USITC Amends Investigation in Semiconductor Patent Case Estimated reading time: 4–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has made an important change in its ongoing investigation into certain foreign-made semiconductor devices and related products. On March 26, 2025, the USITC began an investigation after a complaint was filed by Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., both based in Dublin, Ireland. The complaint said that some companies were breaking the law by importing and selling products in the U.S. that used certain patented technology without permission. The patents involved are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,745,847; 9,093,473; 9,147,747; 9,184,292; and 9,953,880. The original investigation named several companies as respondents, including Lenovo Group Ltd. (LGL) of Hong Kong S.A.R., China. Other companies named were: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (Taiwan) Apple Inc. (California) Broadcom Inc. (California) Motorola (Wuhan) Mobility Technologies Communication Co. (China) Motorola Mobile Communication Technology Ltd. (China) OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. (China) Qualcomm Inc. (California) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) also joined the investigation. On July 1, 2025, Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. filed a motion with LGL. They asked to replace LGL with six other Lenovo-related companies in the complaint and to end the investigation for LGL. The new Lenovo companies are: Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. Lenovo PC International Ltd. Lenovo PC HK Ltd. Lenovo Information Products (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Lenovo Beijing Co., Ltd. Lenovo (United States) Inc. The motion was not opposed by the OUII or any of the other respondents. On July 21, 2025, the administrative law judge agreed to this change. The judge said it was proper to replace LGL with the Lenovo companies and to end the investigation for LGL. The judge found there was good cause for this step. The order said that there were no secret deals between the complainants and LGL, and that making the change would not hurt anyone’s rights or the public interest. It would also save resources for everyone involved. No party asked for a review of the judge’s decision. On August 14, 2025, the USITC decided not to review the judge’s order. This means the complaint and the investigation now include the six Lenovo companies, and Lenovo Group Ltd. is no longer part of the investigation. This decision was made under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission’s rules. The statement was made official by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on August 14, 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 Exclusion Orders on Exercise Equipment Patents Estimated reading time: 5 minutes On August 14, 2025, the U.S. International Trade Commission (the Commission) announced new actions regarding certain exercise equipment and their subassemblies. Patent Infringement Determined The investigation, started on September 27, 2024, followed a complaint by Balanced Body, Inc. of Sacramento, California. The complaint said that some companies brought products into the U.S. that infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,721,511 (“the ‘511 patent”), U.S. Patent No. D659,208 (“the D’208 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. D659,205 (“the D’205 patent”). The companies named in the case were: Guangzhou Oasis, LLC d/b/a trysauna.com (Trysauna) Ciga Pilates of Hong Kong Shandong Tmax Machinery Technology Co. Ltd. (Tmax) Shandong VOG Sports Products Co. Ltd. (VOG Sports) Dezhou Bodi Fitness Equipment Co., Ltd. (Dezhou) Suzhou Selfcipline Sports Goods Co., Ltd. (Selfcipline) Results of the Investigation Ciga Pilates was removed from the investigation after the complaint was withdrawn against it. The remaining companies—Trysauna, Tmax, VOG Sports, Dezhou, and Selfcipline—did not respond and were found in default. The investigation later only focused on claim 1 and claim 19 of the ‘511 patent, and the claims of the D’205 and D’208 patents. The Commission found that VOG Sports, Dezhou, and Selfcipline imported products infringing claim 1 of the ‘511 patent and the claim of the D’208 patent. It was also found that the needed domestic industry exists in the U.S. Commission Remedies The Commission decided that the correct remedies are: A General Exclusion Order (GEO) that bans all imports infringing claim 1 of the ‘511 patent or the claim of the D’208 patent. A Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) that bans imports of products infringing: claim 19 of the ‘511 patent as to VOG Sports, Dezhou, Selfcipline, and Tmax the claim of the D’205 patent as to Trysauna, VOG Sports, Dezhou, Selfcipline, and Tmax This ban applies to imports by or on behalf of these respondents. Public Interest and Bond The Commission reviewed public interest issues as required by law. No responses were filed by the public. The Commission found that issuing these orders does not go against the public interest. Also, a bond of 100% of the value of the imported products covered by the orders must be posted during the presidential review period. End of Investigation With these orders, the investigation is now closed. The Commission’s actions are based on section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). Additional Information The vote took place on August 11, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, issued the notice. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.

