Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1415; Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor

H354124 February 20, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H354124 ACC / RR CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Bryan Harrison Troutman Pepper Locke LLP 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30308 VIA EMAIL: bryan.harrison@troutman.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1415; Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor Dear Mr. Harrison: 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, based on a request from A-Hair Import Inc. (“A-Hair”) dated October 9, 2025 (“Ruling Request”), holding that the articles at issue, as described below, are subject to the limited exclusion order (“LEO” or “1415 LEO”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1415 (“the 1415 investigation”) 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 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 client, A-Hair, the ruling requester and respondent in the 1415 investigation; and (2) JBS Hair, Inc. (“JBS Hair”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1415 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 2 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-1415 1. Procedural History At The ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337 TA-1415 on September 4, 2024, based on a complaint, as supplemented (“complaint”), that was filed by JBS Hair of Atlanta, Georgia. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. ID 831423, Notice of Institution of Investigation (Sept. 4, 2024) at 1. The complaint alleged a violation of Section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,786,026 (the ‘026 Patent), 10,945,478 (the ‘478 Patent), and 10,980,301 (the ‘301 Patent). Id. at 3-4. The notice of investigation, as amended, named the following respondents: (1) Vivace, Inc. of Levittown, New York; A-Hair Import Inc. of Norcross, Georgia (“A-Hair”); Crown Pacific Group Inc. of Doraville, Georgia (“Crown Pacific”); Loc N Products, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia (“Loc N”); and Zugoo Import Inc. of Norcross, Georgia (“Zugoo”) (collectively, “Defaulting Respondents”); (2) Chois International, Inc. of Norcross, GA (“Chois”); I & I Hair Corp. of Dallas, TX (“I & I Hair”); Kum Kang Trading USA, Inc. d/b/a BNGHAIR of Paramount, CA (“Kum 3 Kang”); Mink Hair, Ltd. d/b/a Sensual® Collection of Wayne, NJ (“Mink Hair”); Oradell International Corp. d/b/a MOTOWN TRESS of Manalapan, NJ (“Oradell”); and Twin Peak International, Inc. d/b/a Dejavu Hair of Atlanta, GA (“Twin Peak”) (collectively, “Consent Order Respondents”); and (3) Sun Taiyang Co., Ltd. d/b/a Outre® of Moonachie, NJ; Beauty Elements Corporation d/b/a Bijouz® of Miami Gardens, FL; Hair Zone, Inc. d/b/a Sensationnel® of Moonachie, NJ; Beauty Essence, Inc. d/b/a Supreme™ Hair US of Moonachie, NJ; SLI Production Corp. d/b/a It’s a Wig! of Moonachie, NJ; Royal Imex, Inc. d/b/a Zury® Hollywood of Santa Fe Springs, CA; GS Imports, Inc. d/b/a Golden State Imports, Inc. of Paramount, CA; Eve Hair, Inc. of Lakewood, CA; Midway International, Inc. d/b/a BOBBI BOSS of Cerritos, CA; Mayde Beauty Inc. of Port Washington, NY; Hair Plus Trading Co., Inc. d/b/a Femi Collection of Suwanee, GA; Optimum Solution Group LLC d/b/a Oh Yes Hair of Duluth, GA; Chade Fashions, Inc. of Niles, IL; Mane Concept Inc. of Moonachie, NJ; Beauty Plus Trading Co., Inc. d/b/a Janet Collection™ of Moonachie, NJ; Model Model Hair Fashion, Inc. of Port Washington, NY; New Jigu Trading Corp. d/b/a Harlem 125® of Port Washington, NY; Shake N Go Fashion, Inc. of Port Washington, NY; and Amekor Industries, Inc. d/b/a Vivica A. Fox® Hair Collection of Conshohocken, PA (collectively, “Remaining Respondents”). Id.; see also 89 FR 97068-69 (Dec. 6, 2024). Id. at 2-4 (as amended in Initial Determination Granting Complainant’s Motion to Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation (November 4, 2024), unrev’d by Commission, December 2, 2024). The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was named a party to the investigation. Id. at 4. Through various consent orders, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to the Consent Order Respondents. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. Id. 863271, Notice of Commission Final Determination to Issue a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation (Sept. 29, 2025) at 2. Additionally, on April 1, 2025, JBS Hair filed a motion to terminate the investigation against the Remaining Respondents based on a withdrawal of the complaint. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. Id. 847558, Complainant’s Motion to Terminate the Investigation as to Remaining Respondents Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint, Unopposed Motion to Stay the Procedural Schedule, Unopposed Request for Shortened Response Time, and Request for Expedited Treatment (April 1, 2025) at 1. The presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) then terminated the investigation against the Remaining Respondents in an order dated April 10, 2025. