Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1124; Certain Powered Cover Plates

H349920 March 11, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H349920 ACC CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Michael T. Griggs Boyle Frederickson 840 North Plankinton Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 VIA EMAIL: mtg@boylefred.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1124; Certain Powered Cover Plates Dear Mr. Griggs: 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 AmerTac Holdings, Inc. (“AmerTac”) request for an administrative ruling, dated June 27, 2025, which included Exhibits A-G (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find that AmerTac has not met its burden to show that the powered cover plates incorporating the Gen 3 Redesign, as described below, are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order (“GEO”) issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1124 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1124 investigation”), pursuant to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”)1. 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 modify or revoke any contrary CBP ruling or decision pertaining to Section 337 exclusion orders by operation of law. This ruling letter is the result of a request for an administrative ruling from CBP under 19 C.F.R. Part 177, which was conducted on an inter partes basis. The process involved the two 1 The 1124 GEO, issued June 11, 2020, prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumption of powered cover plates that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,871,324 (“the ’324 patent”); claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,882,361 (“the ’361 patent”); claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,430 (“the ’430 patent”); and the claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D819,426 (“the ’D426 patent”) (collectively, “the asserted patents”). Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. ID 712488, General Exclusion Order (June 11, 2020) at 2 (“1124 GEO”). parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by the ruling request: (1) your client, AmerTac, the ruling requester and importer of the articles at issue; and (2) SnapRays LLC dba SnapPower (“SnapPower”), the complainant and patent owner in the 1124 investigation. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). AmerTac was not a named respondent in the underlying investigation at the Commission. I. BACKGROUND A. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1124 1. Procedural History at the ITC The Commission instituted the underlying investigation on July 23, 2018, based on a complaint filed by SnapPower. Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. ID 714335, Public Commission Opinion (Jul. 10, 2020) (“Comm’n Op.”) at 1 (citing 83 Fed. Reg. 34871-72 (Jul. 23, 2018)). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of the ’324 and ’430 patents, as well as U.S. Patent No. 9,882,361 (“the ’361 patent”) and U.S. Design Patent No. D819,426 (“the ’D426 patent”). Comm’n Op. at 3. The notice of investigation named thirteen respondents, two of which participated throughout the investigation, including in the hearing before the presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), four of which settled, four of which defaulted, and three of which had the complaint withdrawn due to an inability to serve the complaint. Id. at 3-4. As noted above, AmerTac was not a named respondent in the underlying investigation. Lastly, the Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was named as a party in the investigation. Id. at 2. The ALJ granted SnapPower’s motions for summary determination on importation and infringement because the participating respondents did not contest these issues. Id. at 3-4 (internal citations omitted). On August 12, 2019, the ALJ issued her final initial determination finding a violation of Section 337. Id. at 6; Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. ID 687137, Public Final Initial Determination (August 12, 2019) (“FID”). Specifically, the ALJ 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 ’324, ’430, ’361, and ’D426 patents. Comm’n Op. at 4. On October 11, 2019, the Commission issued a notice in which it determined to review in part the FID. Id. at 6-7 (citing 84 Fed. Reg. 55985-96 (Oct. 18, 2019)). The Commission, in its review of the FID, adopted the FID’s finding of a violation of Section 337 as to the asserted patent claims. Id. at 7. On March 12, 2020, the Commission issued its notice determining not review the remand initial determination and requested written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. (citing 85 Fed. Reg. 21457-59 (Apr. 17, 2020)). On July 10, 2020, the Commission found a violation of Section 337 with regard to infringement of the asserted claims of the ’324, ’430, ’361, and ’D426 patents and determined that the appropriate remedy was a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to various respondents. Id. at 32. 