International Trade Commission Finds Trade Violation in Urine Splash Guards Case Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) found a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This was in connection to a case about urine splash guards. The investigation was titled Investigation No. 337-TA-1430. The case started on January 13, 2025. It was based on a complaint from a company called Kids By Parents, Inc. They are based in Potomac, Maryland. The complaint was about certain urine splash guards and components thereof. These were allegedly being imported and sold in the USA while infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,870,619 and U.S. Patent No. 11,812,901. The ITC found that five companies from China violated U.S. trade law. The companies were Maomaohouse, Le Sengyu, HealthSTEC, Edermurs, and Lishian. These companies are collectively known as the Defaulting Respondents. The ITC issued a General Exclusion Order. This means no Company can import the infringing products. The ITC also issued Cease and Desist Orders. These orders are specifically for Maomaohouse, Le Sengyu, HealthSTEC, and Lishian. The investigation found that the products infringe on two claims of the ‘619 patent and two claims of the ‘901 patent. However, one claim of the ‘901 patent was not proven to be violated. The ITC set a bond of 100% on the infringing products’ value during the Presidential review period. This is to protect the domestic industry. Other companies involved settled before a final decision. These companies are Tigaman, Junyxin, Eurbus, Sunyoka123, and SeLucky. The ITC reviewed the case and decided that a domestic industry requirement was met. They found in favor of Kids By Parents, Inc. The Commission made sure that the public interest factors do not prevent the orders issued. The Commission’s decision was sent to the President and the United States Trade Representative. The decision marks the end of the investigation. The Commission completed its vote on March 12, 2026. This decision shows how serious the ITC is about protecting patents and stopping unfair trade practices. 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission to Evaluate Import Relief Effectiveness for Solar Products Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes 2026-03-17 The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) is starting an investigation on solar products. This involves Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic (CSPV) cells. The focus is on how they are partially or fully assembled. The USITC is checking if actions on imports of these products were helpful. The imports relief steps ended on February 6, 2026. The examination is under Section 204(d) of the Trade Act of 1974. This is to see if domestic industries adjusted positively to import competition. Earlier, in 2018, President imposed a safeguard measure on CSPV products. This was in the form of a tariff-rate for imports of solar cells. The purpose was to protect U.S. industries. This measure started on February 7, 2018, and was supposed to last four years. This period was extended in 2022 for another four years. This extension was supported by industry petitions and reports. The measure aimed to stop serious harm to the domestic industry. Now, the USITC must report the effectiveness of these measures. This report will be sent to the President and Congress. The report is required by law, within 180 days after the relief ends. The USITC will hold a public hearing on June 12, 2026. People will share their views and information. This is part of the investigation process. The hearing follows the USITC’s practice and rules. Parties interested in participating have to register their interest. The registration deadline is 21 days after this announcement. Electronic documents must be used for any filings. Confidential business information (CBI) will be protected. It will be shared under specific rules. This is for parties under administrative protective order (APO). Information on hearings and rules are publicly accessible. These rules ensure fair participation. Parties can submit evidence and written statements. This is important for a complete and fair investigation. The investigation follows legal processes entirely. It is treated with seriousness and precision. The goal is to understand and conclude on import relief’s success. By Order of the Commission, Lisa Barton Secretary to the Commission 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.

U.S. ITC Begins Investigation Into Gyro-Stabilized Electric Unicycles Estimated reading time: 2-4 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has announced the start of an investigation into certain gyro-stabilized electric unicycles. The investigation was initiated after a complaint was filed on January 21, 2026. The complaint came from two companies: Inventist, Inc. from Camas, Washington, and Alien Technology Group, Inc., which is also called Alien Rides, from San Francisco, California. The complaint claims that certain electric unicycles and their parts are being imported into the United States in ways that infringe on U.S. Patent No. 8,807,250 and the claim of U.S. Patent No. D729,698. The companies argue that these actions are against section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. They also claim that an industry for these products exists or is developing in the United States. The complainants have requested that the Commission carry out an investigation and, following this, issue orders to stop the continued importation of these products. They specifically seek a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders. The U.S. International Trade Commission reviewed the complaint and decided on March 2, 2026, to institute the investigation. The aim is to determine if there is a violation of the Tariff Act concerning the accused products, which include self-balancing electric unicycles. The companies accused of violating the section 337 are based in China. They include Guangzhou Veteran Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Dong Guan BEGODE Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., Inmotion Technologies Co., Ltd., Shenzhen King Song Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd., and Guangzhou JiDongTai Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. The parties involved must respond to the complaint as per the Commission’s rules. They have 20 days from when they receive the notification to submit their response. If they fail to respond in time, they may lose their right to dispute the complaint, leading to possible exclusion orders against them. The ITC will oversee this investigation with the Chief Administrative Law Judge assigning a presiding Administrative Law Judge to the case. The progression of this investigation will depend on responses and findings related to the alleged patent infringements. 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint from InnoTV Labs Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced a new complaint. This complaint is about certain display devices, streaming players, and parts of these products. It is titled “Certain Display Devices, Streaming Players, and Components Thereof,” with docket number 3891. The USITC is asking for comments from the public. They want to know if this complaint could affect the public. They want opinions on the complaint from InnoTV Labs, LLC. They are interested in knowing if the complaint might affect health and welfare in the U.S. They want to know if it will change how the U.S. economy works. They are also wondering if it will affect U.S. consumers. The companies mentioned in the complaint are from several countries. Some are from China. These include Hisense Co., Ltd., Hisense International Co., Ltd., and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. Other companies are Hisense USA Corporation and Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, both in Suwanee, Georgia. Additionally, it includes Hisense Monterrey Home Appliance Manufacturing in Mexico. Roku, Inc., located in San Jose, California, is also named. Purple Tag Media Technology has branches in Shanghai and Shenzhen, China, and Purple Tag Mexico, S.A. de C.V., in Mexico. InnoTV Labs desires a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. They also want a bond during the 60-day review period by the President. This is according to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). The USITC wants comments on public interest issues about the requested orders. Questions include how these products are used in the U.S. Another question is if there are U.S.-made products that can replace these devices if they are banned. Also, the USITC wants to know if companies can quickly make enough products to replace those potentially banned. Comments must be sent in within eight calendar days of this notice. InnoTV Labs can reply to these comments three days after this period. Written comments should be no more than five pages long. They can only send electronic documents through the USITC’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS). If someone wants to send confidential information, they must ask the USITC. These requests should be detailed. All the non-confidential information will be available for public view at the USITC Office and on EDIS. The notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on March 2, 2026. 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Receives a Complaint About Certain Display Devices Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has received a complaint from InnoTV Labs, LLC. The complaint was filed on March 2, 2026. It involves display devices, streaming players, and parts of these products. The complaint claims there are violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This involves importing these items into the United States. It also covers selling them for import and selling them inside the United States after importing them. The complaint names several companies as respondents. These include Hisense Co., Ltd. of China, Hisense USA Corporation of Suwanee, GA, Roku, Inc. of San Jose, CA, and others. The complaint asks for a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. It also wants a bond on the respondents’ products during a 60-day Presidential review period. The ITC is asking for public comments on this issue. They want to know if the requested orders will affect public health and welfare. They also want to know if these orders will affect the U.S. economy or U.S. consumers. The ITC is interested in whether other companies can produce similar products in the U.S. if the items in question are excluded. The comments should be written and submitted within eight days after this notice is published in the Federal Register. Replies to these comments can be submitted three days after the initial submissions. Submissions are limited to five pages in length. Only electronic filings will be accepted. No paper copies will be accepted during this time. Details on how to file electronically can be found on the ITC’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS). People submitting documents to the ITC can ask for confidential treatment. They must explain why the information should be kept confidential. Non-confidential information will be available for public inspection. This action follows the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as changed over time. This involves specified sections of the ITC’s own rules. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, issued the notice on March 2, 2026. The formal document was filed on March 4, 2026. For more details, contact Lisa R. Barton at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Further information about the commission can be found online at 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.

