Notice2026-01231
Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 23, 2026
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission") has found a violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has determined to issue a limited exclusion order ("LEO") prohibiting the unlicensed entry of infringing oil vaporizing devices, components thereof, and products containing the same that are manufactured by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, the respondents, and cease and desist orders ("CDOs") against two respondents. The investigation is terminated.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 15 (Friday, January 23, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2960-2962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-01231]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1392]
Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products
Containing the Same; Notice of the Commission's Final Determination
Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion
Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has found a violation of section 337 in the
above-captioned investigation. The Commission has determined to issue a
limited exclusion order (``LEO'') prohibiting the unlicensed entry of
infringing oil vaporizing devices, components thereof, and products
containing the same that are manufactured by or on behalf of, or
imported by or on behalf of, the respondents, and cease and desist
orders (``CDOs'') against two respondents. The investigation is
terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B. Rashmi Borah, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2518. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at <a href="https://edis.usitc.gov">https://edis.usitc.gov</a>. For help accessing EDIS, please email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#084d4c415b3b406d6478487d7b617c6b266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="10555459432358757c605065637964733e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at <a href="https://www.usitc.gov">https://www.usitc.gov</a>. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on March 6, 2024, based on a complaint filed by Complainant. 89 FR
16025-26 (Mar. 6, 2024). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), in the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
after importation of certain oil vaporizing devices, components
thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,369,756 (``the '756 patent'');
11,766,527 (``the '527 patent''); 11,369,757 (``the '757 patent''); and
11,759,580 (``the '580 patent'') (together, the ``Asserted Patents'').
Id. The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id.
The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents: STIIIZY
IP LLC f/k/a STIIIZY, LLC and STIIIZY, Inc. d/b/a Shryne Group Inc.
(collectively, ``STIIIZY''); ALD Group Limited; and ALD Hong Kong
Holdings (collectively, ``ALD'') (together, ``Respondents''). Id. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in the
investigation.
The Commission previously terminated the investigation as to claims
4 and 21 of the '527 patent. Order No. 11 (July 11, 2024), unreviewed
by Comm'n Notice (July 30, 2024). The Commission also terminated the
investigation as to claims 2, 3, 6-9, and 11-17 of the '756 patent;
claims 3-8, 10-12, 14, and 17-19 of the '757 patent; claims 2-3, 6-9,
12-16, 19, 20, 24, 25, and 27-29 of the '527 patent; and claims 2-5, 9,
12-15, and 19 of the '580 patent. Order No. 20 (Sept. 6, 2024),
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Oct. 7, 2024).
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing from October 21-23, 2024.
After the hearing, the Commission terminated the investigation as
to claims 2, 9, and 16 of the '757 patent; claims 23, 26, and 30 of the
'527 patent; and claims 11, 16-18, and 20 of the '580 patent. Order No.
32 (Nov. 8, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Dec. 10, 2024).
As of the issuance of the final initial determination (``FID''),
the remaining asserted claims were: claims 1, 5, and 10 of the '756
patent; claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 22 of the '527 patent; claims
1, 13, 15, and 20 of the '757 patent; and claims 1, 6-8, and 10 of the
'580 patent.
On March 6, 2025, the ALJ issued the FID finding no violation of
section 337. The FID finds that: the accused STIIIZY-LIIIL, the
STIIIZY-1G(C), and the STIIIZY-ORIG-1 products infringe
[[Page 2961]]
at least one claim of each Asserted Patent; the accused STIIIZY-AIO,
the FLARE(C), and the FLARE(V) products each infringe at least one
asserted claim of the '527 and '580 patents; the accused ROVE(C) and
ROVE(V) products each infringe at least one asserted claim of the '527
patent; the accused STIIIZY Redesigned Products and FLARE-REDESIGNS
infringe at least one claim of the '580 patent; the ROVE(C) and ROVE(V)
products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '580 patent; and
the accused ROVE-REDESIGNS do not infringe any asserted claim. The FID
further finds that Respondents induced infringement and contributorily
infringed all asserted claims, none of the asserted claims are invalid
under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and/or 112, ] 1, and Complainant has
satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for
all Asserted Patents. The FID finds, however, that Complainant has not
satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for
any of the Asserted Patents. Id.