2 In the general exclusion order, the Commission ordered that “power cover plates,” which are electrical receptacle covers with built-in functionally, that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of the ’324 patent; claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of the ’361 patent; claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of the ’430 patent; and the claim of the D’436 patent 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 patents, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law.” 1124 GEO at 2. On May 30, 2025, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(i), the Commission issued a seizure and forfeiture order against “American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc., 250 Boulder Drive, Breinigsville, PA 18031, or any affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or any of their successors or assigns.” See Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, EDIS Doc. 852374, Seizure and Forfeiture Order for American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc. (May 30, 2025) (Public) (“AmerTac SFO”). The SFO against AmerTac is the result of a previous exclusion based on the GEO from the underlying investigation with appropriate notice of that action. Accordingly, the Commission SFO directs that “[p]owered cover plates that are imported in violation of the general exclusion order issued in the above-captioned investigation is to be seized and forfeited to the United States, if imported by the following firm: American Tack & Hardware Co., Inc[.]” Id. 2. The Patents and Claims in the 1124 GEO The 1124 GEO prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumption of powered cover plates that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of the ’324 patent; claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of the ’361 patent; claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of the ’430 patent; and the claim of the D’436 patent. 1124 GEO at 2. For purposes of this ruling request, SnapPower has only alleged that the articles at issue infringe claim 13 of the ’324 patent and claim 1 of the ’430 patent, so the discussion of the patents below is limited to these patent claims. Further, we note that, with regard to the ’430 patent, the burden of establishing noninfringement requires a showing that the articles at issue fail to meet a limitation of an independent claim. See, e.g., Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he failure to meet a single limitation is sufficient to negate infringement of the claim[.]”); Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1552 n.9 (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.”). a. Claim 1 of the ’430 Patent The ’430 patent is titled “Active Cover Plates.” FID at 21 (internal citation omitted). Claim 1 of the ’430 patent is reproduced below: 1 [Preamble]. A cover plate comprising: [1A] a face plate comprising at least one outlet aperture; [1B] a back plate abutting a back of the face plate; [1C] an electric load between the face plate and the back plate; 3 [1D] at least one prong that extends from the face plate to a free end, the prong configured to interface with a terminal on a side of an outlet receptacle body, the prong comprising: [1E] an insulated portion; and [1F] an electrical contact; [1G] wherein the free end of the prong comprises the insulated portion and [1H] wherein the prong resiliently deflects outward when interfacing with the terminal, and wherein the prong deflects with a first resistance prior to the insulated portion contacting a wall, and a second resistance that is greater than the first resistance when the insulated portion contacts the wall, wherein the wall comprises an interior wall of an electrical receptacle box; and [1I] at least one conductor electrically connecting the prong to the electric load. Id. (emphasis added). ’430 patent at Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B. 4 ’430 patent at Fig. 12. ’430 patent at Fig. 14A, 14B; see id. at 3:16-18 (“FIGS 14A and 14B are a side view and a perspective rear view of a spring clip/prong, according to one example of principles described herein.”). 5 B. 19 C.F.R. Part 177 Ruling Request Procedural History 1. SnapPower’s Previous Ruling Request On September 15, 2023, SnapPower submitted a letter to CBP requesting “a ruling [] that the imports of American Tack and Hardware, Inc. [] identified herein violate the General Exclusion Order [] issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission [] in Investigation No. 337-TA-1124 (Certain Powered Cover Plates).” See CBP HQ Ruling H334472 (dated December 20, 2023) at 8. In the inter partes proceeding, AmerTac argued that the Second GEN redesign for (i) the Lumicover Nightlight Wallplate, (ii) the Lumicover Power Failure Light, (iii) the Lumicover USB Charger Wallplate, (iv) the GloCover Nightlight Wallplate, and (v) the GloCover Motion Activated Light did not infringe the asserted claims of the ’324 patent and ’430 patent. See H334472 at 15-16. Based on the facts presented and the relevant case law, the EOE Branch concluded that AmerTac did not meet its burden to establish that the powered cover plates with the 2nd Gen Redesign do not infringe claim 13 of the ’324 patent or claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’430 patent. Id. at 29. Accordingly, the EOE Branch concluded that the powered cover plates with the 2nd Gen Redesign were subject to the 1124 GEO. Id. 2. Procedural History Regarding the Current Ruling Request On June 27, 2025, AmerTac submitted the Ruling Request to the EOE Branch via email. .2 AmerTac requested “a ruling