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 Before this, some claims were removed from the investigation after the complaint was withdrawn for those parts.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

USITC Ends Investigation into Audio Player Patent Dispute, Finding Claims Invalid Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes Background of the Case The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) ended its investigation into certain audio players and their parts. This decision was made on July 7, 2025. The case number is 337-TA-1329. The investigation began on September 15, 2022. The complaint was filed by Google LLC, based in Mountain View, California. Google claimed that Sonos, Inc., from Santa Barbara, California, broke U.S. trade law. Google said Sonos imported, sold, or offered for sale audio players that violated certain U.S. patents. The patents listed were U.S. Patent Nos. 7,705,565, 10,593,330, and 10,134,398. Progress of the Investigation The ‘565 patent was removed from the investigation on November 2, 2022, by order of the Commission. On January 19, 2023, there was a hearing about how to define the term “low power mode” in the patents. This term became very important in the case. Throughout 2023 and 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was also reviewing the two other patents (‘330 and ‘398 patents). On May 15, 2024, the PTAB decided that all challenged claims in these patents were invalid. Sonos filed motions saying the patent claims were either indefinite or unpatentable. Google opposed these motions. On February 4, 2025, the judge asked the parties if the case should end because of the PTAB decisions. On March 7, 2025, the judge decided that the key term “low power mode” was indefinite. This means the meaning of the term was not clear enough for the patents to be enforced. Because of this, the judge said the claims were invalid. Commission Review and Final Decision No party asked for a review of this decision at first. On April 8, 2025, the Commission agreed that the patent claims were invalid as indefinite. The investigation was ended with no violation found. After this, Google filed a late petition, saying it had not been served the initial decision on time. The Commission accepted this petition and reopened the investigation. Sonos responded on June 5, 2025. After reviewing all submissions, the Commission kept its earlier decision. The Commission found that the claims in the ‘330 and ‘398 patents were invalid because “low power mode” was indefinite. The Commission’s rules say there must be infringement of a valid patent claim to find a violation. Here, the claims were not valid. The investigation was formally ended with a finding of no violation as of July 7, 2025. Legal Authority This decision was made under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), and the Commission’s own rules (19 CFR part 210). The order was signed by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. Contact and Further Information Additional documents are available at https://edis.usitc.gov. For questions, contact Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., USITC Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 205-2382. 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 Rescinds Limited Exclusion Order on Human Milk Oligosaccharides Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has ended a limited exclusion order that barred some human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) from entering the United States. The decision follows a settlement between the parties involved. The case began on June 21, 2018, when Glycosyn LLC of Waltham, Massachusetts, filed a complaint. Glycosyn said that certain imports from Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH (now Chr. Hansen HMO GmbH) infringed on their patents. These patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,453,230 and 9,970,018, deal with HMOs and how to make them. The USITC investigated the case and issued a limited exclusion order on May 19, 2020. This order stopped the unlicensed import of some HMOs made with bacterial strains found to infringe Glycosyn’s patent. The order stopped Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH from importing these HMOs into the U.S. The Federal Circuit Court affirmed this decision in September 2021. On June 6, 2025, Glycosyn filed a petition to rescind, or reverse, the order. They explained that they had reached a settlement with Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH. The petition was unopposed; no responses were filed against it. The USITC found that the reasons for the limited exclusion order no longer exist now that Glycosyn and Jennewein have settled. The Commission decided to start a rescission proceeding and then rescinded the order. This action was taken under section 337(k) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Commission Rule 210.76(a). The action terminates the rescission proceeding and officially lifts the ban. The Commission notified the Secretary of the Treasury about its decision on July 7, 2025. The legal authority for these decisions comes from section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and from Part 210 of the USITC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The vote for the decision took place on July 7, 2025. For more information, documents related to this investigation can be found through the USITC’s electronic docket. General details about the Commission are 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.

U.S. International Trade Commission Receives Complaint About Wearable EEG Devices Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has received a complaint about certain wearable electroencephalogram (EEG) devices and systems, including their parts. The complaint, known as DN 3837, was filed by Ceribell, Inc. on July 7, 2025. The USITC is asking for comments from the public, interested parties, and government agencies. The Commission wants to know about any issues this complaint may cause, especially how it may affect public health, safety, and the economy in the United States. The complaint says that three companies are breaking the law by importing, selling for import, or selling in the U.S. these EEG devices. The companies named are: Natus Medical Incorporated of Middleton, Wisconsin Excel-Tech Ltd. (“XLTEK”) of Canada Natus Neurology Incorporated of Middleton, Wisconsin Ceribell, Inc. asks the Commission to take several actions. These include a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a requirement that the companies pay a bond for the products during the 60-day Presidential review period. The USITC will look at multiple questions: How are these EEG devices used in the United States? Are there any public health, safety, or welfare issues if the requested orders are issued? Are there similar products made in the U.S. that could replace these if they are excluded? Can U.S. companies or suppliers provide enough products to replace the excluded devices in a reasonable time? How would these actions affect U.S. consumers? Comments from the public or interested groups must be sent to the USITC no later than eight days after this notice is published in the Federal Register. Replies to these comments must be filed within three days after the original comment deadline. Comments must be no longer than five pages and filed electronically. Confidential information can be sent in, but a special request for confidential treatment must go to the Secretary of the Commission. All non-confidential submissions will be available for public inspection online. This investigation will be carried out under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and certain Commission rules. The public can read the full complaint and learn more about the case on the USITC’s Electronic Document Information System at https://edis.usitc.gov. For questions about filing, the Secretary’s office can be contacted by email. This notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 8, 2025. 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.

