Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1369; Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof

H345153 February 20, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H345153 ACC CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Stephanie L. Roberts Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 VIA EMAIL: stephanie.roberts@morganlewis.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1369; Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof Dear Ms. Roberts: 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 ruling letter, based on a request from Blue Air FSE, LLC and Bluenix Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Bluenix” or “Respondents”) submitted on February 18, 2025 (“Ruling Request”), holding that the redesigned icemaking machines, as described below, are not subject to the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1369 (“the 1369 investigation”) under Section 337 of the Tariff of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. 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 letter is the result of a request for an administrative ruling 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 clients, Blue Air FSE, LLC and Bluenix Co., Ltd., the ruling requester and respondents in the 1369 investigation; and (2) Hoshizaki America, Inc. (“Hoshizaki”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1369 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 in red [[ ]] because it constitutes confidential information, as defined below, such that it should be redacted from the public version of this 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 letter to identify such information with brackets. 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-1369 1. Procedural History At The ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1369 on August 16, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Hoshizaki America, Inc. of Peachtree City, Georgia. Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1369, EDIS Doc. ID 844570, Commission Opinion (February 27, 2025) (Public) (“Comm’n Op.”) at 3 (citing 88 Fed. Reg. 55721–22 (Aug. 16, 2023)). The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1–3, 6–8, and 11–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,107,538 (“the ’538 patent”); claims 1– 4, 10–13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,113,785 (“the ’785 patent”); and claims 1, 2, 5–9, and 11– 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,458,692 (“the ’692 patent”). Comm’n Op. at 3. The notice of 2 investigation named Bluenix as respondent. Id. at 3. The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was named as a party in the investigation but ceased participating in the investigation on October 13, 2023. Id. On January August 30, 2024, the presiding Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) issued a final initial determination, Certain Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1369, EDIS Doc. ID 832206, Final Initial Determination (August 30, 2024) (Public) (“FID”), finding a violation of section 337. Specifically, the CALJ 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 ’539 patent, the ’785 patent, and the ’692 patent. Id. On November 25, 2024, the Commission determined to review in part the FID issued by the CALJ. Comm’n Op. at 2 (citing 89 Fed. Reg. 95233–35 (Dec. 2, 2024)). The Commission, in its review of the FID, found a violation of section 337 as to the ’539 patent, the ’785 patent, and the ’692 patent, and determined that the appropriate remedy was a limited exclusion order directed to Bluenix. Id. at 2. In the limited exclusion order, the Commission ordered that “icemaking machines and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 19 of [the ’538 patent], claims 1 and 10 of [the ’785 patent], and claims 1, 5, and 9 of [the ’692 patent], and are manufactured abroad by, or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of [Bluenix] 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 Icemaking Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1369, EDIS Doc. ID 843470, Limited Exclusion Order (February 13, 2025) at 2, ¶ 1 (“1369 LEO”). The Commission further defined the articles covered by the limited exclusion order as “automatic icemaking machines, evaporators, and evaporator plate assemblies.” Id. at 2, ¶ 2. 2. The Patents And Claims In The 1369 LEO The 1369 LEO prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumption of icemaking machines and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 19 of the ’538 patent, claims 1 and 10 of the ’785 patent, and claims 1, 5, and 9 of the ’692 patent. 1369 LEO at 2, ¶ 1. The ’538 patent, the ’785 patent, and the ’692 patent are all related. FID at 6. For instance, the ’692 patent is a continuation of the ’785 patent, which is a continuation-in-part of the ’538 patent. Id. The ’785 and ’692 patents also share substantially the same specification. Id. All three patents relate to a portion of ice making machines referred to as the evaporator plate assembly. FID at 6. The asserted patents disclose examples of evaporator plate assemblies that utilize basic refrigeration principles to make ice and aim to improve the efficiency of the ice making machines. FID at 7-8. 