U.S. to Investigate Imports of Float Glass from China and Malaysia Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced the schedule for the final phase of its investigation into float glass products imported from China and Malaysia. The investigation will determine if these imports are harming the U.S. industry or threatening to harm it in the future. What Products Are Being Investigated The investigation covers float glass products made by floating molten glass over a bath of tin, cooling it, and then cutting it to size. These products must be at least 2.0 mm thick and have a surface area of at least 0.37 square meters. They can be clear, colored, or coated, such as Low-E glass or mirror stock. Some glass used in shower doors, laminated glass, insulating glass units, and LED mirrors are also included. Glass is still covered even if further worked—such as cut, drilled, or curved—as long as it meets original standards and is first made in China or Malaysia. What Products Are Not Included Certain kinds of glass are not included. These exclusions are: Wired glass, greenhouse glass, and patterned solar glass Safety glass for vehicles Vacuum insulating glass units Framed mirrors without LEDs Unframed over-the-door mirrors ready for use Smaller washing machine lid glass Some solar glass with specific features Metal-camed glass if the parts are already excluded Any glass covered by other existing trade orders, such as aluminum extrusions from China Background and Rules The U.S. Department of Commerce had made preliminary findings that float glass from China and Malaysia was subsidized and sold below fair value. The petitions for the investigation were filed by Vitro Flat Glass, LLC and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC. To take part as a party in the investigation’s final phase, a notice of appearance must be filed no later than 21 days before the hearing. Services and document submissions are handled electronically. Certain information in the investigation may be confidential and handled under a protective order. Parties who had access before do not need to reapply. Key Dates to Know The prehearing staff report will be placed in the record on November 10, 2025; a public version will come later. The main hearing will be at 9:30 a.m. on November 25, 2025. Requests to appear must be made by November 19, 2025. Remote testimony is allowed under specific circumstances. Prehearing briefs are due by November 18, 2025. Posthearing briefs and written public statements are due by December 2, 2025. Final comments from parties are due December 18, 2025. All filings must be electronic. Paper copies are not accepted at this time. How to Participate Anyone can submit written statements, even if not a party to the investigation. Any submissions must follow the detailed Commission rules. Documents must be served to all parties, with proof of service filed. Submissions that do not meet requirements will not be accepted. Authority The investigation is being conducted under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, signed the notice. Reference: Federal Register Volume 90, Number 154 (August 13, 2025), Notice 2025-15343. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.

USITC Schedules Final Phase of Investigations Into Active Anode Material Imports From China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has released a notice about the final phase of investigations into imports of active anode material from China. These investigations cover both antidumping and countervailing duties. The aim is to decide if U.S. industries have been harmed or threatened by these imported materials. The case concerns active anode material, which is an anode-grade graphite material with at least 90% carbon by weight. It can be synthetic, natural, or blended graphite. It is included whether or not it has a coating. The material can come as powder, dry, liquid, or block. It is usually up to 80 microns in powder form. It must have an energy density of 330 milliamp hours per gram or more and graphitization of at least 80%. The product counts as active anode material even if mixed with silicon-based materials like silicon-oxide, silicon-carbon, or silicon, or with additives such as carbon black or nanotubes. It does not matter if it is imported alone, as part of a compound, in a battery, as a component of an anode slurry, or within a subassembly such as an electrode. But only the anode-grade graphite is covered in these cases. The Department of Commerce already made preliminary findings that some manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China are getting subsidies, and the material is being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value. The investigation began after petitions were filed on December 18, 2024, by the American Active Anode Material Producers. Its members are Anovion Technologies (Sanborn, NY), Syrah Technologies LLC (Vidalia, LA), NOVONIX Anode Materials LLC (Chattanooga, TN), Epsilon Advanced Materials (Leland, NC), and SKI US, Inc. (Marietta, GA). The schedule for the final phase is as follows: A staff report will go on the nonpublic record on November 14, 2025. A public version will come out after that. A hearing is set for December 4, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. Requests to appear at the hearing are due by November 24, 2025. A prehearing conference is set for December 3, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. Written testimony for the hearing is due by noon on December 3, 2025. Prehearing briefs are due by November 21, 2025. Posthearing briefs are due by December 11, 2025. Final comments may be submitted by December 31, 2025. Only electronic filings will be accepted. Submissions must be made through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. No in-person paper filings are allowed until further notice. Business proprietary information (BPI) will be shared only with authorized applicants under an administrative protective order (APO). Applications for access must be made at least 21 days before the hearing date. All filings must follow the Commission’s rules. Parties and their representatives must be listed in a public service list, which the Secretary to the Commission will maintain. Each document must be served to all other parties with a certificate of service. Further details on hearing rules, participation as a nonparty, and filing procedures are provided on the USITC’s website at https://www.usitc.gov. The notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on August 11, 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 Schedules Expedited Review for Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced the scheduling of an expedited five-year review. The review concerns the countervailing duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China. This notice was published on August 13, 2025, in the Federal Register. The purpose of the review