U.S. International Trade Commission Allows Amendment in Patent Case on Bulk Containers
Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has made a decision in Investigation No. 337-TA-1434, which involves certain composite intermediate bulk containers. The Commission decided not to review an initial determination (Order No. 12) made by the Chief Administrative Law Judge. This decision grants an unopposed motion to amend the complaint and the notice of investigation.
This decision allows additional patent claims to be asserted against two of the respondents. The investigation began on January 27, 2025, after a complaint was filed by Schütz Container Systems, Inc. of North Branch, New Jersey, and Protechna S.A. of Fribourg, Switzerland. These two companies are together called the “Complainants.” The complaint said that six patents were being infringed. The investigation was opened because of possible section 337 violations of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337).
The respondents named in this investigation are:
- Shandong Jinshan Jieyuan Container Co., Ltd. of Zhengjiang City, China (“Jinshan”)
- Zibo Jielin Plastic Pipe Manufacture Co. Ltd. of Zibo City, China (“Jielin”)
- Shanghai Sakura Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (d/b/a Shanghai Yinghua Plastic Products Co., LTD) of Shanghai, China (“Sakura”)
- Hebei Shijiheng Plastics, Co., Ltd. of Zhongjie Huanghua City, China (“Hebei Shijiheng Plastics”)
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also part of the case.
Before this, some claims were removed from the investigation after the complaint was withdrawn for those parts. The complaint details were also updated to reflect a new address for Hebei Shijiheng Plastics.
On May 20, 2025, the Complainants asked to update the complaint to add claims 1-3 and 5 of the ’150 patent against Jinshan and claims 1-3 of the ’150 patent against Sakura. The respondents who took part in the investigation (Jinshan, Jielin, and Sakura) did not oppose this request, but they mentioned concerns about how the changes would affect the schedule. The Commission’s investigative attorney also supported the request but had scheduling concerns.
The Chief Administrative Law Judge looked at these concerns and, on June 13, 2025, issued an initial determination granting the motion to amend. The judge found there was good cause for these changes because the Complainants learned about more product models that might infringe after the first complaint was filed.
No one filed a petition to review this initial determination. The Commission voted on July 7, 2025, not to review the judge’s decision, which means the amendment is allowed.
The legal authority for this decision is section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and Part 210 of the Commission’s rules (19 CFR part 210).
This order was signed by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 7, 2025.
For more information, documents can be found on the Commission’s website at https://edis.usitc.gov and https://www.usitc.gov.
Legal Disclaimer
This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.