USITC Schedules Expedited Reviews of Duties on Solar Panels from China and Taiwan Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On February 17, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced the scheduling of expedited five-year reviews. These reviews involve antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar panels) from China and Taiwan. The review comes under the authority of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission will examine whether removing these duties would likely lead to material injury to U.S. producers. The USITC originally instituted these reviews on August 1, 2025. It then received responses from domestic and foreign parties. On December 22, 2025, the USITC ruled that responses from U.S. producers were “adequate.” Responses from foreign parties were ruled “inadequate.” Because of the lack of adequate responses from foreign parties, the Commission decided to conduct expedited reviews. This is allowed under Section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)). Commissioner David S. Johanson voted for full reviews instead. The affected duties are: The antidumping duty order on solar panels from Taiwan. The antidumping and countervailing duty orders on solar panels from China. A staff report on the matter is being prepared. It will be placed in the nonpublic record and given to parties on the Administrative Protective Order service list by May 7, 2026. A public version will follow. Parties that submitted adequate information may file written comments. This is to inform the Commission’s final decision. These comments are due by May 12, 2026. They may not contain new factual information. Anyone else, including the general public, may file a short written statement by May 12, 2026. These statements also may not include new factual data. If the U.S. Department of Commerce extends the deadline for its final review results, then the deadline for USITC comments will shift. The new comment deadline will be three business days after Commerce issues its results. All submitted documents must follow the Commission’s rules. Any document that includes business proprietary information must meet special requirements under 19 CFR §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7. Details are available in the Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures at www.usitc.gov. Every party to the review must send their filed documents to other parties involved. Each filing must include a certificate of service, or the Secretary will not accept the document. The Commission has also exercised its authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)(B) to extend the review period. These reviews are declared “extraordinarily complicated,” and so the USITC may extend up to 90 days. This case is officially termed: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-511 and 731-TA-1246-1247 (Second Review). Questions can be directed to Julie Duffy in the Office of Investigations at (202) 708-2579. Hearing-impaired individuals may call 202-205-1810. Issued February 11, 2026, by Secretary to the Commission, Lisa Barton. Document Number: 2026-03031. 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.

U.S. Trade Commission Launches Patent Investigation into Computing Devices Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On February 11, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) voted to begin an investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This comes after a complaint was filed on January 12, 2026, by Vicor Corporation of Andover, Massachusetts. The complaint was later updated on January 21, January 23, and January 26, 2026. A revised version was submitted on January 27, 2026. The complaint says that certain companies are importing, selling, or offering for sale in the U.S. power converters, circuit board assemblies, and computing systems that contain these parts. Vicor believes these products break the law by infringing on its U.S. Patent No. 12,395,087. According to Vicor, these violations involve numerous claims under the ‘087 patent. Vicor also states that a U.S. industry exists and is being harmed. The ITC agreed to start this investigation to see if a violation of Section 337(a)(1)(B) has happened. This section focuses on products that are imported, sold for import, or sold in the U.S. after import that infringe on intellectual property rights. The products under investigation are: Power converters used in data center servers, artificial intelligence (AI) systems, and cloud computing setups. These power converters provide power to: AI accelerators, Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), and Central Processing Units (CPUs). Also included are circuit board assemblies and computing systems that include these converters. Vicor requests that the ITC issue: A limited exclusion order, Cease and desist orders against the accused companies. The accused parties are: Delta Electronics, Inc. (Taiwan) Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd. (Fremont, CA) DET Logistics (USA) Corporation (Fremont, CA) Luxshare Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (Dongguan, China) Dongguan Luxshare Technology Co., Ltd. (also known as Luxshare-Tech) (Dongguan, China) Shanghai Peiyuan Electronics Co., Ltd. (also known as MetaPWR Electronics Co., Ltd.) (Shanghai, China) Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (Kirkland, WA) Chengdu Monolithic Power Systems Co., Ltd. (Chengdu, China) MPS International (Shanghai) Ltd. (Shanghai, China) Wistron Corporation (Taipei, Taiwan) Wiwynn Corporation (New Taipei City, Taiwan) Quanta Computer Inc. (Taoyuan, Taiwan) Quanta Cloud Technology Inc. (Taoyuan, Taiwan) Quanta Cloud Technology USA LLC (San Jose, CA) Quanta Computer USA Inc. (Fremont, CA) The Commission assigned the Chief Administrative Law Judge to appoint an Administrative Law Judge for this case. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not be part of the case. The accused companies must respond within 20 days of being served with the complaint and the notice of investigation. This is in line with Rule 210.13 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If a company does not respond in time, it may lose its right to contest the claims. A result could be the issuing of an exclusion order or cease and desist orders without further warning. For public access, the complaint (excluding confidential information) is available on the Commission’s electronic docket system at https://edis.usitc.gov. Contact Info: Susan Orndoff, U.S. International Trade Commission, Docket Services Division, at (202) 205-1802. For help with EDIS: edis3help@usitc.gov ITC TDD (for hearing impaired): (202) 205-1810 ITC general: https://www.usitc.gov Official Document Number: FR Doc. 2026-03032 Filed: 2026-02-13 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Ends Solar Panel Investigation Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On February 13, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced it will not review an initial determination to end a trade investigation. This decision terminates Investigation Nos. 337-TA-1422 and 337-TA-1425. The investigations focused on certain TOPCon solar cells, modules, panels, and related products. These products were alleged to infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 and U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009. The complaints were filed by Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc. of Fremont, California; Trina Solar US Manufacturing Module 1, LLC of Wilmer, Texas; and Trina Solar Co., Ltd. of Xinbei District, China. The complaints claimed patent infringement and said that a domestic industry existed. USITC officially opened Investigation No. 337-TA-1422 on November 5, 2024, and Investigation No. 337-TA-1425 on December 9, 2024. The investigations named several companies as respondents. These included: Runergy USA Inc., Pleasanton, CA Runergy Alabama Inc., Huntsville, AL Jiangsu Runergy New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Yangcheng City, China Adani Solar USA Inc., Irving, TX Adani Green Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad, India CSI Solar Co., Ltd., Suzhou, China Canadian Solar Inc., West Guelph, Canada Canadian Solar (USA) Inc., Walnut Creek, CA Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Bo Win, Thailand Canadian Solar US Module Manufacturing Corporation, Mesquite, TX Recurrent Energy Development Holdings, LLC, Austin, TX The Commission’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations took part in the investigations. On January 21, 2025, the Commission combined the two investigations. On January 31, 2025, the Commission approved removing Adani Green Energy Ltd. from the case and added Mundra Solar PV Ltd. as a respondent. On February 12, 2025, the target date for completing the investigation was changed to May 20, 2026. On February 13, 2025, the Commission approved ending the case against Recurrent Energy Development Holdings LLC. On June 17, 2025, the Commission updated the name of Trina Solar US Manufacturing Module 1, LLC to T1 G1 Dallas Solar Module (Trina) LLC. On August 26, 2025, the investigation was partially ended for claims 11 of the ‘104 patent and claim 14 of the ‘009 patent. On December 8, 2025, the deadline for completing the investigation was extended to August 18, 2026. On December 9, 2025, more claims were withdrawn: claims 2–5 and 9–10 of the ‘104 patent, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 11–13, and 16 of the ‘009 patent. On January 15, 2026, the Administrative Law Judge approved the parties’ joint motion to end the investigation entirely. The judge found the motion followed Rule 210.21(a)(1) and said that ending the investigation was in the public interest. No party reviewed the judge’s decision. As a result, the USITC chose not to review the decision. The investigation is now officially closed. This action is taken under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and Part 210 of the Commission’s rules (19 CFR part 210). The Commission made its decision on February 10, 2026. The document was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on February 11, 2026. It is filed under Federal Register Document number 2026-02949. 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.