is to decide if lifting the duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China would likely cause continued or new injury to the U.S. industry within a foreseeable time. The review falls under the Tariff Act of 1930. On July 7, 2025, the Commission found the domestic interested party group response to its earlier notice of institution was adequate. The respondent interested party group response was found inadequate. No other circumstances required a full review. As a result, the Commission chose to conduct an expedited review as allowed by section 751(c)(3) of the Act. The staff report with information about the review has been added to the nonpublic record. This report will be available to people on the Administrative Protective Order service list on September 4, 2025. A public version will be released later, according to the Commission’s rules. Those who are parties to the review and who gave adequate responses can submit written comments to the Secretary. The comments must state what determination the Commission should make in the review. Comments are due by 5:15 p.m. on September 9, 2025. These comments cannot include new factual information. Anyone who is not a party to the review or an interested party may submit a brief written statement. These must also be sent by September 9, 2025, and must not contain new facts. If the Department of Commerce extends its review time, comments are due three business days after Commerce announces its results. If comments include business proprietary information, they must follow the requirements in sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s “Handbook on Filing Procedures” gives detailed instructions. The Commission has found responses from Bio-Lab, Inc., Innovative Water Care, LLC, and Occidental Chemical Corporation to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted. Every document filed must be served on all other parties, and a certificate of service must be filed. Documents without a certificate of service will not be accepted. This review is considered extraordinarily complicated. The Commission is using its authority to lengthen the review period by up to 90 days, according to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). The review is being done under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The notice was published on August 13, 2025. For more information, contact Alexis Yim at the Office of Investigations, USITC, or visit the Commission’s website. Issued by order of the Commission August 11, 2025 Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.

U.S. International Trade Commission Ends Five-Year Review of Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico Estimated reading time: 2–4 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced the termination of its five-year review of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. This review began on August 1, 2024. Its purpose was to decide if ending the agreement that suspended the antidumping duty investigation would hurt the U.S. tomato industry. On July 14, 2025, the Department of Commerce officially withdrew from and ended the 2019 Agreement that had suspended the antidumping investigation into Mexican tomatoes. Commerce also issued the antidumping duty order. This action was reported in the Federal Register on July 17, 2025 (Volume 90, FR 33363). Because the 2019 Agreement is no longer in effect, there is nothing left for the USITC to review. The Commission has now formally ended its five-year review of this matter. For more information, you may contact Lawrence Jones at the USITC, Office of Investigations, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, or by phone at 202-205-3358. Information for hearing-impaired people is available through the TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. People with mobility issues needing help to access the Commission can call the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General details about the Commission can be found at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation is at https://edis.usitc.gov. This decision was issued by order of the Commission. It was made public on July 25, 2025, by Susan Orndoff, Secretary to the Commission. This notice was published under legal authority from title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as well as the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. 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. Starts Expedited Review of Wooden Cabinets and Vanities From China Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has begun expedited five-year reviews of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. This announcement was made on July 31, 2025. The review will decide if ending the orders on these imports would likely cause material injury to U.S. producers again within a reasonable time. The decision for an expedited process happened after USITC found that only the domestic interested parties gave enough response to the notice of institution, while responses from the foreign side were not enough. No other factors were found to require a full review. These expedited reviews are being done under section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)). More details about the rules can be found in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 201 and part 207). On July 30, 2025, a staff report with details for these reviews was placed in the nonpublic record for those on the Administrative Protective Order service list. A public version will be released later, following the rules. Interested parties who provided individually adequate responses—including MasterBrand Cabinets, LLC, and the American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance—may file written comments. All comments must be received by August 7, 2025. Comments cannot include new factual information. Non-parties may also submit short statements by August 7, 2025. If the Department of Commerce extends time for its review, the deadline for comments will be three business days after Commerce’s final decision. Comments with business proprietary information must follow the requirements in the rules (Sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7, among others). All documents must include a certificate of service showing they were shared with all other parties in the review. The Commission found this review to be extraordinarily complicated and has used its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days under 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). These reviews are being done under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, and this notice was published to meet requirement in Section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. For more information, visit the USITC’s website at https://www.usitc.gov. Issued by order of the Commission on July 29, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.