United States Opens Trade Investigations on Hardwood and Decorative Plywood Imports Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced new decisions about hardwood and decorative plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. The Commission says there is a reasonable indication that United States industries have been harmed by these imports. The investigation is about certain types of plywood that enter through many different product numbers, called subheadings, in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These subheadings include 4412.10.05, 4412.31.06, 4412.31.26, 4412.31.42, 4412.31.45, 4412.31.48, 4412.31.52, 4412.31.61, 4412.31.92, 4412.33.06, 4412.33.26, 4412.33.32, 4412.33.57, 4412.34.26, 4412.34.32, 4412.34.57, 4412.39.40, 4412.39.50, 4412.41.00, 4412.42.00, 4412.51.10, 4412.51.31, 4412.51.41, 4412.51.50, 4412.52.10, 4412.52.31, 4412.52.41, 4412.91.06, 4412.91.10, 4412.91.31, 4412.91.41, 4412.92.07, 4412.92.11, 4412.92.31, and 4412.92.42. The USITC is looking into whether these products have been sold in the United States for less than fair value. This is known as “less than fair value” sales, or “LTFV.” The investigation also looks at whether the governments of China, Indonesia, and Vietnam have given unfair help to companies in their countries. This help is called a subsidy. The petitions to start the investigation were filed on May 22, 2025. They were submitted by the Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood. This coalition has several members. These are Columbia Forest Products of Greensboro, North Carolina; Commonwealth Plywood Co., Ltd., Whitehall, New York; Manthei Wood Products, Petoskey, Michigan; States Industries LLC, Eugene, Oregon; and Timber Products Company, Springfield, Oregon. After the Coalition filed its petitions, the USITC started its investigation the same day. Official numbers for the cases are 701-TA-764-766 for subsidies and 731-TA-1747-1749 for less than fair value sales. A notice about the investigation and a public conference was posted on May 29, 2025. The public conference took place on June 12, 2025. Everyone who asked to take part in the conference was allowed to join. The USITC completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on July 7, 2025. The Commission’s views can be found in USITC Publication 5648, dated July 2025. Now, the USITC will begin the final phase of the investigations. The Commission will publish a notice when ready. More information and questionnaires for the next phase will be made available on the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System at https://edis.usitc.gov. Parties who were involved in the preliminary phase do not need to reapply to take part in the final phase. Other interested parties or consumer groups may apply to join after the notice is published. The notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 7, 2025. 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. Keeps Duties on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has made a decision about refined brown aluminum oxide from China. This material is important for some industries in the United States. The ITC finished a five-year review. The review was called Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Fourth Review). The Commission looked at whether to keep or remove the antidumping duty order on this product. The decision was based on information in the official record. The Commission worked under the rules of the Tariff Act of 1930. The ITC chose to keep the antidumping duty order. It found that ending the order would be likely to cause “continuation or recurrence of material injury” to U.S. industry in the near future. The review started on February 3, 2025. This was published in the Federal Register, volume 90, page 8812. On May 9, 2025, the ITC said it would do an expedited review. This was published on May 23, 2025, in the Federal Register, volume 90, page 22113. The Commission made its final decision and completed its determination on July 3, 2025. The details are in USITC Publication 5645, dated July 2025. The order was officially posted by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 3, 2025. The Federal Register notice is number 2025-12665, and it appeared in volume 90, number 128, on July 8, 2025, on page 30096. The ITC stated that revoking the antidumping order on refined brown aluminum oxide from China would hurt U.S. industry. So, the duties will stay in place. 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 Schedules Final Investigation of Hard Empty Capsules from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam Estimated reading time: 2–5 minutes Background The investigations are based on the Tariff Act of 1930. The ITC will review if American businesses are negatively affected by the import of hard empty capsules that have been sold in the U.S. at less-than-fair-value and if the imports were subsidized. The Department of Commerce found that capsule makers from Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam received subsidies and sold products below fair value. These investigations began in response to petitions filed on October 24, 2024, by Lonza Greenwood LLC of Greenwood, South Carolina. Product Scope The investigation covers hard empty capsules, which are cylindrical shells made from two parts: a cap and a body. Both parts have a closed, rounded end and an open end. The main ingredients must be at least 80% water-soluble polymer. Common materials are gelatin, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), and pullulan. Capsules can also include water, colorants, opacifiers, and other substances. The ITC covers all sizes, colors, and types of hard empty capsules, whether they are imported together or separately, attached or detached. The capsules must be able to dissolve in water within 2 hours as described in the United States Pharmacopeia-National Formulary. The capsules are classified under several Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes, including 9602.00.1040, 9602.00.5010, and others. Investigation Process The final phase of these investigations will follow sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act. The ITC invites people and companies that use or sell the capsules to participate by filing an entry of appearance no later than 21 days before the hearing date. All documents must be filed electronically through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS). No paper filings will be accepted. If a party wants access to business confidential information, an application must be made 21 days before the hearing. Applications are only for authorized representatives. Key Dates The prehearing staff report will be in the nonpublic record on October 1, 2025. A public version will follow. The hearing will take place at 9:30 a.m. on October 16, 2025. Requests to appear must be filed by October 9, 2025. If a party wishes to appear via videoconference, a statement explaining the reason is required. Remote requests for illness or positive COVID-19 tests may be submitted a day before the hearing. Written testimony and presentation slides must be filed by noon, October 15, 2025. Prehearing briefs are due by October 8, 2025. Posthearing briefs and written statements by persons not entered as parties are due by October 23, 2025. The Commission will release new information to parties by November 5, 2025. Final comments on this information are due by November 7, 2025. Participation and Submissions Any interested party may file a prehearing brief, written testimony, and posthearing brief. Submissions must comply with the Commission’s rules about format and confidential information. For more information about the investigation, including hearing procedures and the rules, check the ITC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, or visit the Commission’s website. Contact Questions can be directed to Julie Duffy at (202) 708-2579 or through the Commission’s website at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons can contact the TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. Assistance for mobility impairments is available by contacting the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. Authority These actions are under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. This notice is published under Section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. The notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on June 23, 2025. 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 Updates Name in OLED Display Investigation Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has made a decision in Investigation No. 337-TA-1378. This case is about certain organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display modules and their parts. The investigation started on December 6, 2023, after a complaint filed by Samsung Display Company, Ltd. of South Korea. The complaint said that some companies from China and the United States may have imported or sold these items by using trade secrets in the wrong way. This could hurt U.S. businesses or stop new ones from starting. The companies named in the investigation were: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. of Beijing, China Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. of Mianyang, China Ordos Yuansheng Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. of Inner Mongolia, China Chengdu BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. of Chengdu, China Chongqing BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. of Chongqing, China Wuhan BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. of Wuhan, China BMOT, also known as Kunming BOE Display Technology, of Yunnan, China BOE Technology America Inc. of Santa Clara, California On May 21, 2025, Samsung and all the companies involved said together that BMOT changed its name. Now, BMOT is called Yunnan Invensight Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (Yunnan). On May 27, 2025, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in charge gave an order, called Initial Determination (Order No. 63). This order updated the official records to change BMOT’s name to Yunnan in the complaint and in the investigation notice. The ALJ said there was a good reason for this update, since Yunnan is now the right name to use. No one asked the ITC to review this change. The ITC has now decided not to review the judge’s order. This means the name change is official in the case. The ITC used its authority from section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to make this decision. The vote happened on June 17, 2025. The notice was signed by Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, and published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2025. 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 Updates Solar Cell Investigation Due to Company Name Change Estimated reading time: 4–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued a notice about two ongoing investigations, Investigation No. 337-TA-1422 and Investigation No. 337-TA-1425. These investigations involve certain TOPCon solar cells, modules, panels, their parts, and products that use them. The ITC has decided not to review an initial decision made by the Administrative Law Judge. The decision allowed the complainants to amend their complaint and the notice of investigation. This amendment was made to show a corporate name change. The company “Trina Solar US Manufacturing Module 1, LLC” is now “T1 G1 Dallas Solar Module (Trina) LLC.” The name change took effect on April 21, 2025. Background of the Investigation The ITC started Investigation No. 337-TA-1422 on November 5, 2024, and Investigation No. 337-TA-1425 on December 9, 2024. The complaints were filed by Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc., Trina Solar US Manufacturing Module 1, LLC (now T1 G1 Dallas Solar Module (Trina) LLC), and Trina Solar Co., Ltd. These companies are called “Complainants.” The complaints say there were violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337). The violations relate to bringing certain TOPCon solar products into the United States, selling them for import, or selling them after they arrive. The claims involve U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 (claims 1-11) and U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 (claims 1-17). The complaints also say there is a domestic industry involved. Parties Named in the Investigation The investigation names several respondents, including: 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. (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 Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also part of the case. Progress of the Investigation On January 21, 2025, the ITC combined the two investigations into one. There have been some changes in the list of respondents: On January 31, 2025, the investigation decided not to continue with Adani Green Energy Ltd., and added Mundra Solar PV Ltd. as a new respondent. On February 12, 2025, the target date for the investigation was updated to May 20, 2026. On February 13, 2025, the ITC decided not to continue with Recurrent Energy Development Holdings LLC. Company Name Change On May 12, 2025, the complainants asked for permission to change the complaint and notice of investigation. This was to reflect the company’s new name, from Trina Solar US Manufacturing Module 1, LLC to T1 G1 Dallas Solar Module (Trina) LLC. The judge agreed to the change on May 23, 2025, stating there was good reason to update the name. No one objected to this update. The ITC has now officially amended the documents to use the correct new company name. Authority and Dates The ITC made this decision under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as updated, and according to the ITC’s rules. The decision was made on June 17, 2025. For more information, contact Benjamin S. Richards, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission. The case number for this Federal Register notice is 2025-11434. 