Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1206; Certain Percussive Massage Devices.

HQ H324059 March 22, 2022 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H324059 JW CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Robert Colletti Haug Partners LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10151 VIA EMAIL: [email protected] RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1206; Certain Percussive Massage Devices. Dear Mr. Colletti: 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 Zhejiang Ruicheng Mechanical Power Co., Ltd.’s (“Ruicheng”) request for an administrative ruling dated February 28, 2022, which included Exhibits 1 to 10 (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find that Ruicheng has established, through this inter partes proceeding, that its percussive massage devices – the MG-008, MG-008-1, MG-010, MG-013, MG-015, MG-018, MG-029, MG-057, MG-060, and MG-A3 (collectively, “articles at issue”) are 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-1206 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1206 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, Ruicheng, the ruling requester; and (2) Hyperice, Inc. (“Hyperice”), complainant in the 1206 investigation. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). Ruicheng requested a ruling from CBP that its “percussive massage device model types: MG-008, MG-008-1, MG-010, MG-013, MG-015, MG-018, MG-029, MG-057, MG-060, and MG-A3” are not subject to the 1206 GEO. See e.g., Ruling Request at 1-2. Pictures from the Ruling Request of an example MG-010 are reproduced below:


Ruling Request at 21-23; see also e.g., Exhibit 10 of Ruling Request. Ruicheng noted, inter alia, in its Ruling Request that “Ruicheng’s Products secure a battery with a simple bracket or cover having no electrical contacts” and “the battery in Ruicheng’s Products does not have any electrical contacts to engage the (nonexistent) electrical contacts of the bracket or cover.” Ruling Request at 23. Ruicheng further noted that “Ruicheng’s Products include a battery that provides power directly to the PCB [printed circuit board] of the device via wires.” Id. Hyperice indicated to the EOE Branch in an email (dated March 2, 2022) that it “agrees that the Ruicheng products detailed in the submission do not infringe the ‘574 patent because they do not have the claimed battery assembly receiving tray.” Given that Hyperice agrees that the articles at issue do not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘574 patent, the EOE Branch finds that Ruicheng has established that the articles at issue are not subject to the 1206 GEO. Additionally, Ruicheng has not specifically identified any information in the Ruling Request as confidential information. 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. Brian G. Arnold Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 [email protected]