Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1394; Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same

H359443 April 15, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H359443 JW CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. George C. Summerfield K&L Gates VIA EMAIL: george.summerfield@klgates.com; Apaltek-Silverstone1394@klgates.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1394; Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same Dear Mr. Summerfield: 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 the request, dated January 20, 2026, from SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd. and SilverStone Technology, Inc.; Enermax Technology; Enermax USA; and Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd.; and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Apaltek” or “ruling requester”) for an administrative ruling, which included three attachments (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find that the articles at issue, as described below, are subject to the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) issued in U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “ITC”) Investigation No. 337-TA-1394 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1394 investigation”), pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”). We 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 from CBP under 19 C.F.R. Part 177 that the EOE Branch 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, Apaltek, the ruling requester and respondents in the 1394 investigation; and (2) Cooler Master Co., Ltd.; CMI USA, Inc.; and CMC Great USA, Inc. (collectively, “Cooler Master”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1394 investigation. See 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). The parties were asked to clearly identify confidential information with [[red brackets]] in their submissions to CBP. See, e.g., EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated February 5, 2026; see also 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2 and 177.8. If there is additional information in this ruling letter not currently bracketed in red [[ ]] that either party believes constitutes confidential information and should be redacted from the published ruling, the parties are directed to contact CBP within ten (10) working days of the date of this ruling letter. 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); and 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-1394 1. Procedural History at the ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1394 on March 21, 2024, based on a complaint filed by Cooler Master. Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID 858641, Public Commission Opinion (August 5, 2025) (“Comm’n Op.”) at 2 (citing 89 Fed. Reg. 20247-48 (Mar. 21, 2024)). The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of claims 1-3 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,509,446 (“the ’446 patent”); claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,061,450 (“the ’450 patent”); and the claim of U.S. Patent No. D856,9411 (“the ’941 design patent”). Id. at 2-3. The notice of investigation named SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan; SilverStone Technology, Inc. 1 The ’941 design patent was later terminated from the investigation by withdrawal of the complaint. Comm’n Op. at 3. 2 of Chino, California; Enermax Technology Corp. of Taiwan; Enermax USA of Chino, California; Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. of China; and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. of China as respondents. Id. at 3. The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was not a party in the investigation. Id. On March 21, 2025, a final initial determination issued finding a violation of section 337. Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components iin Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID 848531, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommendation on Remedy and Bond (March 21, 2025) (“FID”) at 3. Specifically, it was 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 ’446 patent and the ’450 patent. Id. The Commission determined to review in part the FID and requested submissions responding to the Commission’s questions on review and remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id. at 3-4 (citing 90 Fed. Reg. 22755-56). The Commission, in its review of the FID, found a violation of section 337 as to the ’446 patent and the ’450 patent, and determined that the appropriate remedy was a LEO and a cease and desist order. Id. at 36. In the LEO, the Commission ordered: Certain liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more of claims 1-3 and 14 of the ’446 patent or claims 1-4 of the ’450 patent and are manufactured abroad by, or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of Respondents[2] 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 Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components In Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID 857700, Limited Exclusion Order (July 24, 2025) (“1394 LEO”) at 2, ¶ 1. The Commission further defined: liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof, and products containing same subject to this exclusion order (i.e., “covered articles”) [] as follows: liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof, and products containing same. 2 Respondents are defined in the 1394 LEO as “Silverstone Technology Co., Ltd., SilverStone Technology, Inc., Enermax Technology Corp., Enermax USA, Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd., and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd.” 1394 LEO at 1. 3 Id. at 2, ¶ 2. 2. The Patents and Claims in the 1394 LEO The asserted patent claims in the 1394 LEO are claims 1-3 and 14 of the ’446 patent and claims 1-4 of the ’450 patent. 1394 LEO at 2, ¶ 1. These patents are related, and their specifications are materially the same. Comm’n Op. at 5. Both patents are titled “Cooling Apparatus for Electronic Components.” Id. at 5. The specification for these patents describes a cooling apparatus for dissipating heat generated by electronic components. Id.3 1. The ’446 Patent Of claims 1-3 and 14 of the ‘446 patent, claim 1 is the only independent claim: the text of independent claim 1 of the ’446 patent is reproduced below: Claim 1 A cooling apparatus, comprising: a base plate configured to dissipate heat and including a heat exchange unit; a cover member coupled to the base plate and at least partially enclosing the heat exchange unit, the cover member and the base plate defining a heat exchange chamber that includes the heat exchange unit, the cover member defining a first opening and a second opening, and the cover member being coupled to the base plate such that at least one of the first and second openings is above the heat exchange unit; a flow guidance plate disposed on a top surface of the cover member and including a bottom surface facing the top surface of the cover member, wherein the flow guidance plate at least partially defines a first cavity and a second cavity separated from the first cavity, and the first cavity and the second cavity are defined on the bottom surface of the flow guidance plate; and a housing disposed on the flow guidance plate. FID at 7 citing ‘446 patent, claim 1. The general structure of the cooling apparatus is depicted in the figures below: 3 For purposes of this ruling request, the parties only disputed infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘446 patent, thus our focus will be on the ‘446 patent. 