USITC Finds No Section 337 Violation in Vehicle Telematics Patent Dispute Estimated reading time: 5–10 minutes On February 5, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) issued a final determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-1393. The case involved alleged patent infringement related to vehicle telematics, fleet management, and video-based safety systems. The investigation began on March 18, 2024. Samsara, Inc., based in San Francisco, California, filed a complaint alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Samsara claimed Motive Technologies Inc., also based in San Francisco, infringed on three U.S. patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,611,621 (“the ’621 patent”); 11,127,130 (“the ’130 patent”); and 11,190,373 (“the ’373 patent”). The Commission held an evidentiary hearing over several days between November 2024 and March 2025. On September 8, 2025, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Final Initial Determination (FID). The ALJ found no violation of Section 337. Regarding the ’621 patent: Samsara did not prove infringement of claims 1 through 5. Motive proved that claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are invalid as anticipated. Motive did not prove that claims 2 through 4 are obvious. Samsara met the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. For the ’130 patent: Samsara did not prove infringement of claims 1 and 5. Motive did not prove that the claims are invalid as anticipated or obvious. Motive proved the claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Samsara failed the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. For the ’373 patent: Samsara proved that claim 15 is infringed by “Fuel Score v1” and “Fuel Score v2,” but not by “Fuel Score v3.” Samsara did not prove infringement of claim 18. Motive did not prove anticipation or obviousness of claims 15 and 18. Motive proved claims 15 and 18 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Samsara did not meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. The ALJ also stated that Samsara failed to meet the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for all three patents. A Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding was issued in case the Commission found a violation. It proposed a limited exclusion order, a cease and desist order, and a 100% bond rate during Presidential review. On September 22, 2025, Samsara filed a petition for review of several findings. On the same day, Motive and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) filed contingent petitions asking for review of certain favorable findings to Samsara. Motive responded to the petitions on November 19, 2025. Samsara also responded to Motive’s petition. OUII submitted a combined response two days later. After reviewing the records and petitions, the Commission decided to review three issues: Whether claims 1 and 5 of the ’130 patent are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Whether Samsara met the technical prong for the ’373 patent. Whether Samsara met the economic prong for any of the asserted patents. The Commission chose not to make a decision on these three points. It declined to review the rest of the FID. As a result, the Commission found no violation of Section 337. The investigation is now terminated. Authority for the determination comes from Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210). The notice was issued by Secretary to the Commission, Lisa Barton. Federal Register Document Number: 2026-02577. Published February 10, 2026. 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint from General Motors Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes February 10, 2026 — The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has received a formal complaint titled “Certain Vehicle Parts, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same,” Docket No. 3884. The complaint was filed on February 5, 2026, by General Motors LLC and GM Global Technology Operations LLC. The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337). This law bans unfair imports into the U.S., including those that infringe intellectual property rights. The complaint targets certain vehicle parts and vehicles that contain those parts. It claims those items are being imported unlawfully into the United States. The companies named as respondents in the complaint include: AP Auto Parts Industrial Ltd. (Taiwan) ANTRC Industrial Corp. (Taiwan) Auto Power Co., Ltd. (Taiwan) Best Value Auto Body Supply (Melrose Park, IL) CCC Intelligent Solutions Holdings Inc. (Chicago, IL) CCC Intelligent Solutions Inc. (Chicago, IL) DEPO Auto Parts Ind., Co., Ltd. (Taiwan) Maxzone Vehicle Lighting Corp. (Fontana, CA) Forerunner Automotive Industrial Corp. (Taiwan) Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd. (Taiwan) Grand HC Auto Tooling Corp. (Taiwan) Jiangsu Srumto Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (China) LKQ Corporation (Antioch, TN) Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (Antioch, TN) Mitchell International, Inc. (San Diego, CA) Pro Fortune Industrial Co., Ltd. (Taiwan) Quality Collision Parts, Inc. (Warren, MI) Power Auto Parts, Inc. (Warren, MI) Tong Yang Industry Co., Ltd. (Taiwan) Y.C.C. Parts Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Taiwan) General Motors requests that the Commission issue multiple forms of relief. These include: A general exclusion order Limited exclusion orders Cease and desist orders A bond requirement on the allegedly infringing goods during the 60-day Presidential review period under 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) USITC invites the public and interested parties to submit comments. These comments should focus on how the requested actions might affect: Public health and welfare in the U.S. Competitive conditions in the U.S. economy The production of similar products in the U.S. U.S. consumers The Commission is especially interested in comments that: Show how the targeted parts are used in the U.S. Raise any public health or safety concerns Identify local products that could replace the imports Explain whether companies can meet demand if the imports are banned Discuss how U.S. consumers might be affected All written comments on public interest issues must be submitted no later than eight calendar days from the date this notice is published. Replies to public submissions must be filed three days after the original deadline. All documents must be filed electronically using the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. No paper submissions will be accepted at this time. Persons requesting confidential treatment of documents must follow the rules outlined in 19 CFR 201.6 and provide reasons for confidentiality. All nonconfidential materials will be open for public viewing on EDIS. This notice is issued under the authority of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR 201.10 and 210.8(c). For questions, contact Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, at (202) 205-2000. The complaint and public materials related to this matter are available at https://edis.usitc.gov. Issued: February 5, 2026 By order of the Commission, Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission [FR Doc. 2026-02597 Filed 2-9-26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P 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.

U.S. Moves Forward in Trade Case on Fiberglass Door Panels From China Estimated reading time: 3–6 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has scheduled the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on fiberglass door panels from China. These actions are being taken under the Tariff Act of 1930. The Department of Commerce has made preliminary findings. These findings state that fiberglass door panels from China are being sold in the U.S. at less-than-fair-value. The products are also believed to be receiving unfair subsidies from the Chinese government. The investigations are in response to petitions filed on March 20, 2025. The petitions came from the American Fiberglass Door Coalition. The coalition includes three companies: Therma-Tru Corporation based in Maumee, Ohio; PlastPro Doors Inc. from Los Angeles, California; and Owens Corning from Toledo, Ohio. The product under investigation includes fiberglass door panels and sidelites. The panels may be finished or unfinished, painted or unpainted, and may include glass or insulation materials. These products are made with fiberglass skins and may feature wood or composite frames, adhesives, and fasteners. The country of origin is determined by where the fiberglass door skin is pressed. Even if the fiberglass doors are altered in a third country—such as being painted or trimmed—if the skin was pressed in China, the product remains within the scope of the investigation. Products covered by other existing orders are excluded. These include wood mouldings and millwork products from China and float glass products from China and Malaysia. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classified under tariff code 3925.20.0010. They may also fall under codes 4418.29.4000, 4418.29.8030, 4418.29.8060, or 7019.90.5150. However, the written description of the goods determines the investigation scope, not just the classification code. The USITC will hold a hearing on June 9, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Requests to appear must be submitted by June 3, 2026. Participation may include videoconferencing if justified. A prehearing conference, if necessary, will be held on June 5, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. All testimony and presentation slides must be submitted by noon on June 8, 2026. Prehearing briefs are due by June 1, 2026. Posthearing briefs must be filed by June 16, 2026. Final party comments on new information are due July 6, 2026. The USITC will place its staff report in the nonpublic record on May 21, 2026. A public version of the report will be released after that date. All filings must be made through the USITC’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) and must comply with commission rules. No in-person paper filings will be accepted. Only parties listed on the service list may file business proprietary information under an Administrative Protective Order (APO). Applications for access must be filed 21 days before the hearing. For questions, contact Tyler Berard at 202-205-3354. Additional information is available at www.usitc.gov or through the commission’s electronic docket at https://edis.usitc.gov. This investigation will determine whether imports of fiberglass door panels from China are harming U.S. industries. 