U.S. Starts Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Sheet Imports from South Korea Estimated reading time: 5–10 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has announced the start of a five-year review on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) sheets imported from South Korea. This review will decide if removing the antidumping duty order on these PET sheets will likely cause harm to U.S. makers of this product. The public is asked to give information to the USITC about this decision. Key Dates and Rules The review began on August 1, 2025. People interested in this case must send their responses by September 2, 2025. Comments on these responses can be given by October 10, 2025. People who want to join the case must file an entry within 21 days of this notice. The USITC will keep a list of all people taking part. About the Antidumping Duty Order On September 10, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce made a rule to charge extra duties on PET sheets from South Korea. The USITC is now deciding if lifting this rule would hurt U.S. businesses. The USITC uses its own set of rules for reviews. If there are not enough detailed responses from interested people, the USITC may make its decision using all the data it has. Important Definitions Subject Merchandise: PET sheets that are part of this review. Subject Country: South Korea. Domestic Like Product: PET sheets made in the U.S. Domestic Industry: All U.S. companies making PET sheets, except one. Order Date: September 10, 2020, when duties began. Who Can Take Part People or groups who use or sell the PET sheets can take part. Worker groups, companies, and consumer organizations can also join by registering with the USITC. Former USITC workers can take part even if they worked on earlier cases. How to Submit Info Anyone giving information must make sure it is true and complete. Documents must be sent online using the USITC’s system, not on paper. Detailed steps are on the USITC’s website. If you cannot give all asked information, you must explain why. What Info Is Needed The USITC has asked for detailed facts, including: Name, address, and contact details. How you are involved or interested in the case. Willingness to take part. How lifting the duties will affect U.S. makers and your own business. Lists of U.S. makers, importers, and exporters of PET sheets. Lists of big buyers in the U.S. Information on prices. Production and sales data from U.S. companies in 2024. Import data for U.S. importers. Export and production data for South Korean makers. Any big changes in how these products are made or used since September 2020. (Optional) Agree or not with how the USITC defines the products and industry. Special Notes People giving information for groups should share data from all their members. All details must follow USITC rules, especially if the data is secret for business reasons. Contact Details For questions, contact Rachel Devenney of the Office of Investigations at 202-205-3172. More information is at www.usitc.gov. Authority This review is done under the Tariff Act of 1930. The official notice was issued on July 25, 2025, by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. (Source: Federal Register, August 1, 2025, Vol. 90, No. 146, Pages 36181-36184) 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 Begins Second Review of Duties on Solar Products from China and Taiwan Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) has started a five-year review of rules about crystalline silicon photovoltaic products, also known as certain types of solar panels, from China and Taiwan. The review began on August 1, 2025. The review will decide if removing current duties—a type of tax—on these products would hurt the solar panel industry in the United States. The review looks at both antidumping and countervailing duties against China, and antidumping duties against Taiwan. Background In 2015, the Department of Commerce placed special duties on solar products from China because of unfair pricing and government support. Taiwan was also named in the orders for selling products at less than fair value. The orders were continued after a review in 2020. Now, as required by law, the USITC will again consider if those duties are still needed. If the Commission finds that removing the duties will hurt U.S. businesses, the duties can stay in place. Key Details The USITC calls the solar panels “Subject Merchandise.” The review covers China and Taiwan (“Subject Countries”). US makers of similar solar products are considered the “Domestic Industry.” The main issue is if ending the duties hurts these U.S. producers. People or groups—including importers, producers, unions, and business associations—who want to take part as parties in the review must file paperwork within 21 days after the notice. How to Respond Anyone sending information to the USITC must give: The name, address, and contact details of their business or group. A statement about who they are—such as a producer, importer, or association. Whether they will give information during the process. Details on how taking away the duties would affect them and the U.S. solar industry. Lists of companies making or importing covered solar panels, leading buyers, and sources for price info. Producers and importers also have to give data about their sales, production, and profit for 2024. This includes numbers of panels sold, value of sales, manufacturing costs, and operating income. Deadlines All responses must be given by September 2, 2025, at 5:15 p.m. Comments about the adequacy of the responses can be submitted by October 10, 2025, at 5:15 p.m. Submitting Information The USITC only accepts electronic filings, using its Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. No paper copies will be accepted for now. If someone cannot give the requested information, they must explain why and offer other ways to provide similar information. Not responding fully may lead the USITC to use negative assumptions about the missing information. Other Rules Some confidential business data will be shared only with authorized people under a protective order. Anyone submitting data must certify that it is true and complete. Past USITC employees can participate in these five-year reviews even if they worked on earlier stages of the case. Further Information To learn more or get help, contact Julie Duffy at the USITC, telephone 202-708-2579. For document filing help, visit https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf. Authority for this review comes from the Tariff Act of 1930, as stated in the USITC’s rules. Issued July 25, 2025 By order of the Commission Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.

