Request for Reconsideration of CBP HQ Ruling H351104; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1394; Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same

H359753 April 17, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H359753 ACC CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition George C. Summerfield K&L GATES 1601 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 VIA EMAIL: george.summerfield@klgates.com RE: Request for Reconsideration of CBP HQ Ruling H351104; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1394; Certain Liquid Coolers for Electronic Components in Computers, Components Thereof, Devices for Controlling Same, And Products Containing Same Dear Mr. Summerfield: Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (“EOE Branch” or “Branch”), Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), issues this ruling letter, based on a request for reconsideration from SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd., SilverStone Technology, Inc., Enermax Technology, Enermax USA, Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd., and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Apaltek” or “respondent”) submitted on March 20, 2026 (“Request for Reconsideration”), holding that we decline to modify or revoke CBP HQ Ruling H351104 (dated February 20, 2026), which found that certain redesigned liquid coolers for electronic components in computer (“articles at issue”) were 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-1394 (“the 1394 investigation” or “underlying 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 client, Apaltek, the ruling requester and respondent 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, 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-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 2 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. D856,941 (“the ’941 design patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”). Comm’n Op. at 2-3. The notice of investigation named SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan; SilverStone Technology, Inc. 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, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) issued a final initial determination, 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 848531, Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommendation on Remedy and Bond (March 21, 2025) (“FID”), finding a violation of section 337. Id. at 3. 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 ’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 limited exclusion order (“1394 LEO”) and a cease and desist order (“CDO”). Id. at 36. In the 1394 LEO, the Commission ordered that “[c]ertain 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 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 the articles covered by the 1394 LEO as “liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof, and products containing same subject to this exclusion order (i.e., “covered articles”) [including the following]: liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof, and products containing same.” Id. at 2, ¶ 2. 2. The Patents And Claims In The 1394 LEO 3 The 1394 LEO prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumption of 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”; 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. . The specification for these patents describes a cooling apparatus for dissipating heat generated by electronic components. Id. . One embodiment from the specification is a cooling apparatus that incudes “an outer casing 6 installed on the base plate 2 and enclosing the housing 4, the flow guidance plate 3, and the cover member 1.” Id. (quoting ’446 patent at 7:61-64). The general structure of the cooling apparatus is shown in the figures below: ’446 patent at Figs. 15C, 15D. In the above structure, the cover member 1 is disposed on the base plate 2 to define a “heat exchange chamber.” See id. at 4:5-25. The flow guidance plate 3 is positioned on the cover member and defines a first cavity and a second cavity. See id. at 5:10-63. In general, 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. a. Claims 1-3 and 14 of the ’446 patent For the covered claims from the ’446 patent, claims 2 and 14 depend from independent claim 1 and claim 3 depends from dependent claim 2. Independent claim 1 and claims 2- 3, and 14 of the ’446 patent are reproduced below: 4 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. 2. The cooling apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heat exchange unit includes a plurality of fins, the first opening is a first elongated slot and the second opening is a second elongated slot parallel to the first elongated slot, the first and second elongated slots having different lengths, and the cover member is coupled to the base plate such that the first and second elongated slots extend perpendicular to the plurality of fins. 3. The cooling apparatus of claim 2, wherein the plurality of fins form an array having a width substantially equal to a length of the first elongated slot. 14. The cooling apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an outer casing secured to the base plate and at least partially enclosing the cover member, the flow guidance plate, and the housing. Comm’n Op. at 6-7; see also ’446 patent, claims 1-3 and 14. b. Claims 1-4 of the ’450 patent For the covered claims from the ’450 patent, claim 4 depends from claim 3, claim 3 depends from claim 2, and claim 2 depends from independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 and claims 2- 4 of the ’450 patent are reproduced below: 5 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 opening and the second opening is above the heat exchange chamber; a flow guidance plate disposed on the cover member; a housing disposed on the flow guidance plate; and an outer casing secured to the base plate and at least partially enclosing the cover member, the flow guidance plate, and the housing. 