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 Announces Revised Schedule for Torsion Spring Investigations Estimated reading time: 3-5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has issued a notice regarding the schedule for its investigations into overhead door counterbalance torsion springs from China and India. On June 2, 2025, the Commission set a schedule for the final phase of these investigations. On June 17, 2025, the Commission changed the schedule to solve some timing conflicts. The new schedule is as follows: The prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on August 5, 2025. Prehearing briefs and requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission by 5:15 p.m. on August 11, 2025. The prehearing conference will take place at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building on August 13, 2025, if needed. Parties must file and serve written testimony and presentation slides for the hearing by noon on August 14, 2025. The hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on August 15, 2025. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on August 22, 2025. Any person who has not entered as a party may submit a written statement of information about the topic. These statements can include support or opposition to the petition. The due date for these statements is August 22, 2025. These investigations are being held under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 and based on the Commission’s rules, including 19 CFR parts 201 and 207. For more information, contact Peter Stebbins at the USITC, phone 202-205-2039. Persons with hearing or mobility impairments can reach the USITC using the TDD terminal at 202-205-1810, or the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. More details and public records are available on the USITC website at https://www.usitc.gov. This notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on June 18, 2025. 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 Issues Orders Against Xiamen Dirongte Trading Co., Ltd. in Patent Case Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has decided to issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Xiamen Dirongte Trading Co., Ltd. of Xiamen City, China. This company was the only respondent in the investigation. The case concerned the import of dryer wall exhaust vent assemblies and their components. The investigation began on February 6, 2025, after a complaint from InOvate Acquisition Company of Jupiter, Florida. This complaint stated that Xiamen Dirongte Trading Co., Ltd. violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The violation was due to the import, sale for import, or sale within the U.S. after importation of dryer wall exhaust vent assemblies and components. These actions were said to infringe on certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,953,230. The complaint also claimed that there was a related industry in the United States. Xiamen Dirongte Trading Co., Ltd. did not respond to the ITC’s complaint or its notice. On March 14, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered Xiamen Dirongte to explain its lack of response. The company did not reply. On April 15, 2025, the ALJ found Xiamen Dirongte in default. The Commission chose not to review this decision. It then asked for briefs on the remedy, bonding, and public interest. On May 19, 2025, InOvate replied, asking for both a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Xiamen Dirongte. No other responses were given. After reviewing the case record, the Commission decided on the following remedies: A limited exclusion order. This order blocks the unlicensed entry into the United States of certain dryer wall exhaust vent assemblies and components that infringe the ‘230 patent and come from Xiamen Dirongte Trading Co., Ltd. A cease and desist order against Xiamen Dirongte Trading Co., Ltd. The Commission also set a bond for the Presidential review period. The bond is 100% of the value of the infringing imported products. The Commission found no public interest reasons to stop these orders from being issued. The ITC made its official vote on June 16, 2025. The orders and bond are effective following that date. The investigation is now terminated. The decision was announced by Susan Orndoff, Supervisory Attorney of the ITC. For more information, documents can be found on the ITC’s electronic docket at https://edis.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 Revises Schedule for Thermoformed Molded Fiber Products Investigations Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced new dates for its final investigation of thermoformed molded fiber products from China and Vietnam. The revision follows a request from the American Molded Fiber Coalition to change the hearing date. The updated schedule is as follows: Prehearing briefs must be filed by 5:15 p.m. on September 19, 2025. Requests to appear at the hearing are due by 5:15 p.m. on September 25, 2025. The prehearing conference will take place at the USITC Building on September 29, 2025, if necessary. The hearing is set for September 30, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. at the USITC Building. Posthearing briefs are due by 5:15 p.m. on October 7, 2025. The investigations are related to cases 701-TA-739-740 and 731-TA-1716-1717. These cases concern possible issues with the import of thermoformed molded fiber products from China and Vietnam. The USITC is conducting these investigations under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The schedule update was issued on June 11, 2025, by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. For more information or access to the public record, visit the Commission’s website at www.usitc.gov or its electronic docket at edis.usitc.gov. Contact Caitlyn Costello at 202-205-2058 for further details. Those with hearing or mobility impairments can get assistance by calling the Commission’s TDD terminal at 202-205-1810 or the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. This notice is published pursuant to Section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. 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. Keeps Duties on Aluminum Wire and Cable From China Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes On June 9, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) made a key decision in its review of duties on aluminum wire and cable from China. The USITC reviewed two orders: a countervailing duty order and an antidumping duty order on aluminum wire and cable from China. These orders put extra charges on the imports from China to prevent unfair trade. The Commission looked at all of the information collected during the review. It decided, under the Tariff Act of 1930, that ending these orders would probably cause harm to companies in the United States. The harm could happen soon if the orders are removed. The reviews started on November 1, 2024. On February 4, 2025, the Commission decided to do expedited, or faster, reviews. The reviews are called Investigation Nos. 701-TA-611 and 731-TA-1428. The full findings and views of the Commission are in USITC Publication 5635, published in June 2025, under the name “Aluminum Wire and Cable from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-611 and 731-TA-1428 (Review).” The official order keeping the duties in place was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. The notice was published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2025. 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.

US Investigates Imports of Overhead Door Counterbalance Torsion Springs from China and India Estimated reading time: 5–10 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced the final phase scheduling of its investigation into imports of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs from China and India. This case looks at whether the U.S. industry is being harmed by these imports, which are thought to be sold at less-than-fair-value and subsidized. What Products Are Being Investigated? The products involved are helically-wound, overhead door counterbalance torsion steel springs. These springs usually have attached cones, plugs, or other fittings for mounting or making torque. The springs are used to lift and lower overhead doors, such as garage doors and warehouse doors. The springs covered must have: Coil inside diameter between 15.8 mm and 304.8 mm Wire diameter from 2.5 mm to 20.4 mm Length of at least 127 mm All wire types, shapes, and coatings are included. Springs with different winding orientations or end types are also included, as well as springs fitted with hardware like fasteners and cones. What Is Not Included? The following items are not under investigation: Leaf springs Disc springs Extension springs Compression springs Spiral springs Kits and Third-Country Processing If torsion springs and their fittings are shipped as part of overhead door kits, mounting kits, spring-operated or winder assemblies, they are included in the scope. If they undergo minor changes in another country before coming to the U.S., they are still covered. Background of the Investigation The investigation follows a petition filed on October 29, 2024, by three companies: IDC Group, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota) Iowa Spring Manufacturing, Inc. (Adel, Iowa) Service Spring Corp. (Maumee, Ohio) The Department of Commerce found that these products from China and India may be subsidized and sold below fair value in the U.S. This led to the USITC starting its investigation as required by the Tariff Act of 1930. Important Dates and Procedures The prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on August 7, 2025. The public hearing is set for August 21, 2025, starting at 9:30 a.m. Requests to appear at the hearing must be filed by August 15, 2025. Written testimony and presentation slides are due by noon on August 20, 2025. Prehearing briefs must be filed by August 14, 2025; posthearing briefs and public written statements by August 28, 2025. The Commission will share new information on September 9, 2025, allowing parties to comment by September 11, 2025. All official filings must be made electronically via the USITC’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS). No paper filings will be accepted for now. Participation and Hearing Details Any party, including companies and consumer organizations, wishing to take part in the investigation must file an appearance. To get access to business proprietary information, parties must apply at least 21 days before the hearing. There are also specific rules for submitting hearing requests for remote testimony. Nonparties can ask to make short statements during the public hearing. Written submissions must follow detailed rules, especially if they contain confidential information. Contact Information For more details, contact Peter Stebbins at (202) 205-2039, Office of Investigations, USITC. Additional information and all documents are available online at https://www.usitc.gov and https://edis.usitc.gov. Issued by the USITC This notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on June 6, 2025. 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.

