Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1392; Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same

H359758 July 10, 2026 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H359758 RPR CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Bryan Nese Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1101 VIA EMAIL: Bnese@mayerbrown.com; STIIIZY-177@mayerbrown.com; afs_stiiizy-pax_itc1392@afslaw.com RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; Limited Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1392; Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same Dear Mr. Nese, Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch (EOE), Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), issues this ruling letter holding that STIIIZY IP LLC f/k/a STIIIZY, LLC and STIIIZY Inc. d/b/a Shryne Group Inc. (collectively, “STIIIZY” or “Ruling Requester”) has met its burden of proof that its “Post-FD AIO (All in One) Devices” are not subject to the limited exclusion order (LEO or “1392 LEO”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission) issued as a result of Investigation No. 337-TA-1392 (“the 1392 investigation”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act 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, which 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, STIIIZY, the Ruling Requester and a respondent in the 1392 investigation; and (2) PAX Labs, Inc. (“PAX”), the patent owner and complainant in the 1392 investigation (collectively, the “parties”). See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). 2 The parties were asked to clearly identify confidential information, including information subject to the administrative protective order in the underlying investigation, with [[red brackets]] in their submissions. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2, 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 asked to contact the EOE Branch 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, 588 U.S. 427, 440 (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-1392 1. Procedural History at the ITC The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1392 on March 6, 2024, based on a complaint filed by PAX. Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 871272, Public Commission Opinion (February 3, 2026) (“Comm’n Op.”) at 3. The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims (collectively, the “asserted claims” or “claims at issue”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,369,756 (filed Mar. 17, 2021) (“the ’756 patent”); 11,369,757 (filed June 30, 2021) (“the ’757 patent”); 11,766,527 (filed Feb. 23, 2023) (“the ’527 patent”); and 11,759,580 (filed Feb. 23, 2023) (“the ’580 patent”) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). Id. at 2. The complaint also alleged that the accused products were “certain oil vaporizing devices, components 3 thereof, and products containing the same” (collectively, “Accused Products”). Id. at 3. The complaint further alleged that the respondents “import into the United States, sell for importation into the United States, and/or sell in the United States after importation Accused Products that infringe, directly or indirectly, one or more claims” of the asserted patents. Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 812867, Public Complaint (January 30, 2024) (“Complaint”) at 1. The notice of institution named STIIIZY and ALD Group Limited and ALD (Hong Kong) Holding Limited (collectively, “ALD”) as respondents (collectively, “respondents”). Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 815209, Notice of Institution of Investigation (February 29, 2024) (“notice of institution”) at 2-3. The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigation (OUII) was not a party to the investigation. Comm’n Op. at 3. Through various orders, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to certain claims of the asserted patents. Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 825702, Order No. 11 (July 11, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (July 30, 2024); and Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 831665, Order No. 20 (Sept. 6, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. ID. 834179, (Oct. 7, 2024). Then, after an evidentiary hearing, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) terminated the investigation with respect to additional claims. Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 836794, Order No. 32 (Nov. 8, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. Id. 838932 (Dec. 10, 2024). At some point during the investigation, the respondents introduced several redesigned products, including the STIIIZY-1G-REDESIGN(C), STIIIZY-ORIG-1G-REDESIGN, and STIIIZY-AIO-REDESIGN (collectively, “STIIIZY Redesigned Products”). Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 845893, Final Initial Determination (FID) (March 6, 2025), reviewed in part by Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. Id. 851435 (May 16, 2025), at 24 (citing MSD, EDIS Doc. ID. 830275). On March 6, 2025, the ALJ issued an FID. Comm’n Op. at 4. As of the FID, the remaining asserted claims were claims 1, 5, and 10 of the ’756 patent; claims 1, 5, 10-11, 17-18, and 22 of the ’527 patent; claims 1, 13, 15, and 20 of the ’757 patent; and claims 1, 6-8, and 10 of the ’580 patent. Id. In the FID, the ALJ found that the following Accused Products infringed at least one of the asserted claims of at least one of the asserted patents: STIIIZY-LIIIL, STIIIIZY-1(G)(C), STIIIZY-ORIG-1, STIIIZY-AIO, FLARE(C), FLARE(V), ROVE(C), ROVE(V), STIIIZY-1G-REDESIGN(C), STIIIZY-ORIG-1G-REDESIGNS, STIIIIZY-AIO-REDESIGN, FLARE-REDESIGN(C), and FLARE-REDESIGN(V). FID at 111-112. Additionally, the FID held that the respondents’ ROVE-REDESIGN(C) and ROVE-REDESIGN(V) did not infringe the asserted claims of the ’580 patent. Id. at 100-101, and 112. With respect to the STIIIZY Redesigned Products noted above, the ALJ found that each infringed at least one claim of the ’580 patent but not the ’756, ’757, and ’527 patents. Id. at 96, 98-99, and 112. Moreover, the ALJ noted that PAX did not introduce any evidence that the STIIIZY Redesigned Products infringed the asserted claims of the ’756, ’757, and ’527 patents and therefore failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to these patents. Id. at 25, 60, and 72. The ALJ also held that STIIIZY presented no evidence to 4 rebut PAX’s contentions that the Accused Products indirectly infringed the asserted claims of the asserted patents, both contributorily and by inducement. Id. at 27, 70, 72, and 103. The FID also found that all the asserted claims were valid and that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement of section 337 was satisfied. Id. at 112-113. However, the ALJ held that Pax did not meet the economic prong of section 337’s domestic industry requirement. Id. at 113. As such, the ALJ found no violation of section 337. Id. at 109-112. In the FID, the ALJ made a recommended determination (RD) that should the Commission find a section 337 violation, then an LEO should be issued against STIIIZY and ALD. Id. Moreover, the RD recommended cease and desist orders (CDOs) against the STIIIZY respondents only. Id. at 114-116. Lastly, the RD recommended that the Commission set a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value for the importation of any infringing articles during the presidential review period. Id. at 116-117. The parties filed petitions with the Commission for review of the FID on March 18, 2025. Comm’n Notice (May 16, 2025) at 2-3. The Commission issued a notice on May 16, 2025 that it was reviewing the FID’s findings in part. Id. at 2. Specifically, the Commission indicated that it was reviewing the FID’s findings that: (1) certain Accused Products did not infringe the asserted claims of the ’580 patent; (2) certain redesigned products infringed the asserted claims of the ’580 patent; and (3) the Complainant had not satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Id. at 3. On review, the Commission found that “the FID errs by stating as a bright-line rule that ‘pre-issuance investments [are not] cognizable under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 337(a)(3).’” Id. As such, the Commission vacated the FID’s findings on the economic prong and remanded for further proceedings. Id. The Commission also indicated that the other FID findings selected for review (“remaining issues”) remained pending. Id. Upon remand, the Commission specifically requested the ALJ to “‘consider whether Complainant’s alleged domestic industry investments were made with respect to the articles protected by the patent (i.e., the products that the FID finds satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement), not limited by whether those investments were made post-patent issuance.’” Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. Id. 862213 (September 17, 2025) (citing Comm’n Notice May 16, 2025). On July 18, 2025, the ALJ issued a Remand Initial Determination (RID) that PAX satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, Remand Initial Determination, EDIS Doc. Id. 858076 (July 30, 2025), at 23. On September 17, 2025, the Commission issued a notice that it reviewed the RID and “otherwise affirms the RID’s findings that the Complainant has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), including its subsidiary finding that Complainant was an exclusive licensee when it made its domestic industry investments.” Comm’n Op. at 4. In the notice, the Commission requested written submissions from the parties with respect to their recommended remedy should the Commission ultimately find a violation. Id. at 4-5. Both parties submitted their briefs on remedy to the Commission in late November 2025. Id. at 7. 