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Reviews Patent Violation Findings in Semiconductor Case Estimated reading time: 4–7 minutes On February 2, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) voted to review in part a final initial determination (Final ID) related to Investigation No. 337-TA-1414. The investigation involves certain semiconductor devices and associated products. The original complaint was filed by Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. (El Segundo, California) and Infineon Technologies Austria AG (Villach, Austria). It was filed under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The case was instituted on August 30, 2024. The complaint alleged that Innoscience (with locations in China and the U.S.) violated U.S. law by importing infringing semiconductor devices. The patents involved in the complaint were: U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481 (the ’481 patent) U.S. Patent No. 8,686,562 (the ’562 patent) U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755 (the ’755 patent) U.S. Patent No. 8,264,003 (the ’003 patent) During the proceedings, claims associated with the ’003 and ’562 patents and one claim of the ’481 patent were terminated from the investigation upon motion by Complainants. On December 2, 2025, the presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found: A violation by Innoscience with respect to claims 1–4, 6, and 17 of the ’481 patent. No violation with respect to the asserted claims of the ’755 patent. That Infineon met both the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement for the ’481 patent. That Infineon failed to meet those prongs for the ’755 patent. The ALJ recommended remedies including: A limited exclusion order. Cease and desist orders based on Innoscience’s significant U.S. inventory and operations. A bond at 100% during the Presidential review period. On December 15, 2025, Innoscience petitioned the Commission to review findings related to the ’481 patent. On the same day, Infineon requested review of the no-violation finding regarding the ’755 patent. The Commission reviewed the investigation record, the ALJ’s Final ID, both parties’ submissions, and their responses. The Commission has now agreed to review specific findings from the Final ID: Claim construction of “lateral transistor devices” Infringement analysis Domestic industry technical and economic prongs Validity of relevant claims under the ’481 patent The Commission will not review other parts of the Final ID. The Commission called for written submissions addressing specific issues including: Whether claims 1–3 and 6 of the ’481 patent are obvious when combining prior art references Nega and Roberts. Parties are to evaluate if Respondents met their burden. If a prima facie case is found, the Commission asks whether secondary considerations rebut the finding and whether the matter should be remanded to the ALJ. The ability to quantitatively and qualitatively assess Infineon’s domestic industry efforts, taking into account global investments and operations. The Commission seeks additional information on these topics: Identification of accused products under remedial orders in Investigation 337-TA-1366. U.S. market share of the accused and domestic industry products. Whether other suppliers can meet U.S. demand if an exclusion or cease and desist order issues. Availability of substitute products in the market. Parties are required to submit written responses no later than February 17, 2026, with replies due by February 24, 2026. Page limits are: 30 pages for opening submissions by parties 15 pages for reply submissions by parties 10 pages for submissions by third parties or government agencies Confidential materials must be clearly marked and properly submitted. Infineon is requested to: Indicate the remedy it seeks Submit proposed remedial orders State the expiration date of the ’481 patent Identify applicable HTSUS subheadings Provide importer details for identified products If the Commission finds a violation and issues a remedy, it will be subject to Presidential review for 60 days. During that time, the accused products may enter the U.S. only under bond, as set by the Commission. The legal authority for these actions is found in 19 U.S.C. 1337 and 19 CFR Part 210. This notice was issued by Secretary Lisa Barton and published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2026, under Document No. 2026-02297. 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint on Laptops, Routers, and Gateways Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes Published 2026-02-05Federal Register Volume 91, Number 24 The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has received a new complaint. The complaint is titled: “Certain Laptops, Routers and Gateways, and Components Thereof,” Docket Number 3882. The complaint was filed by AX Wireless, LLC. It was received by the Commission on February 2, 2026. The complaint says that companies imported certain products into the U.S. that may violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. These products include laptops, routers, gateways, and their parts. The complaint names the following companies as respondents: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. in Taiwan ASUS Computer International, Inc. in Fremont, CA TP-Link Systems Inc. in Irvine, CA D-Link Corporation in Taiwan D-Link Systems, Inc. in Irvine, CA Ubiquiti Inc. in New York, NY AX Wireless, LLC is asking the Commission to: Issue a limited exclusion order Issue cease and desist orders Impose a bond on the accused products during the Presidential review period The bond would apply for the 60 days of Presidential review under 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). The Commission asks for public comments. These comments should cover any public interest concerns. The Commission wants to know: (i) How the products are used in the United States (ii) Any public health, safety, or welfare concerns (iii) If there are similar products made in the U.S. (iv) If the complainant or others can replace the products in a reasonable time (v) How the actions would impact U.S. consumers The deadline to send comments is eight calendar days after this notice is published. Comments must be no more than five pages long, including attachments. Replies to comments must be filed within three calendar days after the initial deadline. All filings must be made through the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. No paper filings will be accepted. Documents submitted with confidential information must request confidential treatment under 19 CFR 201.6. All non-confidential submissions will be available for the public to view on EDIS. For more details or questions, contact Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, at (202) 205-2000. This notice was issued on February 2, 2026. Authority: Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), 19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c). Document Number: 2026-02299BILLING CODE: 7020-02-P 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint Involving Off-Road Vehicles Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes Date: 2026-02-05 Source: Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 24 / Pages 5261–5262 The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has officially received a complaint titled “Certain Off-Road Vehicles and Components Thereof,” Docket No. 3883. The complaint was filed on February 2, 2026. It was submitted by Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Polaris Sales Inc. The complaint was made under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337). It claims that certain off-road vehicles and parts made abroad are being sold in the U.S. in a way that may violate U.S. trade laws. The complaint names two companies: Zhejiang CFMOTO Power Co., Ltd. of China CFMOTO Powersports, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota Polaris asks the Commission to issue: A limited exclusion order Cease and desist orders A bond requirement during the 60-day Presidential review period under 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) The Commission is asking the public and interested parties to send in comments. These comments should talk about any public interest concerns the complaint brings up. The Commission wants feedback about: (i) How the off-road vehicles or parts in the complaint are used in the U.S. (ii) Any U.S. public health, safety, or welfare issues tied to the orders being requested (iii) What U.S.-made products—by Polaris, their licensees, or others—could replace those involved in the complaint (iv) If Polaris or other suppliers could fill demand in a reasonable time if the vehicles or parts are banned (v) How this would affect U.S. consumers All comments must be submitted by eight calendar days after the notice was published. Polaris may send replies to submitted comments three calendar days after the comment deadline. Each submission, including any attachments, must be five (5) pages or less. All comments must be filed electronically through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Paper documents will not be accepted at this time. Persons filing documents marked confidential must request confidential treatment. These requests must include a full explanation under 19 CFR 201.6. Confidential materials may be shared with: USITC staff and contract workers for official uses U.S. Government employees and contract workers, for cybersecurity purposes All non-confidential documents will be available to the public via EDIS. This action is taken under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and Commission Rules 19 CFR 201.10 and 210.8(c). Issued by: Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission Date Issued: February 2, 2026 Federal Register Document Number: 2026-02300 BILLING CODE: 7020-02-P For more details or help accessing EDIS, visit https://edis.usitc.gov or email [protected email address]. 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.

Full Reviews Announced for Oil Country Tubular Goods Imports Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes Date: 2026-02-04 Source: Federal Register, Volume 91, Number 23, Page 5110 Document Number: 2026-02210 Agency: United States International Trade Commission The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has decided to conduct full five-year reviews of trade orders related to oil country tubular goods (OCTG). These reviews are for the countervailing duty (CVD) orders on OCTG from India and Turkey. They also apply to the antidumping duty (AD) orders on OCTG from India, South Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam. The reviews will examine if removing these trade orders would likely cause injury to the U.S. industry again within a reasonably foreseeable time. This decision was made under the authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The decision follows section 751(c) of the same act, also known as the five-year (sunset) review provision. The Commission voted to conduct full reviews on November 24, 2025. These reviews follow the USITC’s notice of institution published on July 1, 2025 (90 FR 28768). The USITC determined that both the domestic and respondent interested party responses from Ukraine were adequate. Therefore, a full review will be conducted for OCTG imports from Ukraine. Although respondent parties from India, Turkey, South Korea, and Vietnam submitted inadequate responses, the USITC decided to proceed with full reviews for these countries as well. This choice was made to promote administrative efficiency. The schedule for the full reviews will be provided later. Persons seeking further information may contact Peter Stebbins at 202-205-20239, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals may use the Commission’s TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. More information and public records can be found at https://www.usitc.gov and the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. The reviews will follow the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, found at 19 CFR parts 201 and 207. Due to a lapse in government funding, previous schedules were delayed. This review process resumes following that period. This notice has been issued by order of the Commission. Issued: January 30, 2026 Signed: Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission Filed: February 3, 2026, at 8:45 a.m. Billing Code: 7020-02-P 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.