US Maintains Duties on Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On June 4, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) issued a determination about malleable iron pipe fittings from China. The USITC decided that ending the antidumping duty order on these products from China would likely cause harm again to U.S. industries. This decision was made under the Tariff Act of 1930. The purpose of the review was to see if taking away the duties would hurt the U.S. industry within a short amount of time. After looking at the official records, the Commission decided that removing the duties would probably lead to new problems for American businesses making these products. The review officially started on November 1, 2024. The Commission decided on February 4, 2025, to have an expedited review, meaning the process would move faster than usual. The notice of expedited review was published on March 7, 2025. All details about the decision are included in USITC Publication 5633, published in June 2025. The publication is titled “Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1021 (Fourth Review).” Lisa Barton, the Secretary to the Commission, issued the order. The details are available in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 110, published on June 10, 2025. The antidumping duty order will therefore remain in place to protect the U.S. industry. 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 Adds Tao Motor as Respondent in Self-Balancing Vehicle Patent Case Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On June 4, 2025, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) officially decided not to review an initial determination made by the presiding administrative law judge. This decision grants a motion to amend a complaint by adding Zhejiang TaoTao Vehicles Co., Ltd. (Tao Motor) as a new respondent in an ongoing investigation. The investigation, known as No. 337-TA-1440, began on February 26, 2025. The complaint was filed by Razor USA LLC of Cerritos, California, and Shane Chen of Camas, Washington. These parties claim there are violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. They allege certain motorized self-balancing vehicles imported into the United States infringe on their patents. The patents in question are U.S. Patent No. RE46,964; U.S. Patent No. RE49,608; and U.S. Patent No. D739,906. The complaint states that an industry related to these patents exists or is being established in the United States, as required by law. The Commission’s initial notice named five respondents: Golabs Inc. d/b/a Gotrax of Carrollton, Texas, Dongguan Saibotan Nengyuan Keji Co., Ltd. d/b/a “Gyroor US,” Guangdong, China, Gyroor Technology (CHINA) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Gyroor, Guangdong, China, Shenzhen Chitado Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Gyroor, Guangdong, China, Unicorn Network, LLC. d/b/a Sisigad of Dover, Delaware. Respondent Sisigad was previously found in default on April 16, 2025. This was not reviewed by the Commission. On April 30, 2025, the complainants asked to amend the complaint. They wanted to add Tao Motor of Lishui City, China, as a new respondent. They stated there was good cause, and that doing so would not harm any party or affect public interest. On May 13, 2025, the administrative law judge found good cause to add Tao Motor as a respondent. The judge confirmed adding Tao Motor would not cause harm to other parties or the public interest. No petitions to review this decision were filed. The Commission voted on June 3, 2025, to leave the decision unchanged. Tao Motor is now officially added as a respondent in the ongoing patent case. The authority for this action comes from Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. It also follows the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210. This decision was announced by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. The official document is Federal Register No. 2025-10393. 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 Moves Forward on Exercise Equipment Patent Investigation Estimated reading time: 7–10 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced it will not review a recent initial determination. This decision comes from Investigation No. 337-TA-1419. The case is about claims by Balanced Body, Inc. of Sacramento, California. Balanced Body says some companies imported exercise equipment and subassemblies that infringe on their patents. Who is Involved? Guangzhou Oasis, LLC, also known as trysauna.com, from Boulder, Colorado Shandong Tmax Machinery Technology Co., Ltd., China Shandong VOG Sports Products Co., Ltd., China Dezhou Bodi Fitness Equipment Co., Ltd., China Suzhou Selfcipline Sports Goods Co., Ltd., China A company called Ciga Pilates from Hong Kong was also named at first. The complaint against Ciga Pilates was later withdrawn. What Patents Are Claimed? Balanced Body claims some of these companies violated the Tariff Act of 1930. The patents involved are: Claims 1-15, 19-21, and 23-26 from U.S. Patent No. 8,721,511 The claim of U.S. Patent No. D659,205 The claim of U.S. Patent No. D659,208 Later, the investigation for some patent claims was ended. Only claim 1 and claim 19 of the ‘511 patent and the claims of the D’205 and D’208 patents remain. Investigation Status On April 9, 2025, five companies were found in default (not defending themselves). On April 16, 2025, some patent claims were removed from the investigation. Balanced Body asked for two types of orders: A General Exclusion Order (GEO), which would stop all imports of infringing products, from anyone. A Limited Exclusion Order (LEO), which would stop just those companies from importing. They also asked for a 100% bond on the value of any products imported during a Presidential review period. ALJ and Commission Decisions An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling on April 30, 2025. The ALJ granted some of Balanced Body’s motion. The ALJ found that VOG Sports, Dezhou, and Selfcipline violated claim 1 of the ‘511 patent and the D’208 patent. The ALJ said the domestic industry requirement was met. The ALJ also said there was strong evidence to support these findings. The ALJ said Balanced Body should get a General Exclusion Order (GEO) for claim 1 of the ‘511 patent and the D’208 patent, and a 100% bond. But, this relief was seen as premature because some issues were still open. On May 9, 2025, Balanced Body withdrew its request for a GEO on some other patent claims. This made the investigation ready to move forward to the “remedy phase.” On May 12, 2025, the ALJ supported issuing a GEO for claim 1 of the ‘511 patent and the D’208 patent, along with a 100% bond. No company requested a review of the ALJ’s initial determination. The Commission voted on May 30, 2025, not to review the decision. Next Steps: Seeking Input The Commission may use its authority to issue orders that: Exclude the products from the U.S. Order companies to stop unfair acts in importing and selling the products. The USITC is asking parties and the public to send written comments. They want to know: What remedies should be ordered How any remedy could affect the public health and welfare How it could affect U.S. producers, consumers, and competition What the bond amount should be Balanced Body must provide: The remedy they want Draft remedial orders When the patents expire Importer details Product category information The deadline for submissions is June 13, 2025. Replies are due June 20, 2025. Extra details on submitting documents are included in the notice. Bond and Presidential Review If a remedy is put in place, a 60-day Presidential review follows. During this time, the products can still enter the U.S., but only under a set bond. Confidential Information Parties can ask for confidential treatment of their submissions. Redacted versions must be filed for public access. Authority The Commission’s authority is based on Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and USITC rules. Contact and More Information Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, USITC, can be reached at (202) 205-3459 for questions. More information and documents are available at https://edis.usitc.gov. This notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on May 30, 2025. 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 Updates Investigation into Glow Fish Tape and Safety Helmet Systems Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission has made a new announcement about an ongoing investigation. This investigation is called Investigation No. 337-TA-1442. It concerns certain glow fish tape systems, safety helmet systems, and their parts. The Commission said it will not review an important decision made by the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ). This decision allowed Klein Tools, Inc., from Lincolnshire, Illinois, to make changes to its complaint. Now, Klein Tools can add new accusations about U.S. Patent No. 12,268,265 (the ‘265 patent). These new claims say that there is infringement of claims 1-4 of the ‘265 patent. This investigation first began on March 19, 2025. Klein Tools filed the complaint, saying that Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, based in Brookfield, Wisconsin, was bringing products into the United States, or selling products in the United States, that violated several patents. The original complaint listed U.S. Patent Nos. 11,452,327; 11,713,209; and 12,187,573. Now, the complaint also includes the ‘265 patent, claims 1-4. The Commission’s notice said that there is a domestic industry connected to the products in question. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not taking part in this case. The CALJ gave permission to amend the complaint on May 1, 2025. The decision is called Order No. 6. Nobody asked for a review of this decision. The Commission officially stated that it will not review the CALJ’s decision. The investigation is now updated to include the new allegations concerning the ‘265 patent against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation. The Commission made this determination on May 30, 2025. The legal authority for this decision comes from section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. This announcement was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on May 30, 2025. 