2. The cooling apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heat exchange unit comprises a plurality of fins. 3. The cooling apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first opening is a first elongated slot and the second opening is a second elongated slot parallel to the first elongated slot, the first and second elongated slots having different lengths, and the cover member is coupled to the base plate such that the first and second elongated slots extend perpendicular to the plurality of fins. 4. The cooling apparatus of claim 3, wherein the plurality of fins form an array having a width substantially equal to a length of the first elongated slot. ’450 patent at claims 1-4. B. CBP HQ Ruling H351104 On August 4, 2025, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177, Apaltek submitted a request to CBP for an administrative ruling whether certain liquid coolers for electronic components in computers were subject to the 1394 LEO that the Commission issued as a result of the 1394 investigation under section 337 of the Tariff of 1930. See CBP HQ Ruling H351104 (dated February 20, 2026) (“Apaltek I”) at 1. On February 20, 2025, CBP issued HQ Ruling H351104 holding: We find that Apaltek has not met its burden to establish that the articles at issue do not infringe the relevant claims of the asserted patents. Accordingly, we find that 6 the articles at issue are subject to the limited exclusion order issued as a result of Inv. No. 337-TA-1394. Id. C. 19 C.F.R. Part 177 Ruling Request 1. Procedural History Regarding the Current Request for Reconsideration On March 20, 2026, Apaltek submitted to CBP a request for reconsideration pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177, requesting that “the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch [] reconsider its decision of February 20, 2026, pursuant to Section 177 in the afore-referenced matter finding that Apaltek has not met its burden to establish that the articles at issue do not infringe the relevant claims of the asserted patents.” Request for Reconsideration at 1. In the Request for Reconsideration, Apaltek argues that the USPTO’s recent “reexamination decision confirming the claims of the ’50 Patent, i.e., that the principal reference did not teach a housing on the flow guidance plate, as required by such claims” “is contrary to the decision reached by the [Exclusion Order] Enforcement Branch, given the identity in relevant structure as between the prior art at issue before the PTO and the redesigned products.” Id; see also Exhibit A to Request for Reconsideration (“Notice of Intent to Issu? Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate” or “Notice”) at 2. On March 20, 2026, the EOE Branch sent an email to the parties establishing the procedural schedule for this inter partes proceeding. See EOE Branch Email to Parties (dated August 15, 2025). Notably, the procedural schedule included a response submission by Cooler Master and a reply submission to the response by Apaltek. Id. On March 23, 2026, Cooler Master sent an email to the EOE Branch indicating that the parties agreed that the executed NDA covering the inter partes proceeding for CBP HQ Ruling H351104 applies to the inter partes proceeding for this Request for Reconsideration and that the parties had no objection to the EOE Branch administering this proceeding on an inter partes basis. Cooler Master Email to EOE Branch (dated March 23, 2026). On April, 3, 2026, Cooler Master provided its response to the Request for Reconsideration (“Cooler Master Response”). On April 10, 2026, Apaltek provided its reply to Cooler Master’s Response (“Apaltek Reply”). 2. The Articles at Issue The articles at issue in this Request for Reconsideration include redesigned liquid coolers: (1) the CF liquid cooler; and (2) the TDT liquid cooler (collectively, “Redesign Liquid Coolers”). The first redesigned liquid cooler is the CF liquid cooler as depicted below: 7 CBP HQ Ruling H351104 (dated February 20, 2026) at 7. An image showing the heat exchange chamber of the CF liquid cooler is included below: 8 Id. at 8. Further, the below CAD drawing of the CF liquid cooler similarly shows that the housing provides the side walls of the heat exchange chamber, with the space between the heat exchange fins and the housing as designated by green arrows: Id. The image below of the CF liquid cooler shows a space between the cover member and the side walls of the housing as indicated by a green arow: Id. at 9. 9 The second redesigned liquid cooler is the TDT redesigned liquid cooler as shown below: Id. at 9. In the TDT redesigned liquid cooler, the liquid cooler has an uncovered portion of the heat exchange fins (shown below in red) when the cover member and base plate are assembled: Id. at 10. 10 II. ISSUE Whether Apaltek has failed to meet its burden to show that the articles at issue do not infringe the ’446 and ’450 patents and thus are not subject to the LEO issued in the 1394 investigation. 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 v