U.S. Ends Review of Anti-Dumping Order on PET Sheet from South Korea Estimated reading time: 1–3 minutes On January 12, 2026, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) officially ended a five-year review on Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) sheet from South Korea. The review began on August 1, 2025. The purpose was to see if ending the anti-dumping duty order on PET sheets from South Korea would lead to harm to U.S. industries. However, the review process faced delays. On November 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce extended all deadlines. This was due to a government shutdown and a lack of funding. The extension lasted 47 days. On November 24, 2025, Commerce added another 21-day extension. This was caused by a backlog of documents in the online system named ACCESS. On January 12, 2026, Commerce published an official notice. It stated that the anti-dumping duty order on PET sheet from South Korea was revoked. The revocation date was also January 12, 2026. The reason given was that no U.S. domestic party filed a notice saying they wanted to keep participating in the review process. As a result, the USITC ended the review. There will be no further investigation. Anyone seeking more information should contact Rachel Devenney at 202-205-3172. Hearing-impaired persons may dial 202-205-1810. Those needing special help accessing the USITC building may call 202-205-2000. Public records for this matter are available online at the Commission’s docket system: https://edis.usitc.gov. This action follows Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) and is published under Section 207.69 of the Commission’s rules (19 CFR 207.69). Issued by order of the Commission on January 30, 2026. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. 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.

Federal Trade Agency Requests Public Comments in Wireless Module Investigation Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On January 23, 2026, the administrative law judge (ALJ) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) issued an Initial Determination. The ruling found a violation of Section 337 in Investigation No. 337-TA-1413. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on the remedy and bonding. The Commission is now asking for public comments based on the proposed actions. These may include a general or limited exclusion order. These orders would apply to certain wireless front-end modules and devices that include them. The devices in question were imported, sold for importation, or sold after importation by the following companies: Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. of Shanghai, China Grand Chip Labs, Inc. of Tustin, California Ruijie Networks Co., Ltd. of Fuzhou, China In addition to exclusion orders, the ALJ recommended cease and desist orders directed at all three companies. The Commission seeks input on how the proposed orders could impact the public. The public and government agencies may submit responses by February 24, 2026. Submissions must be no longer than five pages, including any attachments. They must be filed electronically. Comments should mention the investigation number, “Inv. No. 337-TA-1413,” clearly on the cover or first page. Key public interest topics that the Commission wants comments on are: (i) How the affected wireless modules and products are used in the U.S. (ii) Any concerns about public health, safety, or welfare related to these products. (iii) U.S.-made products that could replace the targeted devices if excluded. (iv) Whether suppliers in the U.S. can meet demand in a short, reasonable time. (v) How the exclusion orders would affect consumers in the U.S. The request for comments is made under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and the Commission’s rules (19 CFR part 210). The Commission may choose not to exclude the products if the exclusion would negatively affect U.S. public health, the economy, or consumers. Comments containing confidential information must follow the Commission’s rules. Any such submissions must be marked clearly and filed together with a non-confidential version. All submissions—unless marked as confidential—will be available for public viewing on the Commission’s Electronic Docket Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For assistance, contact Houda Morad, Esq. in the Office of the General Counsel at (202) 708-4716. For help with EDIS access, email edismail@usitc.gov. For general Commission information, visit https://www.usitc.gov. This notice was issued by order of the Commission on January 26, 2026. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, signed the notice. It was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2026 (Volume 91, Number 19, Pages 3927–3928). Document Number: 2026-01729. Billing Code: 7020-02-P. 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.

U.S. Opens Full Five-Year Review of Pipe and Tube Imports from Four Countries Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has scheduled full five-year reviews concerning light-walled rectangular pipe and tube imports. These reviews involve products from China, Mexico, South Korea, and Turkey. The Commission is reviewing whether revoking the orders would lead to harm to U.S. industry. These orders include both a countervailing duty order on Chinese imports and antidumping duty orders on imports from all four countries. The review is being carried out under the Tariff Act of 1930. The USITC determined on November 24, 2025, that full reviews should proceed. This followed a notice of institution and review of responses. The Federal Register published this determination on December 8, 2025 (90 FR 56801). The USITC also announced a 90-day extension of the review period because the case was marked “extraordinarily complicated.” A government shutdown also caused a delay in Commission operations, leading to a pause in the schedule. The reviews are being conducted under section 751(c)(5) of the law (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)). The Commission has posted the related public documents online. All businesses, users, and consumer groups who want to take part must file an “entry of appearance.” This must be done within 45 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register. Those who had filed a notice at the start of the review do not need to refile. The public service list will contain the names and addresses of all participants. The public can follow updates and access documents via the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (https://edis.usitc.gov). Only electronic filings will be accepted. No paper-based or in-person filings will be accepted at this time. Parties who want access to business proprietary information (BPI) must apply no later than 45 days after this notice. Access requires an Administrative Protective Order (APO). The Secretary will maintain a separate service list for these parties. The staff report will become available on June 4, 2026. A public version will follow afterward. An in-person hearing on the reviews will take place on Thursday, June 25, 2026, starting at 9:30 a.m. The deadline to request a hearing appearance is Thursday, June 18, 2026, at 5:15 p.m. Parties requesting to appear by videoconference must include a statement explaining why in-person attendance is not possible. Requests due to illness or a positive COVID-19 result may be submitted by 3 p.m. the day before. A prehearing conference, if needed, is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 24, 2026. Hearing participants must file written testimony and presentation slides by noon on that date. All oral testimony, in-court and written submissions for the hearing, must follow USITC rules. Parties wishing to present information in camera must request this no later than seven business days before the hearing. Prehearing briefs must follow rule section 207.65 and be filed by 5:15 p.m. on June 15, 2026. Posthearing briefs and final hearing submissions are due by 5:15 p.m. on July 7, 2026. Any member of the public who is not a formal party may submit information by the same July 7, 2026, deadline. On July 30, 2026, the Commission will release any new information to all parties. Parties may submit final comments by 5:15 p.m. on August 3, 2026. These comments must not include new facts and must follow rule section 207.68. All submissions must meet the Commission’s rules found in sections 201.6, 201.8, 207.3, and 207.7. A detailed filing guide is available at: https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf. Documents must be served on all other parties and include a certificate of service. Contact Eric Forden at (202) 205-3235 for more details. Hearing-impaired individuals can use the TDD at 202-205-1810. This notice was issued on January 27, 2026, by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. Federal Register Document: 2026-01761 Printed: January 29, 2026 Pages: 3928–3930 BILLING CODE: 7020-02-P Available at: 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.