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. Id. 848362, Initial Determination Granting Complainant’s Motion to Terminate the Investigation as to Remaining Respondents based on Withdrawal of the Complaint, Order No. 44 (April 10, 2025) at 1. A-Hair filed its Answer to JBS Hair’s Complaint and the Notice of Investigation on October 21, 2024. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. Id. 835173, Response of A-Hair Import Inc. to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation (October 21, 2024). Prior to A-Hair filing its Answer, Complainant JBS Hair indicates that it “served its initial discovery requests, including First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, on A-Hair via electronic mail on Friday, September 20, 2024.” Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. Id. 833789, A-Hair's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint’s Initial Discovery Requests (October 1, 2024) at 2. While not a part of 4 the administrative record in this inter partes proceeding, A-Hair has indicated that it submitted a supplemental response to JBS Hair’s discovery requests on December 26, 2026. A-Hair Reply Submission to EOE Branch (December 26, 2025) (“A-Hair Reply) at 2. After initially participating in discovery and filing various claim construction briefs, A-Hair filed a Default Notice on January 14, 2025, citing “the ongoing burden and expense of participating in this Investigation” and requesting the Commission to treat its notice as a “Motion for Default.” Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. Id. 841078, Default Notice of Respondent A-Hair Import Inc. (January 14, 2025) at 1. On February 4, 2025, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding respondents A-Hair and Dae Do Inc. in default. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-1415, Order 31 [Corrected], Initial Determination Finding Respondents A-Hair Import Inc. and Dae Do Inc. in Default, EDIS Doc. ID 842597 (February 4, 2025) at 1, unreviewed by Commission Notice (February 24, 2025). As part of this default, A-Hair “waived the right to appear, to be served with documents, and to contest the allegations at issue in this investigation.” Id. at 1-2 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 210.16(b)(4)). In additional rulings unreviewed by the Commission, the ALJ found other respondents to be in default. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. ID 863271, Notice of Commission on Final Determination to Issue a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation (Sept. 29, 2025) at 2. On September 29, 2025, the Commission issued an LEO against the Defaulting Respondents, including A-Hair. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. 863272, Limited Exclusion Order (Sept. 29, 2025) at 1. In the LEO, the Commission ordered that “certain pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair and packaging therefor that infringe one or more of [claims 1 and 9-11 of the ‘026 Patent, claim 20 of the ‘478 Patent, and claims 1, 4-9, and 11 of the ‘301 Patent] and that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of the Defaulting Respondents or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or their 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.” Id. at 2. The 1415 LEO further defined the covered articles as “pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair products having a substantially cardioid shaped perimeter formed by hackling and pre-stretching synthetic hair strands having different lengths and packaging for such products.” Id. at 3. 2. The Patents And Claims In The 1415 LEO The 1415 LEO bars the unlicensed entry for consumption of pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair and packaging therefor that infringe one or more of claims 1 and 9-11 of the ‘026 patent, claim 20 of the ‘478 patent, and claims 1, 4-9, and 11 of the ‘301 patent. LEO at 1. The ‘026, ‘478, and ‘301 patents have substantially similar specifications with the ‘301 patent being a continuation and the ‘478 a continuation-in-part of the ‘026 patent. Certain Pre-Stretched Synthetic 5 Braiding Hair and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-1415, EDIS Doc. ID 828244, Complaint (August 2, 2024) at 13. a. Claims 1 and 9-11 of the ’026 patent The ‘026 patent is titled “Synthetic Braiding Hair of Differing Lengths Packaged with a Cardioid” and “relates to bundled synthetic braiding hair of differing packaged in a substantially cardioid shape.” Id. at 14. Claims 9-11 depend on independent claim 1. These claims are reproduced below: 1. A hair accessory, comprising: bundled synthetic braiding hair, comprising: a first bundle of synthetic hair strands having a first length; and a second bundle of synthetic hair strands having a second length that is shorter than the first length; and a binder coupled about a waist of the bundled synthetic braiding hair; wherein the bundled synthetic braiding hair is folded about the binder to define a substantially cardioid shaped perimeter; further comprising a backer panel, wherein the binder is coupled to the backer panel, wherein the backer panel is folded, thereby completely spanning a first side of the bundled synthetic braiding hair and partially spanning a second side of the bundled synthetic braiding hair. 9. The hair accessory of claim 1, the substantially cardioid shaped