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 Issues Orders in Thyroid Drug Case Estimated reading time: 5 minutes On June 4, 2025, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced the results of Investigation No. 337-TA-1352. The investigation was over certain selective thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonists and related products. The ITC found that four companies in China broke Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. These companies are Ascletis Pharma Inc., Ascletis Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., Ascletis Bioscience Co., Ltd., and Gannex Pharma Co., Ltd. These four companies are called “Corporate Respondents” in the case. The ITC said these companies got and used trade secrets that belonged to Viking Therapeutics, Inc., which is based in San Diego, California. Viking was the “Complainant.” Viking said these companies used trade secrets to make and sell certain thyroid-related drugs in the United States. The ITC ordered a seven-year limited exclusion order (LEO) against the Corporate Respondents. That means the drugs and products involved cannot be brought into the United States by these companies for seven years, unless they have a license. The ITC also issued cease and desist orders (CDO) to each of the four companies. This means they must stop all actions that break the law regarding these products. The case started on February 9, 2023. The ITC looked into whether the companies’ actions hurt or stopped a U.S. company from growing. There was a hearing from November 13 to 16, 2023. The main judge, called the Chief Administrative Law Judge (Chief ALJ), found that the companies broke the law and said sanctions were needed. Sanctions mean punishment or penalties. The ITC also looked at the role of Dr. Jinzi Jason Wu, who works for the Corporate Respondents. The ITC decided not to find Dr. Wu personally at fault. Sanctions against Dr. Wu were dropped. Sanctions against the companies and their former lawyers, Rimon PC, were upheld. The ITC also set a bond during a review period. This bond is one hundred percent of the value of any covered items imported during the Presidential review. This means if the companies try to bring in these products during the review, they must pay a bond worth the product’s total value. No other public comments were received about this case. The ITC said the public interest does not stop them from giving these orders. The investigation is now finished. The orders and decisions were sent to the President and the United States Trade Representative on the same day they were made. The ITC voted on this decision on May 29, 2025. The legal authority for these actions comes from Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission’s own rules. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, recorded this action. Reference: Federal Register Volume 90, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 4, 2025), Pages 23709-23711. Legal Disclaimer 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 Investigations on L-lysine Imports from China Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has started preliminary phase investigations on L-lysine imports from China. These investigations are for antidumping and countervailing duties. The case numbers are 701-TA-767 and 731-TA-1750 (Preliminary). They are being done under the Tariff Act of 1930. The investigations will find out if U.S. industry is being hurt or threatened by L-lysine imports from China. The L-lysine is under the U.S. tariff code 2922.41.0090. The investigations began because of petitions filed on May 28, 2025. The petitions were made by the Lysine Fair Trade Coalition and its members. Members include Archer Daniels Midland Company (Decatur, Illinois), CJ Bio America, Inc. (Fort Dodge, Iowa), and Evonik Corporation (Blair, Nebraska). The petitions say that L-lysine from China is being sold below fair value and is supported by government subsidies. The Department of Commerce may extend the investigation time. But the USITC must reach a preliminary decision by July 14, 2025. The Commission’s views must be sent to the Department of Commerce by July 21, 2025. Anyone wanting to join as a party in the investigation, other than the petitioners, must file an entry of appearance within seven days after this notice is published in the Federal Register. Industrial users and representative consumer organizations can also join as parties. The Secretary of the Commission will make public and confidential service lists. These include the names and addresses of all parties and their representatives. Confidential information, called business proprietary information (BPI), will only be given to authorized applicants under a protective order. These applications must be made within seven days after this notice is published. A staff conference about the case will happen on June 18, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. Requests to appear at the conference must be emailed by noon, June 16, 2025. Email addresses for every participant must be included. Some guidance for witnesses joining by videoconference will be available on the Commission’s Public Calendar. The Secretary will accept only electronic filings for now. All filings must go through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS). Paper filings are not being accepted. Written briefs and arguments can be sent to the Commission by 5:15 p.m. on June 24, 2025. Written testimony and extra material for the June 18 conference must be filed by 4 p.m. on June 17, 2025. All documents must follow the Commission’s rules, including requirements for confidential business information. Every document filed must be sent to all other parties, as shown by the public or BPI service list. A certificate of service must be included. The Secretary will not accept filings without this. Anyone who gives information to the Commission during these investigations must certify that it is complete and accurate. The information may be used by the Commission, its staff, or other government employees for their duties. All contract personnel must sign a nondisclosure agreement. These investigations are being held under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, and this notice follows section 207.12 of the Commission’s rules. This notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on May 29, 2025. Legal Disclaimer 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 Begins Five-Year Review of Collated Steel Staples from China Estimated reading time: 4-5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has started reviews to decide if ending the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain collated steel staples from China would likely cause harm to American industry again. Key Dates The review officially began on June 2, 2025. Anyone wanting to respond must do so by July 2, 2025. Comments about the responses can be sent until August 13, 2025. Background On July 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce put in place duties on collated steel staples from China. The USITC now needs to review if these duties should stay. The decision will look at if removing the duties would likely cause injury to U.S. makers of these staples. Definitions in This Review Subject Merchandise: The kind of staples covered in the review. Subject Country: China. Domestic Like Product: Collated steel staples made in the U.S. Domestic Industry: All U.S. makers of these staples. Order Date: July 20, 2020. Importer: Any person or company that brings these staples from China to the U.S. How to Participate People or groups, like companies that use these staples, can join as parties in this review. They need to file an entry of appearance within 21 days after this notice is published. A public list of all parties will be made. Former Commission Employees Past USITC workers can appear in this review, even if they worked on past reviews or investigations about the same products. More information is available from the Office of the General Counsel. Business Proprietary Information Certain business information can be shared under a special protective order. Only approved people will get access. Applications for this must be made within 21 days. Submitting Information Each response must be certified as accurate and complete. Information given can be used by USITC employees and, when needed, for cybersecurity by U.S. government workers. Name, address, website, and contact details. How the company is an interested party. If the company is willing to participate. What effect removing the duties might have. A list of current U.S. producers of the staples. A list of current U.S. importers and Chinese producers/exporters of these staples. Names and contacts for key U.S. buyers. Information sources on prices. Detailed operation data for 2024 if a U.S. producer. Similar data if a U.S. importer or group. Export and production data from Chinese producers or groups. Notes on any big changes in supply or demand since July 2020. (Optional) Comments on product and industry definitions. Forms and further instructions are available on the USITC website. Filing Procedures All information must be sent electronically using USITC’s EDIS system. Paper filings are not accepted at this time. The OMB number for this request is 3117 0016/USITC No. 25-5-638. If a company cannot provide information in the exact form asked, they should tell the Commission as soon as possible and give reasons. If a company does not respond properly, the Commission might use the information in a way that is unfavorable to that company. Contact Information For more details, contact Alec Resch at the Office of Investigations (202-708-1448). Authority This review is conducted under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. Issued by: Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission Issued May 27, 2025. Legal Disclaimer 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. Government Starts Review of Manganese Dioxide Orders from China Estimated reading time: 1–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced the start of a new review on June 2, 2025. The review will decide if removing the current rules on electrolytic manganese dioxide from China could hurt U.S. companies again. Electrolytic manganese dioxide is a chemical used in products like batteries. Since 2008, the U.S. has had an antidumping duty order on this product from China. The Department of Commerce put this order in place on October 7, 2008. The U.S. already did two reviews—in 2015 and 2020—and decided both times to keep the order. Now, this is the third five-year review. The review follows rules in the Tariff Act of 1930. The USITC wants to know if ending the order would likely lead to harm for companies in the United States. They are asking interested parties to send information by July 2, 2025. People can also send comments about if responses are strong enough by August 13, 2025. Who Should Respond The USITC says interested parties can include U.S. producers, unions, importers, foreign producers, exporters, and trade groups. Those wanting to join the proceeding as a party must file an entry of appearance