3 a. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 19 of the ’538 Patent The ’538 patent is titled “Ice Cube Evaporator Plate Assembly” and describes “an evaporator plate made of a metal plate having a plurality of shaped dimples thereon[.]” ’538 patent, abstract). Claim 1 is the only independent claim in the ’538 patent included in the 1369 LEO. The language of independent claim 1 of the ’538 patent is reproduced below: ’538 Patent Claim Language Claim Limitation l[pre] An evaporator plate assembly comprising: l[a] a plate having opposing front and rear surfaces, l[b] the plate defining a plurality of dimples, l[c] each of the plurality of dimples projecting outwardly from the rear surface and l[d] disposed on the front surface in an array comprising a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, each of the plurality of rows extending in a horizontal direction and each of the plurality of columns extending in a vertical direction, l[e] the plate comprising a plurality of fins projecting outwardly from the front surface of the plate, each fin extending in the vertical direction and disposed between adjacent columns of dimples; l[f] the plurality of rows of dimples comprising a first row of dimples, a second row of dimples disposed immediately adjacent to the first row of dimples in the vertical direction, a third row of dimples disposed immediately adjacent the second row of dimples in the vertical direction, and a fourth row of dimples disposed immediately adjacent to the third row of dimples in the vertical direction; and l[g] a serpentine tubing coil comprising straight portions of tubing extending horizontally and connected serially at their ends by connecting portions, l[h] the straight portions of the tubing coil comprising a first straight portion and a second straight portion connected to the first straight portion and being immediately adjacent to the first straight portion in the vertical direction, 1[i] the second straight portion connected to the first straight portions by a first connecting portion of the connecting portions, 1[j] the tubing coil being in contact with the rear surface of the plate, 1[k] the first straight portion of the tubing coil disposed between the first row of dimples and the second row of dimples, 1[l] and the second straight portion disposed between the third row of dimples and the fourth row of dimples. ’539 patent, 8:32-67 (emphasis added). b. Claims 1 and 10 of the ’785 Patent 4 The ’785 patent is titled “Ice Making Machine and Ice Cube Evaporator” and it describes “[a]n evaporator [that] includes a refrigerant conduit sandwiched between front and rear plates.” ’785 patent, abstract. Claim 1 is the only independent claim in the ’785 patent included in the 1369 LEO. The language of independent claim 1 of the ’785 patent is reproduced below: ’785 Patent Claim Claim Language Limitation l[pre] An evaporator comprising: l[a] a refrigerant conduit; and 1[b] front and rear plates sandwiching the refrigerant conduit, 1[c] each of the front and rear plates having: inner flat portions, l[d] each inner flat portion of the front plate facing, but being spaced from, a respective inner flat po1tion of the rear plate to define a respective spaced portion; l[e] a plurality of fins dividing the respective plate into a plurality of ice forming columns; l[f] a set of first protrusions defined in the respective ice forming columns, l[g] each first protrusion on the front plate facing a respective first protrusion on the rear plate to define a respective active cavity, l[h] the refrigerant conduit extending through each of the active cavities; and 1[i] a set of second protrusions defined in the respective ice forming columns, l[j] each second protrusion on the front plate facing a respective second protrusion on the rear plate to define a respective passive cavity, l[k] the refrigerant conduit not extending through any of the passive cavities; 1 [l] wherein the active and passive cavities are interspersed and separated by respective inner flat portions so as to define a plurality of ice forming sites in the ice forming columns of the respective plate. FID at 17; see also ’785 Patent, Col. 7:42-67 (emphasis added). c. Claims 1, 5, and 9 of the ’692 Patent The ’692 patent is titled “Ice Making Machine and Ice Cube Evaporator” and it describes “[a]n evaporator includes a refrigerant conduit and front and rear plates sandwiching the refrigerant conduit[.]” ’692 patent, abstract. Claim 1 is the only independent claim in the ’692 patent included in the 1369 LEO. The language of independent claim 1 of the ’692 patent is reproduced below: ’692 Patent Claim Claim Language Limitation l[pre] An evaporator comprising: l[a] a refrigerant conduit; and l[b] front and rear plates sandwiching the refrigerant conduit, l[c] each of the front and rear plates comprising: a plurality of ice forming columns; l[d] a set of first protrusions defined in the respective ice forming columns, 5 l[e] each first protrusion on the front