) finding that Chamberlain has satisfied the DI economic prong for the ?404 patent under subsections 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C), 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(A), (B), (C). Id. Additionally, the Second RID also found that Nortek infringed claim 11 of the ?404 patent under the Federal Circuit’s construction of “movable barrier operator” and that the Nortek products accused of infringing the ?404 patent are the same as those found to infringe the ?223 patent even though the Commission did not ask the ALJ to make any findings on infringement or the DI technical prong. Id. at 5-6. On June 25, 2024, the Commission determined to review the Second RID and requested briefing on remedy, bond, and the public interest. Id. at 6. On November 21, 2024, the Commission, in its review of the Second RID, found a violation of Section 337 based on infringement of claim 11 of the ?404 patent and determined to issue a limited exclusion order directed to Nice (“Remand 1118 LEO”). Remand Comm’n Op. at 47. In this remand limited exclusion order, the Commission ordered that “Movable barrier operator systems and components thereof that infringe claim 11 of the ?404 patent and are manufactured abroad by, or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of Respondents 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 Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, EDIS Doc. ID 837795, Limited Exclusion Order (Public) (Nov. 21, 2024) at ¶ 1. 3. The Patent Claims In The Remand 1118 LEO As noted above, the Remand 1118 LEO prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumption of movable barrier operator systems and components thereof that infringe claim 11 of the ?404 patent. Remand 1118 LEO at ¶ 1. The asserted patent at issue covers features of movable barrier systems such as automatic garage door openers. During the appeal referenced above, the Federal Circuit provided the following description concerning the ’404 patent: The ’404 patent, entitled “Movable Barrier Operator and Transmitter with Imminent Barrier Moving Notification,” teaches a movable barrier operator that plays a sound — for instance, an alarm — indicating that a barrier is imminently about to move, but only does so when the barrier is operated remotely. The sound is not played when the movable barrier operator is operated locally. The system determines whether to sound the imminent barrier warning by distinguishing between whether it received a signal from a remote source, such as a smartphone, or from a local source, such as a button on a garage wall. Figure 1 from the ’404 patent depicts a garage door opener practicing the invention: 6 Item 12 in the figure is a “head unit” and item 40 is a “wall station.” The head unit is connected to the wall station by a wire, item 41. Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10273 at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2023). a. Claim 11 of the ’404 Patent Independent claim 11 of the ’404 patent is reproduced below: 11. [preamble] A movable barrier system with a moving-barrier imminent motion notification, the system comprising: [a] a movable barrier operator connected to control movement of a movable barrier between a first position and a second position; [b] the movable barrier operator comprising: a communication connection comprising at least one of the group consisting of: a direct wireless connection to a transmitter, a local wired connection, a system wired connection, a network connection, and a wireless communication system connection; and 7 [c] a processor configured to determine whether a received command for closing the movable barrier was received from at least one of the system wired connection, the network connection, and the wireless communication system connect