within 21 days after the notice was published in the Federal Register. Companies and individuals can look at case records online through the USITC’s electronic document system. They can also find more information on the agency website. Information Needed The USITC is asking for detailed information. This includes: Names and addresses of businesses. Whether the company or person is an interested party under the law. Whether the company will give information for the review. Predictions about what will happen to U.S. companies if the order ends. Lists of U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and foreign companies making or shipping electrolytic manganese dioxide. Names of top buyers in the U.S. Where to get U.S. or world price data for the product. Details of production and sales for the last year. Lists of changes in markets or conditions since 2018 and what might change soon. The USITC provides a worksheet on its website to help parties organize responses. They must file electronically; paper submissions are currently not accepted. Guidelines for Submissions All information must be certified as true and complete. Private business information will only be shared with those who sign special confidentiality agreements. If a party cannot provide some information, it must explain why and try to offer other data. If parties do not respond fully, the Commission may decide the case using facts against the non-responding party. Review Timeline and Authority Key deadlines are: July 2, 2025 – deadline for initial responses. August 13, 2025 – deadline for comments on responses. The USITC acts under the authority of the Tariff Act of 1930 and its own rules. The agency will decide if a full or quick review is needed, based on the responses. Their final decision could affect duties on Chinese electrolytic manganese dioxide for years to come. For more questions, the Commission contact is Laurel Schwartz at the USITC, and further materials are available on their website. The review started on June 2, 2025, and was announced by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. Legal Disclaimer 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 Starts Five-Year Review of Duties on Lightweight Thermal Paper from China Estimated reading time: 5–10 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced the start of its third five-year review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on lightweight thermal paper from China. The review will decide if removing these trade duties would likely continue or cause new harm to American industry. The review began on June 2, 2025. Parties interested in this case must send their responses to the Commission by July 2, 2025. People can leave comments about the responses by August 13, 2025. All filings must be electronic, using the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS). The USITC is following section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 for this review. Earlier, the Department of Commerce issued these duty orders on November 24, 2008. The duties were continued in January 2015 and July 2020 after earlier five-year reviews. This new review checks if revoking these orders would hurt U.S. producers of lightweight thermal paper in the near future. “Subject Merchandise” in this review means lightweight thermal paper from China. The “Domestic Like Product” is thermal paper made in the U.S., while the “Domestic Industry” covers all U.S. companies making this kind of paper. “Importers” bring this paper into the U.S. from China. Anyone wishing to participate must file an entry of appearance within 21 days after the notice date. The rules also explain how business confidential information will be handled, who may access it, and how the information must be certified. Responses to the USITC must include detailed information. Each company or group responding should provide: Name, address, and contact information. Whether they are an “interested party” like a U.S. producer, importer, exporter, or association. Willingness to give information. What effects would follow if the duties were revoked. Lists of U.S. producers, importers, and Chinese producers and exporters. Major purchasers in the U.S. Price sources for these products. U.S. producers need to give information about their 2024 production, sales, and financial results. U.S. importers and Chinese exporters must also give trade and sales data for 2024. The USITC wants to know about any big changes in how and where this paper is made and sold after 2018, and if any big changes are likely soon. Anyone who cannot provide the requested information must notify the Commission right away and explain why. Additional rules are given about who may participate, disclosures, certification, how to file electronically, and accuracy of information, as well as time limits. This proceeding is under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Sec. 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. This notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on May 27, 2025. The full record and further information are available at the USITC’s official website. Legal Disclaimer 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.

US International Trade Commission Starts Five-Year Review of Calcium Hypochlorite Orders on China Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has started new five-year reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on calcium hypochlorite from China. These reviews are required by law and will decide if canceling the orders would cause injury to US industry. The orders were first put in place on January 30, 2015. They were continued once before in 2020. Now, as of June 2, 2025, the second review is happening. All interested parties must send information to the USITC by July 2, 2025, to be considered. Comments on how good the responses are can be sent by August 13, 2025. Anyone wanting more information can contact Jesse Sanchez at the USITC’s Office of Investigations. General information about the USITC is available at https://www.usitc.gov and case records can be seen at https://edis.usitc.gov. Details About the Review The reviews are about calcium hypochlorite from China. The USITC wants to know if ending the orders would hurt the US industry soon. The rules for this review are in 19 CFR parts 201 and 207. The “Subject Merchandise” is calcium hypochlorite from China. The “Domestic Like Product” is US-made calcium hypochlorite. The “Domestic Industry” is all US producers of that product. Companies who only convert, not make, calcium hypochlorite are not counted as US producers for this review. How to Participate People or groups, such as industrial users or consumer groups, who want to be part of the review must file an entry of appearance within 21 days after June 2, 2025. The USITC keeps a public list of all parties. Old Commission members can take part in these reviews even if they worked on past cases about the same matter, according to federal rules. Some information must be protected as business proprietary. Those wanting access must apply for an administrative protective order within 21 days after June 2, 2025. Any party giving the USITC information must certify it is correct to the best of their knowledge. Information may be shared within the government for official use and for cybersecurity. Sending Written Submissions Responses on the review must be sent by 5:15 p.m. on July 2, 2025. Comments on the adequacy of responses must be sent by 5:15 p.m. on August 13, 2025. All files must meet USITC rules, and confidential data requirements if needed. Details are available at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf. All filings must be made online at https://edis.usitc.gov. No in-person or paper filings are accepted at this time. Each response should include: Name, address, web address, and contact details for the firm or entity. Whether the firm is an interested party under the law, and how it qualifies. Willingness to provide more information to the Commission. The likely effects of ending the orders on the US industry and their own business. A list of currently operating US producers of calcium hypochlorite. A list of all US importers and Chinese producers or exporters of the product since 2018. A list of 3-5 major buyers in the US for this product. Sources of price information for the product. For US producers: 2024 data on production, capacity, shipments, sales, costs, profits, and more. For US importers: 2024 data on import volumes and sales, both with and without duties. For Chinese producers/exporters: Data on production, capacity, and exports to the US for 2024. Information on changes in supply or demand since 2018, or any likely soon. If a party cannot provide the requested information, they must notify the USITC as soon as possible and explain why. If not, the Commission may make decisions based on the available facts. Extra Notes Agreement or disagreement with the Commission’s definitions of Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry can also be submitted, with reasons and alternatives if desired. Authority for this review comes from Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. Issued By Lisa Barton Secretary to the Commission Order dated May 27, 2025 Federal Register Doc No. 2025-09830 Legal Disclaimer 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. Sets Final Phase Schedule for Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains Trade Investigations Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes Summary of the Investigations The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced the final phase schedule for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China. The investigations are to decide if the U.S. industry is hurt, threatened, or slowed because of imports of these grains from China. The Department of Commerce has made a preliminary finding that Chinese producers and exporters get subsidies for these grains. These grains fall under subheading 2818.10.20 in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Scope of the Investigations The subject of the investigations is “sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains.” They must have at least 94% aluminum oxide (Al2O3). These grains can have other compounds, like titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, calcium oxide, sodium superoxide, ferric oxide, magnesium oxide, lanthanum oxide, and more. Grain sizes range from 0.85 mm to 0.0395 mm, equal to ANSI grit sizes from 20 to 280. The grains come in shapes like angular, sharp, blocky, splintery, round stripped, triangular, or extruded rods or stars. These grains have special crystal structures, with high hardness (16-22 gigapascals by the Vickers Diamond Indent Method), a high