U.S. Trade Commission Seeks Public Input on Crafting Machines Investigation Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On January 21, 2026, a U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) administrative law judge issued an Initial Determination on a violation of Section 337 and on motions for summary determination. The judge also made a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding in the investigation titled “Investigation No. 337-TA-1426.” The Commission is now asking for public comments. These comments are to explain how the recommended actions may impact the public. This case is about certain crafting machines and parts of those machines. These machines are believed to violate U.S. patent laws. The Commission may use exclusion and cease and desist orders if a violation is confirmed. The requested public input should focus on these four specific recommended orders: A general exclusion order for crafting machines and their parts that violate U.S. Patent No. D893,563. A limited exclusion order for crafting machines and their parts from Bozhou Wanxingyu Technology Co. Ltd., Bozhou Zhongdaxiang Technology Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Sishun E-commerce Co., Ltd. (called “Vevor Respondents”) that violate U.S. Patent No. D1,029,090. A limited exclusion order for crafting machines and their parts from Liping Zhan (“Konduone”), that violate claims 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,905,646. Cease and desist orders directed at the Vevor Respondents and Konduone. The Commission is seeking comments on how these recommended orders would affect: Public health and welfare in the United States. Competitive conditions in the U.S. economy. The production of similar or competing products in the United States. U.S. consumers. Specifically, the Commission wants to know: How the products are used in the U.S. If there are any public health, safety, or welfare concerns. If any U.S.-based makers can replace these products. If complainants or their partners can supply enough alternatives quickly. How these orders may affect U.S. consumers. All comments must be five pages or less. They must be filed by February 23, 2026. Filing must follow Commission rules under 19 CFR 210.4(f). All submissions should include the investigation number “Inv. No. 337-TA-1426.” Comments should be filed via the Commission’s electronic docket at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help with filing, contact the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. Questions regarding this matter may be directed to Cathy Chen, Esq., at (202) 205-2392. People who want to file confidential documents must clearly mark them and follow Commission rules under 19 CFR 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2). A redacted version of each confidential filing must also be submitted. Non-confidential documents will be available for public viewing on EDIS. This call for comments is issued under the authority of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Issued: January 22, 2026. Lisa Barton,Secretary to the Commission. 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Reviews Patent Case on Hydrodermabrasion Systems Estimated reading time: 5–8 minutes On January 22, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) announced its decision to review in part a Final Initial Determination (FID) from an administrative law judge (ALJ) in Investigation No. 337-TA-1408. The investigation concerns certain hydrodermabrasion systems and their components. The Commission also extended the deadline for completing the investigation to March 23, 2026. The investigation began on July 17, 2024. It was based on a complaint filed by HydraFacial LLC, formerly known as Edge Systems LLC, based in Long Beach, California. HydraFacial claimed violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The case involves the importation and sale of hydrodermabrasion systems allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287. The named respondents were Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC of Melville, New York, and Eunsung Global Corp. of the Republic of Korea. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in this investigation. On January 21, 2025, the Commission ended the case for Eunsung Global after a consent order. On April 11, 2025, the Commission removed some patent claims (claims 1-10, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 28-31, 33-37, and 39-45 of the ‘287 patent) from the investigation. This was based on an unopposed motion by HydraFacial. On August 26, 2025, the ALJ issued the FID, finding that Cartessa had violated Section 337. Cartessa filed a petition to review the FID on September 8, 2025. HydraFacial responded on September 16, 2025. Due to a government shutdown, the Commission had earlier extended its review deadline to January 22, 2026. It had also asked parties to address the impact of the upcoming expiration of the ‘287 patent. As of January 22, 2026, the Commission decided to partly review the FID. The review covers: The meaning and application of the patent term “fluid communication” and its role in infringement and the domestic industry test. Whether the term “block” is too vague (“indefinite”) and how that affects validity and infringement findings, including prior related rulings (specifically Order Nos. 29 and 50). Arguments about whether the patent is unenforceable due to prosecution laches (an unfair delay in pursuing patent rights). The Commission may issue a remedy after its final decision. This can include: An exclusion order preventing the import of the accused products into the U.S. A cease and desist order stopping further sales and imports by the respondent. The Commission is asking for written submissions from the parties and from interested members of the public. These submissions should discuss: The type of remedy that should be ordered, How the proposed remedy would affect public health, U.S. competition, American production, and consumers, Any bond amount that should apply during the 60-day Presidential review period if a remedy is issued. The Commission directs the Complainant (HydraFacial) to: Specify the remedy it is seeking, Submit proposed remedial orders, State the expiration date of the ‘287 patent, Provide HTSUS (Harmonized Tariff Schedule) subheadings for the accused products, List all known importers of the products in question. Key deadlines: All initial written submissions with proposed orders must be filed by February 5, 2026. All reply submissions must be filed by February 12, 2026. Party submissions must follow page limits: 10 pages for opening statements, 5 pages for replies. Third-party submissions, including government agency comments, are limited to 10 pages. All submissions must be filed electronically and reference Investigation No. 337-TA-1408. Specific procedure rules apply under 19 CFR 210.4(f). Confidential documents must be properly marked and handled according to Commission rules. A redacted non-confidential version must also be filed. The Commission’s action is authorized under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Commission Rules under 19 CFR Part 210. Issued by order of the Commission on January 22, 2026. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Opens Investigation into Imported Processed Slabs Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On January 27, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) published a notice of a new investigation. The investigation is numbered 337-TA-1482. It concerns “certain processed slabs and methods for making same.” The complaint was filed by Cambria Company LLC. Cambria is located in Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The company filed its initial complaint on December 19, 2025. A supplement to the complaint was filed on January 5, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The violations concern the importation, sale for importation, and the sale after importation of certain products. These products include veined processed slabs made with quartz, glass, or minerals. The complaint claims that these products infringe on patents owned by Cambria. The listed patents are: U.S. Patent No. 10,195,762 (claims 22–25) U.S. Patent No. 10,252,440 (claims 14–20) U.S. Patent No. 12,370,718 (claims 1–2 and 4–16) Cambria also claims that an industry exists in the United States. This is a required element under Section 337 for the investigation to proceed. Based on the complaint, the USITC has ordered that an investigation be started. The investigation will determine if a violation of Section 337 has occurred. The investigation will also decide if an industry in the U.S. exists as required by law. The products under investigation are plainly described as “veined processed slabs produced with quartz, glass, or minerals.” Cambria Company LLC is named as the complainant. The parties accused of importing or selling the infringing products include the following: Surface Warehouse, L.P. d/b/a US Surfaces and Vadara Quartz Surfaces, Austin, Texas M S International Inc. d/b/a MSI, Orange, California Arizona Tile, LLC, Tempe, Arizona OHM International Inc., Monroe Township, New Jersey Architectural Surfaces Group LLC, Spicewood, Texas Caesarstone Ltd., Kibbutz Sdot-Yam, Israel Caesarstone USA, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina LX Hausys, Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea LX Hausys America, Inc., Alpharetta, Georgia Mohawk Industries, Inc., Calhoun, Georgia Dal-Tile, LLC, Dallas, Texas The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will also participate in the case. The Chief Administrative Law Judge of the USITC will assign a judge to preside over the investigation. Each respondent must reply to the complaint and notice of investigation within 20 days of service. Responses must follow USITC rules under 19 CFR 210.13. No extensions will be granted unless good cause is shown. If a respondent does not reply on time, they may lose the right to object to the claims. If that happens, the judge can accept the facts in the complaint as true and issue an exclusion order or cease and desist order. The complaint and non-confidential documents can be found online at: https://edis.usitc.gov. General information on the USITC is at: https://www.usitc.gov. Issued by order of the USITC on January 23, 2026. Signed, Lisa BartonSecretary to the Commission Federal Register Document Number: 2026-01612Filed: January 26, 2026Billing Code: 7020-02-P 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Investigates Electric Unicycles Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On January 21, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) received a filing from Inventist, Inc. and Alien Technology Group, Inc., who also do business as Alien Rides. The complaint involves certain gyro-stabilized electric unicycles, their parts, and other products containing these components. The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The violations involve the import, sale for import, and sales inside the United States, of electric unicycle products that allegedly infringe on the complainants’ rights. The respondents named in the complaint are companies from China: Guangzhou Veteran Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (LeaperKim) Dong Guan BEGODE Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (BEGODE) Inmotion Technologies Co., Ltd. (Inmotion) Shenzhen King Song Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. (Kingsong) Guangzhou JiDongTai Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. (Nosfet) The complainants request the Commission to issue: A general exclusion order Or a limited exclusion order Cease and desist orders A bond issuing requirement on the allegedly infringing goods during the 60-day Presidential review period per 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) The Commission is asking for public comments about the case. Any interested parties, government agencies, and the public are invited to submit comments. These comments should speak to whether any trade restrictions requested would affect: Public health and welfare in the U.S. Competitive conditions in the U.S. economy U.S. production of similar or competitive products Consumer access to the products Specifically, the Commission is asking for comments that: Explain how the products are used in the U.S. Discuss any safety, health, or welfare concerns if the products were restricted Identify U.S.-made options that can replace these products Say whether the complainants or others can supply replacement products in a timely way Explain how a ban would affect U.S. consumers Written public interest comments must be submitted no later than eight calendar days after this notice’s publication in the Federal Register, which was January 26, 2026. Further comments will be accepted after the Commission issues its final initial determination. Replies to others’ submissions must be filed within three calendar days after the first submission deadline. All submissions: Must be filed electronically Must refer to Docket No. 3877 on the cover or first page Cannot exceed five pages including attachments Must be submitted through the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov Paper submissions will not be accepted at this time. Those seeking confidential treatment for their documents must explain why the Commission should keep the material private, per 19 CFR 201.6. Confidential information may be used by Commission employees or contractors to support investigations and reviews. Public versions of submissions will be available through EDIS. This investigation moves forward under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The current procedures follow Commission rules in 19 CFR 201.10 and 210.8(c). For questions, contact Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, at (202) 205-2000, or access EDIS online at https://edis.usitc.gov. Issued: January 21, 2026 By order of the Commission. Lisa Barton Secretary to the Commission [Federal Register Document No. 2026-01333] Filed January 23, 2026 Billing Code 7020-02-P 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.

