Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-739; Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing the Same

HQ H324007 April 6, 2022 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H324007 WMW CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Paul Bartkowski Bartkowski PLLC 6803 Whittier Ave., Suite 200A McLean, VA 22101 VIA EMAIL: [email protected] RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-739; Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing the Same Dear Mr. Bartkowski: 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 Suzhou ELE Manufacturing Co., Ltd.’s (“Suzhou”) request for an administrative ruling, dated December 9, 2021 (“Ruling Request”). We find that Suzhou has established, through this inter partes proceeding, that its G15 model of ground fault circuit interrupter (“GFCI”), as described below, is not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order (“GEO”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-739 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 739 investigation”), pursuant to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”), unless and until this ruling letter is revoked or modified pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.12. 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. As noted above, 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 process involved the two parties with a direct and demonstrable interest in the question presented by the ruling request: (1) your client, Suzhou, the ruling requester; and (2) Leviton Manufacturing Co. (“Leviton”), complainant in the 739 investigation. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). Suzhou requested a ruling from CBP that its G15 model of GFCI is not subject to the 739 GEO. See e.g., Ruling Request at 1 and 4. Pictures of the G15 model taken from the Ruling Request (that depict the model’s inside and outside) are reproduced below:


Ruling Request at 5 (annotations in the original). Suzhou noted, inter alia, in its Ruling Request that “[t]he G15 GFCI has only two sets of terminals or electrical conductors” whereas the “‘809 Patent explicitly provides that the GFCIs described and claimed therein each require … three sets of terminals.” Ruling Request at 5. Leviton sent an email (dated January 13, 2022) to Suzhou, which the parties subsequently provided to the EOE Branch, indicating that “[t]o the extent [Suzhou is] limiting [its] request to the device [G15] illustrated, Leviton is in agreement that importation of the device will not violate the [739] GEO.” Given that Leviton agrees that the articles at issue do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘809 patent, the EOE Branch finds that Suzhou has established that the articles at issue are not subject to the 739 GEO. Additionally, Suzhou indicated to the EOE Branch in an email (dated January 19, 2022) that “[t]he ruling itself can be entirely public.” As such, unless either party contacts the EOE Branch within ten (10) working days from the date of this ruling letter to indicate its belief that this ruling letter contains confidential information, the ruling letter will be published, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1625, as implemented by 19 C.F.R. Part 177, without any redactions. The decision above is limited to the specific facts set forth herein. If articles differ in any material way from the articles at issue described above, or if future importations vary from the facts stipulated to herein, this decision shall not be binding on CBP as provided for in 19 C.F.R. §§ 177.2(b)(1), (2), (4), and 177.9(b)(1) and (2). Sincerely, Dax Terrill Chief, Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch CC: Mr. Meir Y. Blonder General Counsel, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. 201 North Service Road., Melville, NY 11747 [email protected]