Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1174; Certain Toner Cartridges, Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same

HQ H327463 October 22, 2022 OT:RR:BSTC:EOE H327463 FKM CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Gary M. Hnath Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006 VIA EMAIL: [email protected] RE: Ruling Request; U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-1174; Certain Toner Cartridges, Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same Dear Mr. Hnath: 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 Ninestar Corporation’s (“Ninestar”) request for an administrative ruling, dated August 23, 2022, which included Exhibits A-J (collectively, “Ruling Request”). We find that Ninestar has established, through this inter partes proceeding, that its redesigned toner cartridges—model numbers NT-PB730, NT-PB760, and NT-PB770 (collectively, “articles at issue”)—are not subject to exclusion from entry based on the general exclusion order (“GEO”) issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1174 (“the underlying investigation” or “the 1174 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 modify or revoke any contrary CBP ruling or decision pertaining to section 337 exclusion orders by operation of law. 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, Ninestar, the ruling requester; and (2) Brother Industries, Ltd.; Brother International Corporation (U.S.A.); and Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. (collectively, “Brother”), complainant in the 1174 investigation. See, e.g., 19 C.F.R. § 177.1(c). Ninestar requested a ruling that the articles at issue are not subject to the 1174 GEO because they do not infringe the patent claims referenced above. Ruling Request at 1. Specifically, Ninestar argued that the redesigned cartridges lack: ( [] the “second gear” required by all claims of the ’387 patent; ( [] the “detection gear” required by all claims of the ’093 patent; ( [] the “gear” with a “plurality of gear teeth” which is “rotatable about the protrusion” required by all claims of the ’460 patent; ( [] the “developing electrode” required by all claims of the ’856 patent; and ( [] the “second cartridge electrode” required by all claims of the ’456 patent. Ruling Request at 2. Images of a representative cartridge (with annotations) are included below.


In an e-mail to the EOE Branch and counsel for Ninestar, dated September 9, 2022, counsel for Brother confirmed that “Brother does not intend to participate in the Part 177 proceeding initiated by Ninestar’s August 23, 2022 ruling request[.]” Due to the lack of a contention from Brother that the articles at issue infringe the patent claims at issue, the EOE Branch finds that Ninestar has established that the articles at issue are not subject to exclusion from entry on the basis of the 1174 GEO. 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 all of their submissions to CBP. 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, then the parties are asked 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). 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. Tommy Martin Baker Botts LLP 700 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 [email protected]