U.S. Launches Review on Fresh Tomato Imports from Mexico Estimated reading time: 6–9 minutes Date: 2026-01-26 The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced on January 21, 2026, that it will begin a review of its earlier decision in Investigation No. 731-TA-747 (Final), regarding fresh tomatoes from Mexico. This review is being conducted under Section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)). The purpose is to determine if removing the antidumping duty order on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico would harm the U.S. industry again. Fresh tomatoes from Mexico are listed under heading 0702.00 of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Background The original investigation started on April 1, 1996. The complaint was filed by several U.S. tomato associations. They believed that low-priced Mexican tomatoes were hurting U.S. growers. A suspension agreement was reached with Mexican exporters on October 28, 1996. This paused the legal investigation as the Mexican companies agreed to change pricing practices. Several times over the years, the agreement was ended and resumed. Investigations were restarted and then suspended following new agreements. The action repeated in 2002, 2008, 2013, and 2019. In 2019, Commerce and the ITC both made affirmative decisions, agreeing that Mexican imports were causing harm. However, because a new suspension agreement was signed on September 19, 2019, no antidumping duty was placed. Most recently, the 2019 agreement was terminated on July 14, 2025. An official antidumping duty order was then issued. Request for Review On May 9, 2025, three Mexican producers—Bioparques de Occidente, Agricola La Primavera, and Kaliroy Fresh—asked the Commission to review its 2019 decision. They said the market has changed since then. These groups claimed there have been shifts in U.S. demand and in growing techniques. U.S. customers now prefer different types of tomatoes. U.S. and Canadian growers have invested heavily in greenhouse farming, making the market more diverse. Also, U.S. producers have invested in growing facilities in Mexico to support year-round demand. On June 18, 2025, the ITC published a notice in the Federal Register, asking for public comments. Six submissions supported opening a review. They included industry groups from both Mexico and the U.S., as well as Canadian companies. The Florida Tomato Exchange opposed the review. After reviewing the comments, the ITC decided that there is enough evidence of changed market conditions to begin a formal review. Commission Votes Chair Karpel opposed starting the review, saying the changes were not enough. Commissioner Kearns supported the review. Commissioner Johanson did not vote. By rule, a tied vote among participating Commissioners is enough to allow a review to proceed. Case Schedule Key dates for the investigation are now set: The staff report (nonpublic version) will be released on April 29, 2026. A public version will be released later. A hearing will take place on May 19, 2026. Requests to appear at the hearing must be filed by May 14, 2026. A prehearing conference will be held on May 15, 2026. Prehearing briefs are due May 8, 2026. Posthearing briefs are due May 28, 2026. Final party comments on all evidence are due June 25, 2026. Hearing and Filings All filings must be made electronically through the ITC’s EDIS system: https://edis.usitc.gov. No paper filings will be accepted. Parties may request to testify remotely. These requests must be submitted with the hearing request and must explain why the witness cannot appear in person. Business proprietary information will only be shared with parties granted access under an administrative protective order. Applications must be submitted at least 21 days before the hearing. Conclusion The ITC will review the potential impacts of lifting current duties on Mexican fresh tomatoes. This decision could affect trade, prices, and competition in the U.S. tomato market. The outcome depends on whether the market changes raised by the Mexican parties are supported by data and justify changing the current policy. 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.

U.S. Launches Trade Investigations on Citric Acid Imports from Canada and India Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On January 21, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) began new investigations into imports of citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada and India. These chemicals are used in food, pharmaceuticals, and cleaning products. The case includes both antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Commission is investigating if these products are being sold in the U.S. at unfairly low prices and if the governments of Canada and India are providing illegal subsidies. These imports fall under U.S. tariff subheadings 2918.14.00, 2918.15.10, 2918.15.50, and 3824.99.93 on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The investigations were started after petitions were filed by three U.S.-based companies: Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Decatur, IL Cargill, Incorporated, Wayzata, MN Primary Products Ingredients Americas LLC, Schaumburg, IL The Commission must make a preliminary decision by March 9, 2026. Its findings will then be sent to the U.S. Department of Commerce by March 16, 2026. The investigation is being carried out under Sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). The public may participate under the Commission’s rules. Any person or group wishing to take part must file an entry of appearance no later than seven days after the notice is published in the Federal Register. Industrial users and consumer organizations may also join the investigation as parties. A separate public service list will be created. It will include the names and contact information for all parties to the investigation. Parties approved under the Administrative Protective Order (APO) will get access to business proprietary information (BPI). These requests must be submitted within seven days of publication of the notice. A staff conference will take place on February 11, 2026, starting at 9:30 a.m. Requests to appear at this conference must be emailed by noon on February 9, 2026. The email must include the email contacts for all intended participants. Parties who want to give written input must submit briefs by 5:15 p.m. on February 17, 2026. Written testimony and related materials for the conference must be submitted no later than 4:00 p.m. on February 10, 2026. All submissions must follow USITC Rules (sections 201.6, 201.8, 207.3, and 207.7) and must be made electronically using the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Paper filings are not accepted at this time. Anyone submitting materials must also share them with other parties and submit a certificate of service. All information submitted to the Commission must be certified as accurate and complete. Parties acknowledge that their information may be used by U.S. agency personnel for official investigations or cybersecurity reviews. These actions are authorized under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The notice was issued on January 22, 2026, by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. Public records for this case can be viewed at https://edis.usitc.gov. Additional information is available at 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.

USITC Opens Investigation Into Certain Video-Capable Devices from Amazon Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes On January 20, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced that it has begun an investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The investigation is titled “Certain Video-Capable Electronic Devices” (Investigation No. 337-TA-1481). The case is based on a complaint filed on December 18, 2025, by InterDigital, Inc. and InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., both based in Wilmington, Delaware. A supplemental letter was filed on January 6, 2026. The complaint alleges that Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC are importing and selling certain video-capable electronic devices that infringe on several U.S. patents. These include: U.S. Patent No. 10,741,211 U.S. Patent No. 9,747,674 U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724 U.S. Patent No. 8,681,855 U.S. Patent No. 11,917,146 The USITC will investigate if the devices infringe on claims listed in these patents. The specific claims in question are: Claims 1, 2, 12, 14 of the ’211 patent Claims 1, 4, 10, 15 of the ’674 patent Claims 39, 41, 43, 47, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 61, 65, 66, 68, 71, 72, 74 of the ’724 patent Claims 13, 16, 19, 22 of the ’855 patent Claims 1–3, 7–9, 13, 14, 17, 18 of the ’146 patent The USITC will also determine whether an industry exists or is in the process of being established in the U.S. as required by law. The products in question are described as: Video-capable streaming devices Televisions Tablet computers Smart displays The formal respondents in this matter are: Amazon.com, Inc., 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109 Amazon.com Services, LLC, 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109 The complainants are: InterDigital, Inc., 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, DE 19809 InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, DE 19809 The Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign a presiding judge for this case. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation. Under USITC rules, Amazon must respond to the complaint and the notice of investigation within 20 days of being served. Any extension will only be allowed for good cause. If Amazon fails to respond in time, the law judge and Commission may consider the facts to be as stated in the complaint. This could result in the issuing of a limited exclusion order, a cease and desist order, or both. The public version of the complaint is available at https://edis.usitc.gov. For questions, contact Susan Orndoff, Docket Services Division, USITC, at (202) 205-1802. Issued by order of the Commission on January 20, 2026. Lisa BartonSecretary to the Commission Federal Register Document Number: 2026-01227Billing Code: 7020-02-P 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.