5 On February 3, 2026, the Commission issued its Opinion. See Comm’n Op. Concerning the remaining issues, the Commission found that the ROVE(C), ROVE-REDESIGN(C), ROVE (V), and ROVE-REDESIGN(V) products infringed certain claims of the ’580 patent. Id. at 2. Moreover, the Commission affirmed the FID with additional reasoning that the STIIIZY-1G-REDESIGN(C), STIIIZY-ORIG-1G-REDESIGN, and STIIIZY-AIO-REDESIGN products infringed certain claims of the ’580 patent. Id. at 2. The Commission noted in its Opinion that it did not review the FID’s findings with respect to the remaining asserted patents, except for the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, and as such adopted these findings. Id. at 2-3. Accordingly, the Commission found a violation of section 337 with respect to the asserted patents. Id. at 27. As for remedy, the Commission issued an LEO, including a standard certification provision, against STIIIZY and ALD, as well as CDOs against both STIIIZY respondents. Id. at 3, 28. In the 1392 LEO, the Commission ordered that: [c]ertain oil vaporizing devices, components thereof, and products containing the same, that infringe one or more of claims 1, 5, and 10 of the ’756 patent; claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 22 of the ’527 patent; claims 1, 13, 15, and 20 of the ’757 patent; or claims 1, 6-8, and 10 of the ’580 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 Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 869418, Limited Exclusion Order (January 20, 2026) at 2, ¶ 1. The 1392 LEO further defined the “covered articles” as follows: [v]aporizing devices capable of vaporizing oils, components thereof and products containing the same where the components of a vaporizing device are ‘a mouthpiece, a cartridge body, an atomizer, a distal member, a bottom cover, a vaporizer body including a cartridge receiver,’ as well as a ‘battery,’ and where products containing the same are cartridge and battery components ‘sold in combination with a power charging device in which the [cartridge] or battery would each be one component of the downstream product.’ Id. at 2, ¶ 2. Lastly, the Commission determined that the public interest factors did not prevent these remedial orders from being issued and required a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value for infringing products to enter the U.S. during the presidential review period. Comm’n Op. at 3. On March 4, 2026, STIIIZY filed a petition for reconsideration, which was denied by the Commission because it found that STIIIZY “[did] not identify any new questions raised by the 6 Commission’s determination or action ordered to be taken thereunder and upon which STIIIZY had no opportunity to submit arguments.” Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 874312, Order Denying Respondent STIIIZY’s Petition for Reconsideration (March 4, 2026) at 3. Additionally, the Commission found that “STIIIZY’s petition fails to demonstrate that the Commission should ‘on its own initiative’ reconsider its finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. On March 9, 2026, STIIIZY filed a motion to stay the remedial orders of the Commission pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1392, EDIS Doc. ID. 878118, Commission Opinion Denying Motion of Respondents STIIIZY INC and STIIIZY IP LLC to Stay the Remedial Orders Pending Appeal (April 7, 2026) at 1. The Commission denied STIIIZY’s motion for a stay because “STIIIZY has not shown that the Standard Havens factors, as modified by the Commission’s jurisprudence, favor granting a stay pending appeal.” Id. at 18. On March 23, 2026, STIIIZY filed a notice of appeal and emergency motion to stay the remedial orders and for an interim administrative stay with the Federal Circuit. Id. at 5 (citing STIIIZY, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 26-1554, Dkt. 2-3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2026)). As of this ruling letter, STIIIZY’s appeal before the Federal Circuit remains pending. 2. The Patents And Asserted Claims In The 1392 LEO As noted above, the 1392 LEO prohibits the unlicensed entry for consumption of certain oil vaporizing devices, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe the asserted claims of the asserted patents. 1392 LEO at 2, ¶ 1. The asserted patents share a common specification and are a continuation of application No. 15/396,584, now U.S Patent No. 11,660,403 (filed Dec. 31, 2016). FID at 5-6. In general, “[t]he Asserted Patents are all directed to ‘leak-resistant vaporizer cartridges and apparatuses adapted for use with oil-based vaporizable materials including cannabis oils.’” Comm’n Op. at 8 (citing ’580 patent at code (57)). Figure 3B of the ’580 patent is representative of the asserted patents and is reproduced below: ’580 patent at Fig. 3B. For purposes of this Ruling Request, the EOE Branch will adopt the claim limitation labeling scheme (as shown below) presented in FID. FID at 16-17, 45-49, 66-68, and 77-80. 7 a. Claims 1, 5, and 10 of the ’756 patent The ’756 patent is titled “Leak-Resistant Vaporizer Device” and describes “[v]aporizer cartridges and vaporizer apparatuses, and methods for making, using, and delivering vapor to a user, that are leak-resistant for use with cannabinoids.” ’756 patent at codes (54) and (57). Claim 1 of the ’756 patent is an independent claim and claims 5 and 10 depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A vaporizer cartridge comprising [756.1.pre]: a cartridge body comprising a proximal body end and a distal body end opposite the proximal body end [756.1.a]; a mouthpiece coupled to the proximal body end, the mouthpiece comprising an outlet [756.1.b]; a reservoir comprising an internal volume at least partially defined by the cartridge body, the internal volume configured to hold a vaporizable material [756.1.c]; a first reservoir seal [756.1.d]; a second reservoir seal, wherein the first reservoir seal and the second reservoir seal ar