plate facing a respective first protrusion on the rear plate to define a respective active cavity, 1[f] the refrigerant conduit extending through each of the active cavities; 1[g] a set of second protrusions defined in the respective ice forming columns, l[h] each second protrusion on the front plate facing a respective second protrusion on the rear plate to define a respective passive cavity, 1[i] the refrigerant conduit not extending through any of the passive cavities; and l[j] inner flat portions, l[k] each inner flat portion of the front plate facing and spaced from a respective inner flat portion of the rear plate to define a respective spaced portion; 1[l] wherein the active cavities and passive cavities are interspersed in an alternating pattern, l[m] a first passive cavity of the passive cavities disposed adjacent to a first active cavity of the active cavities and with no other passive cavity of the passive cavities disposed therebetween, l[n] the first active cavity disposed adjacent to a second passive cavity of the passive cavities and with no other active cavity of the active cavities disposed therebetween, and l[o] the second passive cavity disposed adjacent to a second active cavity of the active cavities and with no other passive cavity of the passive cavities disposed therebetween, l[p] the active cavities and passive cavities separated by respective inner flat portions so as to define a plurality of ice forming sites in the ice forming columns of the respective plate. FID at 18-19; see also ’692 Patent, Col. 8:60-9:29 (emphasis added). During the 1369 investigation, the parties reached agreement on the meaning of the following claim terms that appear in claim 1 of the ’785 and claim 1 of the ’692 patent: 6 FID at 34. 3. The Legacy Products Found To Infringe In The Underlying Investigation The legacy products in the underlying investigation consisted of icemaking machines and evaporator plate assemblies that were designated with the following product and part numbers: • Icemaking Machines: BLUI-100A, BLUI-150A, BLUI-250A, BLMI-300A, BLMI-500A, BLMI-650A, BLMI-900A, and BLMI-1300R/1400R; • Evaporator Part Nos.: i858g-750, i858g-770, i858g-310, i858g-800, i858g820, i858g-840, and i858g-860. Ruling Request at 27-28; see also Hoshizaki Response at 8. The legacy products were found to practice each limitation from claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 19 of the ’538 patent, claims 1 and 10 of the ’785 patent, and claims 1, 5, and 9 of the ’692 patent. FID at 234. Based on the petitions received from the parties after the CALJ’s FID, the Commission determined to review the FID in part. See Comm’n Op. at 2. The Commission determined not to review the ID’s finding that there has been a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 19 of the ’538 patent. Ultimately, the Commission adopted the FID’s finding that there has been a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, with respect to claims 1 and 10 of the ’785 patent, and claims 1, 5, and 9 of the ’692 patent. Comm’n Op at 5. 7 B. 19 C.F.R. Part 177 Ruling Request 1. Procedural History Regarding The Current Ruling Request On February 18, 2025, BlueNix submitted request an administrative ruling pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, which included Exhibits A-Y. BlueNix Submission to EOE Branch, dated February 18, 2025. BlueNix’s request concerns its “redesigned models of its icemaking machines and evaporator plate assemblies” as described in greater detail below. According to BlueNix, this modification places the redesigned models of its icemaking machines and evaporator plate assemblies outside the scope of the 1369 LEO. Id. at 1-2. On February 18, 2025, the EOE Branch sent an email to BlueNix, confirming receipt of its Ruling Request. EOE Branch Email to BlueNix (dated February 18, 2025). On February 21, 2025, BlueNix confirmed that a redacted copy of the Ruling Request was sent to Hoshizaki. BlueNix Email to EOE Branch (dated February 21, 2025). On February 24, 2025, the EOE Branch sent the parties an email with the ground rules for this inter partes proceeding and to set up an initial conference call. See EOE Branch Email to Parties (dated February 24, 2025). On February 27, 2025, the EOE Branch had an initial conference call with BlueNix and Hoshizaki, during which both parties agreed to conduct this proceeding on an inter partes basis as administered by the EOE Branch. The EOE Branch and parties also discussed the procedural schedule and non-disclosure agreement, with the EOE Branch requesting that the parties submit a joint proposed schedule and the executed non-disclosure agreement on March 3, 2025, and if the parties were unable to agree on such a schedule and non-disclosure agreement to submit a status update that day. EOE Branch Email to Parties (dated February 27, 2025). On March 3, 2025, both parties submitted an update regarding the difficulty agreeing ot an NDA and their respective proposed procedural schedule. See BlueNix Email to EOE Branch (dated March 3, 2025); see also Hoshizaki Email to EOE Branch (dated March 3, 2025). Additionally, Blu