letter that certain cover plates, i.e., the Gen 3 design, manufactured by AmerTac Holdings, Inc. (“AmerTac”) are outside the scope of and not subject to the General Exclusion Order (“GEO”) issued on June 11, 2020, by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124 (the “1124 Investigation”).” Ruling Request at 1. On June 27, 2025, AmerTac also confirmed that it had transmitted the ruling request to SnapPower’s counsel. AmerTac Email to EOE Branch (dated June 27, 2025). On July 3, 2025, the EOE Branch had an initial conference call with SnapPower and AmerTac, on which both parties agreed to conduct this proceeding on an inter partes basis as administered by the EOE Branch. During this initial call, the EOE Branch and the parties discussed the ground rules and scheduling for the inter partes proceeding. On July 8 and 9, 2025, the parties sent the EOE Branch the executed non-disclosure agreement and an email indicating that they were unable to agree on a procedural schedule for this inter partes proceeding. SnapPower Email to EOE Branch (dated July 8, 2025); see also AmerTac Email to EOE Branch (dated July 9, 2025). Specifically, SnapPower’s proposed procedural schedule included a preliminary briefing schedule to address whether AmerTac “forfeited its right to request a non-infringement ruling under Part 2 About one week before submitting the ruling request addressed in this ruling, AmerTac submitted a separate ruling request on June 20, 2025, for a different powered cover plate redesign (i.e., the Universal design). In this previous ruling request to the EOE Branch, “AmerTac requested a ruling letter that certain cover plates, i.e., the Universal design, manufactured by AmerTac Holdings, Inc. [] are outside the scope of and not subject to the General Exclusion Order [] issued on June 11, 2020, by the U.S. International Trade Commission [] in Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124[.]” Id. at 2 (quotations omitted). On March 10, 2026, the EOE Branch issued a ruling finding that the articles at issue were not subject to the GEO issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1124. HQ H349919 at 5 – 6. Further, the EOE Branch found that the “[e]ntry for consumption into the United States, entry for consumption from a foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption of the articles at issue, however, is conditioned on the drafting and submission of a certification, as provided for in this ruling.” Id. at 1. 6 177[.]”. See SnapPower Email to EOE Branch (dated July 8, 2025). On July 11, 2025, the EOE Branch had a conference call with the parties to discuss the procedural schedule. On July 14, 2025, after considering the parties’ positions, the EOE Branch sent the following response to the parties and established the procedural schedule for this inter partes proceeding: Regarding AmerTac’s Second Ruling Request (dated June 27, 2025) for the Gen 3 products, the EOE Branch believes that all arguments SnapPower has raised or indicated it intends to raise during this inter partes proceeding – including arguments on the merits related to admissibility as well as arguments under 19 C.F.R. § 177.7 whether the EOE Branch should issue a ruling can be sufficiently briefed and addressed during a single procedural schedule. If warranted based on its review of any submission, the EOE Branch can take appropriate action such as issuing a ruling that addresses an argument from above before conclusion of the procedural schedule. See CBP HQ Ruling H324813 (dated June 3, 2022) at 38. See EOE Branch Email to Parties (dated July 14, 2025). On August 11, 2025, SnapPower provided its response to the Ruling Request, which included multiple exhibits (collectively, “SnapPower Response”). On August 18, 2025, AmerTac provided its reply to SnapPower’s response, which included multiple exhibits (collectively, “AmerTac Reply”). On August 25, 2025, SnapPower provided its sur-reply (“SnapPower Sur- Reply”) to the AmerTac Reply. On September 3, 2025, the EOE Branch conducted an oral discussion with the parties, with each party providing a presentation (“AmerTac Oral Discussion Presentation” and “SnapPower Oral Discussion Presentation” respectively). Lastly, on September 10, 2025, the parties submitted post oral discussion submissions (“AmerTac Oral Discussion Submission” and “SnapPower Post Oral Discussion Submission” respectively). 3. The Articles at Issue The articles at issue in the Ruling Request consist of certain powered cover plates that use AmerTac’s Gen 3 design. AmerTac currently has the following products that incorporate the Gen 3 Redesign: 7 Exhibit A to Ruling Request. II. ISSUE Whether AmerTac has met its burden to show that the articles at issue do not infringe claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 19 of the ’324 patent; claims 1, 4, 10, 14, 21, 23, and 24 of the ’361 patent; claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 18, and 19 of the ’430 patent; and the claim of the D’436 patent and thus are not subject to the GEO issued in the 1124 investigation. 8 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 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 that 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 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 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) appl