melting point (2050°C), and crystalline sizes from 0.05 to 30 micrometers. Their colors can be blue, white, white-translucent, or off-white opaque. The scope includes the grains themselves, whether or not they are in other articles, such as abrasive papers, grinding wheels, cylinders, or discs. Only the sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains part is covered when in a product. Background and Legal Process The investigations were requested by Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. from Malvern, Pennsylvania, on November 25, 2024. The investigations are under sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, using procedures from the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Participation and Public Information Anyone wishing to join as a party in these investigations must file an entry of appearance no later than 21 days before the hearing date. If someone already filed during the preliminary phase, they do not have to file again. The Commission is only accepting electronic filings. All documents must be filed through the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. No paper filings will be accepted. Business Proprietary Information (BPI) will be shared under an administrative protective order for authorized parties who apply no later than 21 days prior to the hearing. Key Dates in the Schedule Prehearing staff report (nonpublic): July 24, 2025. Public version to come out after. Prehearing briefs deadline: July 31, 2025. Hearing: August 7, 2025, starting at 9:30 a.m. Requests to appear at the hearing: Due by August 1, 2025. Prehearing conference (if needed): August 4, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. Hearing presentation slides and written testimony: Due by noon, August 6, 2025. Posthearing briefs: Due by August 14, 2025. Written statements from others (not party to investigations): Due by August 14, 2025. Release of information not yet commented on: August 27, 2025. Final comments by parties: Due by August 29, 2025. No new factual information allowed. Further Rules and Information All filings must follow the Commission’s rules (see www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Any written materials containing BPI must conform with specific sections of the rules. Each document filed must be served on all parties and include a certificate of service. The hearing can include remote appearances if needed, with justification. The investigations are conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. For questions, contact Keysha Martinez in the Office of Investigations at 202-205-2136. Authority and Publication This investigation is ordered by the Commission. The Secretary to the Commission is Lisa Barton. The notice is published in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 104, on June 2, 2025. Legal Disclaimer 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 Decides to Continue Duties on Vertical Metal File Cabinets from China Estimated reading time: 1–7 minutes On May 23, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) made a decision about vertical metal file cabinets from China. The Commission reviewed the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on these cabinets. The review is part of Investigation Nos. 701-TA-623 and 731-TA-1449. The USITC checks every five years to see if removing the duties would harm American industries. The Commission found that if the orders were removed, American companies that make vertical metal file cabinets would likely be hurt again. The USITC looked at all the facts and made this decision under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930. These reviews began on November 1, 2025. The Commission decided on February 4, 2025, to do expedited reviews. They finished and filed their final decision on May 23, 2025. The results and the Commission’s full opinions are in USITC Publication 5629, titled “Vertical Metal File Cabinets from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-623 and 731-TA-1449 (Review).” Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, issued the order. Legal Disclaimer 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 with Trade Investigations on Molded Fiber Products from China and Vietnam Estimated reading time: 5–7 minutes On May 30, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced important steps in its investigations on imports of thermoformed molded fiber products (TMFPs) from China and Vietnam. The USITC is working to decide if the U.S. industry is being harmed by these imported products. The investigations will look at whether TMFPs from China and Vietnam are being sold in the United States at below fair value and if they are being subsidized by their governments. The TMFPs include items like plates, bowls, trays, lids, food packaging, and other product packaging. These products are made from cellulose fibers and formed using heated molds. TMFPs can be any shape, size, color, or design. They can be made from any type of fiber, including recycled or natural fiber sources such as wood or agricultural by-products. They may also have extra treatments or features, like being heat resistant, water-resistant, or having special closures or designs. Some products are not included in this investigation. For example, products covered by other trade orders on paper plates from China, Thailand, and Vietnam are excluded. TMFPs used only as packaging for other products, such as molded fiber around a phone, are also excluded from this case. These investigations began after petitions were filed on October 8, 2024, by the American Molded Fiber Coalition, which includes two companies and a trade union. The final phase of the investigations is scheduled under the Tariff Act of 1930. The USITC and the Department of Commerce will review if TMFPs from the two countries are causing material injury to the U.S. market. The USITC has provided a detailed timeline: The prehearing staff report will be issued on September 11, 2025, with a public version to follow. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 25, 2025. Requests to appear at the hearing must be filed by September 19, 2025. Written testimony and presentation slides are due by noon on September 24, 2025. Prehearing briefs must be filed by September 18, 2025. Posthearing briefs are due by October 2, 2025. The USITC will release more information to the parties on October 22, 2025, and final comments must be submitted by October 24, 2025. Anyone wanting to take part in these investigations, including companies who use TMFPs or groups who represent buyers, must file an entry of appearance with the USITC. Electronic filing is required, and no paper filings will be accepted for now. Business proprietary information (BPI) will be given to approved applicants under an administrative protective order. The USITC has rules for making these filings and handling confidential information. All parties involved must serve documents on one another and submit a certificate of service. Submissions that do not follow these rules will not be accepted. The USITC is conducting these investigations under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. For more information and to view the public record, visit https://www.usitc.gov. Issued by order of the Commission on May 27, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. Legal Disclaimer 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 Investigations Into Plywood Imports Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On May 29, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced the start of investigations on hardwood and decorative plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. The case is about whether these imports are harming the U.S. industry. The investigations are under numbers 701-TA-764-766 and 731-TA-1747-1749 (Preliminary). The USITC will check if American makers of hardwood and decorative plywood are being hurt or could be hurt by imports sold at less than fair value or if these are being subsidized by the governments of China, Indonesia, or Vietnam. The products being investigated are listed under many Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes, like 4412.31.06, 4412.31.25, 4412.31.26, up to 4412.99.57. These investigations started because a group called the Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood sent a petition on May 22, 2025. Members of the coalition are Columbia Forest Products (North Carolina), Commonwealth Plywood Co., Ltd. (New York), Manthei Wood Products (Michigan), States Industries LLC (Oregon), and Timber Products Company (Oregon). The USITC must decide by July 7, 2025, if there is a reasonable sign that the U.S. industry is being harmed. After that, their views will go to the U.S. Department of Commerce by July 14, 2025. Anyone who wants more information can contact Calvin Chang at the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission. The public can also check the investigation records online at https://edis.usitc.gov. Parties who want to join the investigation must file an entry of appearance within seven days after this notice was published. Industrial users and consumer groups may also ask to be part of the investigation. There are rules for protecting companies’ business information. Parties must apply within seven days if they wish to access business proprietary details under a protective order. A staff conference about the investigations will happen at 9:30 a.m. on June 12, 2025. Anyone wishing to join must email the Commission by noon, June 10, 2025. Details about the conference and participation will be available on the USITC Public Calendar. Only electronic filings are allowed at this time. No paper documents will be accepted. All filings must be made via the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Written arguments or information can be given to the USITC by 5:15 p.m. on June 17, 2025. Written testimony or any supporting materials for the conference are due by 4:00 p.m. on June 11, 2025. All documents must follow the Commission’s official rules for format and filing. Documents must be shared with all parties and include a certificate of service. People sending information to the Commission must certify that their information is complete and true to the best of their knowledge. The information could be used by the Commission or shared with other government workers, but all contractors must sign nondisclosure agreements. These actions follow the rules of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, and this notice was published following USITC regulations. The notice is signed by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, and was officially filed on May 28, 2025. Legal Disclaimer 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.