U.S. Trade Commission Sets Schedule for Final Phase of Erythritol Imports Investigation Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes What Is the Investigation About? The USITC is looking into whether U.S. industry is being hurt by erythritol imports from China. Erythritol is a sugar alcohol often used as a sweetener. The U.S. Department of Commerce found that erythritol from China may be sold in the U.S. at unfairly low prices and might be getting subsidies from the Chinese government. Why Is This Happening? These investigations started with petitions filed on December 13, 2024, by Cargill, Incorporated. Cargill believes that the imports from China are being sold at prices below fair value and that Chinese exporters are receiving government help. The main question is whether U.S. companies that produce erythritol are being harmed or facing a threat from these imports. What Products Are Included? Erythritol, with the chemical formula C4H10O4 and CAS number 149-32-6, is covered under this investigation. It is included even if it is in different forms—like crystals or powder—or is labeled organic. Erythritol is used as a sweetener in foods, drinks, and other items. How Does the Investigation Work? The investigation follows the rules set by the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission will decide if the imports are causing actual harm or a threat of harm to the U.S. industry. If harm is found, it may lead to new duties on erythritol imports from China. Important Dates and Information July 16, 2025: Start date for this phase of the investigation. November 17, 2025: The staff report will be released to authorized parties in a non-public version. The public version will come later. November 24, 2025: Deadline for prehearing briefs. November 25, 2025: Deadline to request to appear at the hearing. December 1, 2025: Prehearing conference at 9:30 a.m.; written testimony and presentation slides are due by noon. December 2, 2025: The official hearing begins at 9:30 a.m. December 9, 2025: Deadline for posthearing briefs and for anyone else to submit comments. December 22, 2025: All new information will be made available to the parties. December 24, 2025: Final comments on new information are due. How Can People Take Part? Anyone who wants to take part in the final phase must file an appearance with the Secretary to the Commission. They have to do this no later than 21 days before the hearing. Only electronic filings are accepted using the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Interested parties can also get access to certain confidential information if they apply on time. The rules for handling and sharing this information are strict, and all participants must follow them. Public Participation Organizations, companies, and even people who use erythritol may take part. Comments or statements can be sent to the Commission on or before December 9, 2025. Final comments on information shared by the Commission are due December 24, 2025. Rules and Contact Information The investigation will follow USITC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. For details, participants can check the USITC website or call Celia Feldpausch at (202) 205-2387. All procedures and deadlines must be followed closely. The notice was ordered by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, and published on August 1, 2025. For more information and updates, visit https://www.usitc.gov. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.