U.S. ITC Finds Patent Violation in Oil Vaporizing Devices Case; Issues Orders Against STIIIZY and ALD Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On January 23, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) published its final determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-1392. The case involves oil vaporizing devices, their parts, and products containing these parts. The Commission found violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The violations relate to the unlicensed importation and sale of oil vaporizing products that infringe several U.S. patents. The Commission issued a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO). This order blocks unlicensed entry of the infringing products made or imported by the companies named in the complaint. The Commission also issued Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) against STIIIZY. The investigation began on March 6, 2024. The complaint was filed by the patent holder. It alleged that STIIIZY IP LLC (formerly STIIIZY, LLC), STIIIZY, Inc. (doing business as Shryne Group Inc.), ALD Group Limited, and ALD Hong Kong Holdings imported and sold products that violated four patents: U.S. Patent No. 11,369,756 (“the ‘756 patent”) U.S. Patent No. 11,766,527 (“the ‘527 patent”) U.S. Patent No. 11,369,757 (“the ‘757 patent”) U.S. Patent No. 11,759,580 (“the ‘580 patent”) Initially, the ALJ found that the STIIIZY and ALD products infringed many of the patented claims. However, the ALJ concluded that the complainant failed to meet the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission reviewed and reversed several of the ALJ’s findings. It ruled that the complainant met both the technical and economic parts of the domestic industry requirement. A key Commission finding was that pre-patent issuance investments can be counted under Section 337(a)(3), as long as those investments were related to the patented products. The products named as infringing include: STIIIZY-LIIIL STIIIZY-1G(C) STIIIZY-ORIG-1 STIIIZY-AIO FLARE(C) FLARE(V) ROVE(C) ROVE(V) STIIIZY-1G-REDESIGN(C) STIIIZY-ORIG-1G-REDESIGN STIIIZY-AIO-REDESIGN Several product redesigns by STIIIZY and ALD were also found to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The Commission confirmed that none of the patents were found invalid under Sections 102, 103, or 112 of Title 35 of the U.S. Code. Public comments were received during the review process, including submissions from Professor William J. McNichol, Jr. of Rutgers Law School. Following review, the Commission found that public interest factors did not weigh against issuing the LEO and CDOs. It also set a bond of 100% of the value of the infringing imports during the 60-day Presidential review period. The investigation is now closed. The Commission’s decision was based on the full record, including the initial determination, petitions for review, and public submissions. For more details, the official documentation can be accessed through the Commission’s website at 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Starts Enforcement Case Over Synthetic Hair Imports Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes On January 22, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced that it has started a formal enforcement proceeding. This action is related to a prior case about certain pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair and the packaging that comes with it. The new case targets Vivace, Inc. doing business as Dae Do Inc. from Port Washington, New York. Vivace is charged with not following the Commission’s orders from a decision made on September 29, 2025. The initial investigation began on September 9, 2024. It was started after a complaint from JBS Hair of Atlanta, Georgia. The case focused on Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It related to claims that some companies were importing and selling synthetic hair products that infringed on U.S. patents. Three U.S. patents were involved: Patent No. 10,786,026, Patent No. 10,945,478 (called the ‘478 patent), and Patent No. 10,980,301 (called the ‘301 patent). The USITC investigated many companies. These were split into three groups: Defaulting Respondents: This group included Vivace, A-Hair Import Inc., Crown Pacific Group Inc., Loc N Products, LLC, and Zugoo Import Inc. They were found to be in default in separate rulings throughout late 2024 and early 2025. Consent Order Respondents: These companies agreed to settle. They include Chois International, Inc., I & I Hair Corp., Kum Kang Trading USA, Inc., Mink Hair, Ltd., Oradell International Corp., and Twin Peak International, Inc. Remaining Respondents: These firms were removed from the case when the complainant withdrew the complaint against them on April 29, 2025. On September 29, 2025, the Commission issued limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders against the Defaulting Respondents, including Vivace. These types of orders are common under Section 337 to stop companies from selling or importing products found to infringe U.S. laws. On December 18, 2025, JBS Hair filed a follow-up enforcement complaint. The claim was that Vivace continued to sell and import items that infringe claim 20 of the ‘478 patent and claims 1, 4 through 9, and 11 of the ‘301 patent. This would violate the previous orders. After reviewing the complaint and documents, the USITC decided the complaint meets the legal requirements for an enforcement proceeding. Now, a formal enforcement process is underway. The Commission has ordered the Chief Administrative Law Judge to pick an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). This ALJ will conduct the hearings, make findings (called an Enforcement Initial Determination), and suggest further actions if needed. The Commission’s decision to start this process was made on January 20, 2026. This proceeding is under the rules found in 19 CFR 210.75(a). The U.S. Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also a party in the enforcement action. Issued by the Commission’s Secretary, Lisa Barton, on January 20, 2026. Federal Register Document Number: 2026-01184 For access to case documents, view the Commission’s electronic docket at https://edis.usitc.gov. For general information, visit 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Opens Investigation Into Dental Bur Imports Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On January 13, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced the beginning of Investigation No. 337-TA-1479. The investigation is about certain imported dental burs and kits. This action follows a complaint filed on December 16, 2025, by Huwais IP Holding LLC and Versah, LLC, both located in Jackson, Michigan. An amended complaint was filed on January 6, 2026. The complaint says certain companies import and sell dental burs and kits in the U.S. that break the rules under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The products are said to violate U.S. patents and trademarks. The two patents involved are: U.S. Patent No. 9,326,778 U.S. Patent No. 11,712,250 The patents cover special kinds of dental tools called “osseodensification dental burs.” The trademarks involved are: U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,261,888 U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,261,886 U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,689,471 The complainants say that these intellectual property rights are being violated by importing and selling the products in the United States. The commission will look at: Whether any U.S. patents or trademarks are being violated. Whether there is a business in the U.S. involved in making these products. The complainants want the USITC to issue one of the following: A general exclusion order A limited exclusion order Cease and desist orders The USITC has listed the exact type of products under investigation. They are: “osseodensification dental burs and kits thereof.” The following companies are named as respondents. They are the ones accused of breaking U.S. trade law: Pawn Move, Sialkot, Pakistan Raheela Instruments, UAE Ali House of Dental, Pakistan Dental68, Grapevine, TX, USA Mahfooz Instruments, Pakistan Medsal International, Pakistan Hamsan International/Hamsan Surgical, Pakistan Arck Instruments UK LTD, United Kingdom Denshine, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA DentalBTC/Mediface Instruments, Pakistan and Texas, USA iDentalShop, Elk Grove Village, IL, USA Dyna International, Pakistan Merit Surgical, Canada Skeema Dental Italia, Italy Orthodonticdental/Orthodent, Australia New Med Instruments, Pakistan The USITC named Pathenia M. Proctor of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations as the contact for further information regarding this case. The Chief Administrative Law Judge of the USITC will assign a judge to handle the case. Companies listed as respondents must reply to the amended complaint and notice of investigation within 20 days of receiving it. If they do not answer in time, the USITC and judge may decide the case without their input. This could lead to exclusion orders or cease and desist orders against those companies. Issued under Commission order dated January 14, 2026. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, signed the notice. 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.