US International Trade Commission Announces Investigation into Integrated Circuits and Devices Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes On May 20, 2025, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) announced that it has started an investigation based on a complaint filed by Onesta IP, LLC. The complaint was originally filed on April 18, 2025, and later updated on May 8, 2025. Onesta IP, LLC is located in Wayne, Pennsylvania. The complaint says that certain companies are violating section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint covers integrated circuits, electronic devices that use those integrated circuits, and parts of those devices. The complaint alleges that these products are being imported, sold for importation, or sold inside the United States after importation, in ways that infringe on six U.S. patents. The patents named are: U.S. Patent No. 8,854,381 U.S. Patent No. 9,519,943 U.S. Patent No. 7,717,350 U.S. Patent No. 11,741,019 U.S. Patent No. 11,841,803 U.S. Patent No. 9,116,809 The complaint also claims that there is an industry in the United States based on these patents or that one is being created. Onesta IP, LLC asks the ITC to investigate and to issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders if the complaint is proven. Scope of the Investigation The ITC’s investigation will look at: Whether there is a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, or sale in the U.S. of certain products that are linked to the listed patents. The specific patent claims under investigation are: Claims 5-8, 19, and 20 of the ‘381 patent Claims 1-24 of the ‘943 patent Claims 1-25 of the ‘350 patent Claims 1-20 of the ‘019 patent Claims 1-3 and 7-10 of the ‘803 patent Claims 1-25 of the ‘809 patent Products under investigation include: (a) Integrated circuits that have processors (b) Devices with these integrated circuits, such as circuit board assemblies, graphics cards, smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and computers (c) Parts or subassemblies of those products Respondent Companies The complaint lists the following companies as respondents in the investigation: NVIDIA Corporation 2701 San Tomas Express Way, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Qualcomm Incorporated 5775 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, CA 92121 OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 18C02, 18C03, 18C04, 18C05, Shum Yip Terra Building, Binhe Avenue North, Futian District, Shenzhen, China 518000 Nothing Technology Limited Bedford House, 21A John Street, London, WC1N 2BF, United Kingdom Legal Process The ITC has named the Office of Unfair Import Investigations as a party in the investigation. A Chief Administrative Law Judge from the ITC will oversee the case and assign a presiding Administrative Law Judge. All named respondents must reply to the complaint within 20 days of receiving it. If a company does not respond on time, it may lose the right to defend itself and the ITC may decide the case based only on the information already received. This can result in exclusion orders or cease and desist orders against that company. The judge will also collect information and hear arguments about the public interest in this investigation. The findings will be sent to the Commission, as outlined by law. Public Information The non-confidential version of the complaint is available online through the ITC’s Electronic Docket Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For more help accessing information or for special needs, the ITC has provided contact emails and phone numbers. This notice was issued by the ITC’s Secretary to the Commission, Lisa Barton, and published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2025. Legal Disclaimer 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 Schedules Expedited Five-Year Review for Steel Threaded Rod from China Estimated reading time: 4–6 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced the scheduling of an expedited five-year review concerning steel threaded rod from China. This action is taken under the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine if removing the antidumping duty order would likely cause material injury again within a reasonable time. The date for this action is May 9, 2025. Reasons for the Review The USITC found that the response from domestic interested parties to its notice of institution was adequate. The response from respondent interested parties was inadequate. No other circumstances were found to justify a full review. Because of this, the Commission will conduct an expedited review according to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). Commissioner David S. Johanson voted to conduct a full review. Rules and Procedures The review will follow the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure found in 19 CFR part 201 and 19 CFR part 207. The staff report about this review was placed in the nonpublic record and will be given to people on the Administrative Protective Order service list on June 11, 2025. A public version of the report will be issued later. Written Submissions Interested parties who have given adequate responses to the notice of institution can submit written comments regarding what determination the Commission should make. Other parties and non-interested persons may also submit brief written statements by June 18, 2025. These submissions may not contain new factual information. If the Department of Commerce extends its review timeline, then comments related to Commerce’s final results must be submitted within three business days after the announcement. Written comments containing business proprietary information (BPI) must follow requirements listed in 19 CFR 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7. More information about the Commission’s filing procedures is available on their website. The Commission has accepted the response from Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc. as individually adequate. Other interested party comments will not be accepted. Service and Certification Documents filed by any party must be served to all other parties involved in the review. A certificate of service must be attached. Without this certificate, the Secretary will not accept the document for filing. Timeline Extension The Commission considers this review to be extraordinarily complicated. It has chosen to extend the review period by up to 90 days according to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). Authority This action is authorized under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The notice has been published following section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. The notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on May 20, 2025. Legal Disclaimer 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 Schedules Expedited Review on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has announced it will carry out an expedited five-year review of the antidumping duty order on refined brown aluminum oxide from China. This action will determine if removing the order would likely cause continued or repeated harm to the U.S. industry in the near future. The decision follows the Tariff Act of 1930. On May 9, 2025, the ITC found that responses from domestic parties were adequate, while responses from foreign parties were not. No extra reasons were found to require a full review. The Commission voted to go forward with an expedited review, as stated in section 751(c)(3) of the Act. Commissioner David S. Johanson voted to conduct a full review. People needing more information can contact Kenneth Gatten III at the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission. A staff report with details about the review has been added to the nonpublic record. It will be shared with people on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review on June 4, 2025. A public version will be released after that, following the Commission’s guidelines. Interested parties who qualify may submit written comments to the Secretary of the Commission on what decision should be reached. These comments are due by 5:15 p.m. on June 11, 2025, and cannot include new facts. People who are not parties or interested parties may send a short written statement by the same date, but these, too, must not add new facts. If the Department of Commerce extends its own review, the comment deadline will be three business days after Commerce issues its final results. Comments with business proprietary information (BPI) must follow specific Commission rules. More information on filing can be found in the Handbook on Filing Procedures on the Commission’s website. The Commission found that responses from Great Lakes Minerals, LLC, Imerys Niagara Falls, Inc., U.S. Electrofused Minerals, Inc., and Washington Mills were adequate. Written comments from other parties will not be accepted. All documents filed must be served to all other parties and must include a certificate of service. The Secretary will not accept any document for filing without this certificate. This review is conducted under the authority of Title VII of the Act and follows the Commission’s rules. The notice is published according to section 207.62. The notice was ordered by the Commission and issued on May 20, 2025, by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. Legal Disclaimer 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.