perimeter comprising a rounded side and a cusp side. 10. The hair accessory of claim 9, further comprising a container disposed about the backer panel and the bundled synthetic braiding hair. 11. The hair accessory if claim 1, wherein a rounded side of the substantially cardioid shaped perimeter opposite a cusp side of the substantially cardioid shaped perimeter is exposed beneath a portion of the backer panel partially spanning the second side of the bundled synthetic braiding hair. ‘026 patent at 9:52-67 and 10:26-54. b. Claim 1, 4-9, and 11 of the ’301 patent The ‘301 patent is titled “Packaged, Bundled Synthetic Braiding Hair Having Bundles of Differing Lengths” and “describes a bundled synthetic braiding hair and packaging therefor and a method of packaging a bundled synthetic braiding hair.” Complaint at 18-19. Claims 4-9 and 11 depend from claim 1. These claims are reproduced below: 1. A hair accessory, comprising: 6 bundled synthetic braiding hair, comprising: a first bundle of synthetic hair strands having a first length; and a second bundle of synthetic hair strands having a second length that is shorter than the first length; wherein the bundled synthetic braiding hair is folded about a waist to define a perimeter having a first end collocated with the waist, a middle, and a second end located distally from the waist; and wherein a width of the perimeter narrows as the bundled synthetic braiding hair extends distally from the middle of the perimeter to the second end. 9. The hair accessory of claim 8, wherein a rounded side of the perimeter is exposed beneath a portion of the backer panel partially spanning the second side of the bundled synthetic braiding hair. 10. The hair accessory of claim 1, the bundled synthetic braiding hair further comprising a third bundle of synthetic hair strands having the first length and a fourth bundle of synthetic hair strands having the second length. 11. The hair accessory of claim 1, the perimeter shaped as an inverted teardrop with a rounded end. ‘301 patent, 9:58-10:3 and 10:29-38. c. Claim 17 of the ’478 patent The ‘478 patent is titled “Packaged Synthetic Braiding Hair” and “relates to bundled synthetic braiding hair of differing lengths folded by about a waist wherein a width of the perimeter of the bundled synthetic braiding hair narrows from the middle to the second end located distally from the waste.” Complaint at 17. Claim 17 is reproduced below: 17. A hair accessory, comprising: bundled synthetic braiding hair, comprising: a first bundle of synthetic hair strands having a first length; and a second bundle of synthetic hair strands having a second length that is shorter than the first length; wherein the bundled synthetic braiding hair is folded by about a waist of the bundled synthetic braiding hair to define a perimeter having a first end collocated with the waist, a middle, and a second end located distally from the waist; and 7 wherein a width of the perimeter narrows as the bundled synthetic braiding hair extends distally from the middle to the second end. ‘478 patent, 18:7-20. 3. The Products from the Underlying Investigation A-Hair’s accused articles from the underlying investigation consisted of a certain pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair products. Complaint at 44. According to the complaint, “Respondent A-Hair’s infringing pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair products include at least the AMAZING EAST brand imported, offered for sale and sold through beauty salons, e.g., at least Beauty & Fashion Boutique, 2297 Peachtree Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, and the A-Hair website www.ahairamazing.com in at least 1x a2x packs and in a variety of colors and sizes.” Id. at 44-45. Moreover, the complaint alleged that “the AMAZING EASY pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair products” “are representative of A-Hair’s pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair products that infringe the Asserted Patents.” Id. at 45. The complaint additionally provided the following image of the aforementioned product with the caption “Kanekalon Braiding Hair Amazing Easy 38.” Id. B. 19 C.F.R. Part 177 Ruling Request 1. Procedural History Regarding the Ruling Request On October 9, 2025, A-Hair requested an administrative ruling under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 (“Ruling Request”) from the EOE Branch that its redesigned synthetic braiding hair (“redesigned articles”) was not subject to the 1415 LEO because they do not infringe any of the claims of the ‘026, ‘301, or ‘478 patents. A-Hair Ruling Request Letter to EOE Branch (October 9, 2025) at 1. On October 22, 2025, the EOE Branch confirmed receipt of the ruling request submitted by A- 8 Hair and requested a preliminary meeting with the parties to discuss procedural aspects of the inter partes process. EOE Branch email to Parties (dated October 22, 2025). On October 28, 2025, the EOE Branch had an initial conference call with A-Hair and JBS Hair, on which both parties agreed to conduct this proceeding on an inter partes basis as administered by the EOE Branch. On November 2, 2025, A-Hair executed a Waiver for Continued Participation as a party who is represented by counsel who was