United States Finds Injury from Brake Drum Imports from China and Turkey Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes On August 4, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced its final determination on brake drum imports from China and Turkey. The USITC found that the U.S. industry is being harmed by these imports. The brake drums are included under subheading 8708.30.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The decision states that brake drums from China and Turkey are being sold in the United States for less than fair value. The U.S. Department of Commerce also found that these imports are being subsidized by the governments of China and Turkey. Webb Wheel Products, Inc., located in Cullman, Alabama, filed the original petition on June 20, 2024. This started the investigation by the USITC and Commerce. The Commission scheduled the final part of its investigation after Commerce made initial findings that imports from China and Turkey were subsidized and sold at less than fair value. A public hearing was held by the USITC on June 17, 2025, in Washington, DC. The notice about the hearing was published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2025. The USITC made its final determinations under sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The details of the findings are in USITC Publication 5651 (August 2025), called “Brake Drums from China and Turkey: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-729-730 and 731-TA-1698-1699 (Final)”. The notice was prepared by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. For more details, the official Federal Register notice is No. 2025-14994, filed on August 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 Finds Injury From Chinese Low Speed Transportation Vehicle Imports Estimated reading time: 3–5 minutes On August 7, 2025, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) announced its findings on low speed personal transportation vehicles from China. The USITC decided that the United States industry is being hurt by imports of these vehicles from China. These vehicles are listed under codes 8703.10.50, 8703.90.01, 8706.00.15, and 8707.10.00 in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. The U.S. Department of Commerce found that these vehicles from China are being sold in the United States for less than fair value. Commerce also found that the Chinese government is giving support to these exports. The USITC also found that certain imports, included in Commerce’s “critical circumstances” determination, are likely to harm the effects of new import rules on these vehicles. One commissioner, David S. Johanson, disagreed with this part. The USITC started its investigation in June 2024. The investigation began after the American Personal Transportation Vehicle Manufacturers Coalition filed petitions. This group includes Club Car, LLC, from Evans, Georgia, and Textron Specialized Vehicles, Inc., from Augusta, Georgia. The final steps of the investigation were scheduled after Commerce gave its first findings about unfair pricing and government support. The USITC held a public hearing on June 12, 2025, allowing everyone who asked to take part. The findings were made following sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The USITC finished and filed these results on August 4, 2025. Full details can be found in USITC Publication 5652, titled “Low Speed Personal Transportation Vehicles from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-731 and 731-TA-1700 (Final).” This notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.

US International Trade Commission Revises Hexamine Investigation Schedule Estimated reading time: 1–3 minutes The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) is conducting investigations on Hexamine (Hexamethylenetetramine) from China, Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. These investigations are under Investigation Numbers 701-TA-737-738 and 731-TA-1712-1715 (Final). The USITC announced a revised schedule for these investigations. The announcement was made on July 10, 2025. The Commission will now make its final release of information on August 11, 2025. All final party comments must be submitted by 5:15 p.m. on August 13, 2025. The investigations are being done under the authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930. The new dates are published in line with Section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. For more information, Charles Cummings is the contact at the Office of Investigations, USITC. The office is located at 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The phone number for Mr. Cummings is 202-708-1666. People with hearing impairments can get information by calling the TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. People with mobility impairments needing special access should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information about the Commission is available at https://www.usitc.gov. The investigation’s public record can be seen on the electronic docket at https://edis.usitc.gov. The notice was issued by Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission, on July 10, 2025. The official document is listed as FR Doc. 2025-13146, and appeared in the Federal Register, Volume 90, Number 132, on Monday, July 14, 2025, page 31241. Legal Disclaimer This article includes content collected from the Federal Register (federalregister.gov). The content is not an official government publication. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific consultation, please contact us. Read our full Legal Disclaimer, which also includes information on translation accuracy.

U.S. International Trade Commission Ends Investigation on Cochlear Implants Estimated reading time: 2–3 minutes The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has ended its investigation into certain cochlear implant systems and parts. This decision comes after a joint motion by the parties involved to settle the case. The investigation began on September 23, 2024. The case was based on a complaint by Advanced Bionics AG of Switzerland and Advanced Bionics LLC of California. They believed that MED-EL Corporation, USA, and MED-EL Elektromedizinische Gerate GmbH of Austria brought products into the U.S. that infringed on their patents. The patents involved were U.S. Patent No. 7,317,945 and U.S. Patent No. 8,422,706. The complaint also said a U.S. industry exists for these products. On April 21, 2025, the ITC ended part of the case. Some claims of both patents were dropped after Advanced Bionics made a motion to withdraw parts of their complaint. On May 30, 2025, the parties asked together to end the investigation because they had reached a confidential settlement. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations supported this request. On June 12, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge approved the joint motion to end the investigation. The judge found no other agreements between the parties besides the settlement. The judge also said that ending the case would not hurt the public interest and would save resources. No one asked the Commission to review the judge’s decision. On July 7, 2025, the Commission agreed not to review it. The investigation is now officially over. The investigation followed Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. For more information, the ITC can be reached at their Washington, DC office or online via their Electronic Docket (EDIS) system. Issued by: Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission [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. 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.