4 Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components In Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1394, EDIS Doc. ID 837712, Claim Construction Order No. 10 (Nov. 20, 2024) (“Order No. 10”) at 2 to 3 citing ‘446 patent, Figs. 15C and 15D. As illustrated above, cover member 1 couples to base plate 2 to enclose a heat exchange unit. See id. at Abstract. Generally speaking, the cooling apparatus functions by pumping fluid at a lower temperature into the heat exchange chamber, circulating the fluid in the heat exchange chamber where it absorbs thermal energy from and cools the base plate, and then circulating the fluid to an external heat dissipating device to cool the fluid again. Id. at 1:33-44, 6:66-7:27. Id. at 3. The terms below from, inter alia, claim 1 of the ‘446 patent were construed as follows: ______________________________________________________________________________ Claim Term Construction “coupled” “[D]oes not require a direct or permanent connection between the claimed cover member and claimed base plate [and] will be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 8. 5 “chamber” “[F]ully or partially enclosed space or compartment.” Id. at 8 (internal quotations omitted). “cavity” “The term ‘cavity’ will be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which may encompass a space with a flow path passing all the way through it.” Id. at 14. “[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘cavity’ is ‘a hollowed- out space,’ and it does not foreclose the hollowed-out space from having a passage all the way through it.” Id. at 9. “housing” “[S]omething that at least partially encloses one or more components.” Id. at 14 (internal citation omitted) (internal quotations omitted). “cover member” “[N]ot a means-plus-function limitation and will be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 15. The limitation “defining a heat exchange chamber” was also addressed in the context of invalidity. See FID at 128-37. In particular, the FID found that the “cover member and base plate defining a heat exchange chamber” required the “cover member” and “base plate” to form a chamber where heat exchange could occur. See id. at 129-31, 134-36; Comm’n Op. at 14. B. 19 C.F.R. Part 177 Ruling Request 1. Procedural History On January 21, 2026,4 Apaltek filed a submission with CBP requesting an administrative ruling pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, which included three attachments. Apaltek requested a ruling from CBP that its following liquid cooler products: “1) the XE360 Series; 2) the GB Series; 3) the GP Series; 4) the SPX Series; 5) the SV Series; 6) the UI Series; and 7) the XA Series” do not violate the 1394 LEO. See, e.g., Ruling Request at 1. Cooler Master was also copied on the email from Apaltek transmitting the Ruling Request to the EOE Branch, and as such, was provided a copy of the Ruling Request. See Apaltek Email to EOE Branch, dated January 21, 2026. On February 9, 2026, the EOE Branch had an initial conference call with Apaltek and Cooler Master. See EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated February 9, 2026. Subsequently, on February 17, 2026,5 the EOE Branch set a schedule for this inter partes proceeding that was in line with the jointly proposed schedule from the parties. See EOE Branch Email to Parties, dated February 17, 2026. 4 The email transmitting the Ruling Request was dated January 21, 2026, but the Ruling Request was dated January 20, 2026. 5 The date and time for the oral discussion was confirmed in a later email from the EOE Branch, dated February 24, 2026. 6 On February 20, 2026, Cooler Master provided its response to the Ruling Request (“Cooler Master Response”). On February 27, 2026, Apaltek provided its reply, which included Exhibits A and B (collectively, “Apaltek Reply”). On March 6, 2026, Cooler Master provided its sur- reply, which included Exhibit A (collectively, “Cooler Master Sur-Reply”). On March 18, 2026, the EOE Branch had an oral discussion with the parties and each of the parties provided PowerPoints as part of their participation in the oral discussion (“Apaltek PowerPoint” and “Cooler Master PowerPoint,” respectively). Following the oral discussion, on March 25, 2026, Apaltek provided a post oral discussion submission (“Apaltek Post Oral Discussion Submission”) and Cooler Master likewise provided a post oral discussion submission that included Exhibit A and B (collectively, “Cooler Master Post Oral Discussion Submission”). 2. The Articles at Issue Apaltek requested a ruling from CBP that “the following liquid cooler products do not violate the [1394 LEO]: 1) the XE360 Series; 2) the GB Series; 3) the GP Series; 4) the SPX Series; 5) the SV Series; 6) the UI Series; and 7) the XA Series.” Ruling Request at 1. The chart below from Apaltek summarizes the limitations it claims each of the respective articles at issue do not meet: Apaltek PowerPoint at 31.6 Figures of each of the articles at issue from Apaltek are also provided in the chart below: Article at Issue Figures 6 The “XL” product in the chart appears to possibly refer to the XE360 Series. 7 XE360 Series Ruling Request at 4. Apaltek states that this figure is “the depiction of the cold plate and pump” and “the two components are separate from one another” and “[t]here is an upper cover on the copper plate and below the nozzle fitting that connects to the pump tubes.” Id. citing Xiao Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4. SV Series Id.at 5 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 6. Apaltek states that “the pump and cold plate are separate from one another and the upper cover connects to the pump nozzles[.]” Id. at 4. 8 GB Series Id. at 6 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 9. Apaltek states “the cold plate in the GB Series is separate from the pump[.]” Id. at 5. It further states “[t]he copper upper cover of the GB series includes the nozzle connections for the pump hoses.” Id. citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 10. GP Series Id. at 7 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 12. Apaltek states “the cold plate assembly and the pump are each separately attached to the radiator[.]” Id. at 6. SPX Series Id. at 7 to 8 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 14. Apaltek states the SPX Series “has a pump and cold plate that are attached separately from one another to the radiator[.]” Id. at 7. 9 XA Series Id. at 8 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 16. Apaltek states “the XA Series has a cold plate and a pump mounted separately from one another on the radiator[.]” Id. UI Series Id. at 9 citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 18. Apaltek states “the pump is disposed on the copper plate[.]” Id. It further states “[a]ssuming the pump cover can be analogized to the claimed housing, the UI Series lacks a cover member and a flow guidance plate, both of which are required to be disposed between the claimed base plate and housing.” Id. citing Xiao Decl. at ¶ 19. II. ISSUE Whether Apaltek has met its burden to show that the articles at issue do not infringe claims 1-3 and 14 of the ’446 patent and claims 1-4 of the ’450 patent and thus are not subject to the 1394 LEO. See, e.g., Ruling Request at 1. 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 10 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 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