The FID also includes the ALJ's recommended determination (``RD'')
on remedy, the public interest, and bonding should the Commission find
a violation of section 337. Specifically, the RD recommends that the
Commission issue a limited exclusion order barring entry of STIIIZY's
and ALD's products that infringe the asserted claims of the Asserted
Patents. The RD also recommends issuing cease and desist orders against
STIIIZY, but not against ALD, because ALD does not maintain significant
commercial operations in the United States. The RD further recommends
that the Commission set a bond of 100 percent for any importations of
infringing products during the period of Presidential review.
On March 18, 2025, Complainant filed a petition seeking review of
the following findings: (1) that certain accused products do not
infringe the asserted claims of the'580 patent; (2) that certain
redesigned products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '756,
'527, or '757 patent; and (3) that Complainant has not satisfied the
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. On the same day,
Respondents filed a petition seeking review of the following findings:
(1) that certain redesigned products infringe the asserted claims of
the '580 patent under the doctrine of equivalents; (2) that claims 1,
6, or 8 of the '580 patent are not invalid as anticipated; and (3) that
Respondents failed to meet their burden to show that a skilled artisan
would have been motivated to combine certain prior art references.
Respondents also asked the Commission to determine: (1) whether
Complainant's investments made while the Complainant was a licensee
should be counted under subsections (A) or (B) of the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement; (2) whether Complainant fails to
satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement because
Complainant's domestic industry expenditures are based on activities
that are illegal under the Controlled Substances Act; and (3) whether
Complainant demonstrated that it had a domestic industry on the date
the complaint was filed. On March 26, 2025, Complainant and Respondents
filed their respective petition responses.
On March 31, 2025, Professor William J. McNichol, Jr., an adjunct
professor at Rutgers Law School, submitted a response to the
Commission's Federal Register notice seeking public interest
submissions. See 90 FR 11851-52 (Mar. 12, 2025). On April 7, 2025, the
Complainant and ALD filed their respective submissions on the public
interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). 19 CFR 210.52(a)(4).
On May 16, 2025, the Commission issued a notice indicating that it
was reviewing the FID's findings that: (1) certain accused products do
not infringe the '580 patent; (2) certain redesigned products infringe
the '580 patent; and (3) Complainant has not satisfied its burden as to
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. See Comm'n
Not. at 3 (May 16, 2025). On review, the Commission determined that
``the FID errs by stating as a bright-line rule that `pre-issuance
investments [are not] cognizable under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 337(a)(3).' '' Id. The Commission remanded the investigation
and directed the ALJ to ``consider whether Complainant's alleged
domestic industry investments were made with respect to the articles
protected by the patent (i.e., the products that the FID finds satisfy
the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement), not limited
by whether those investments were made post-patent issuance.'' Remand
Order at 4 (May 16, 2025).
On July 18, 2025, the ALJ issued the RID finding that Complainant
has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement
under section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B).
On July 30, 2025, Respondents submitted a petition for review of
the RID seeking review of the RID's finding that Complainant was an
exclusive licensee to the Asserted Patents before June 28, 2022, and
that investments made before that date should count towards
Complainant's domestic industry. On August 6, 2025, Complainant
submitted a response to Respondents' petition for review.
On September 17, 2025, the Commission determined to review the
RID's finding that Complainant has satisfied the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement under prongs (A) and (B). 90 FR at 45411.
On review, the Commission affirmed the RID with minor modifications.
Id. at 45411-12. The Commission also sought submissions on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding from the parties, interested government
agencies, and other interested persons. Id. at 45412.
On November 17, 2025, the parties submitted their respective
initial submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On
November 24, 2025, the parties submitted their respective replies. The
Commission also received a second submission from Professor McNichol,
Jr., in response to the Commission's September 17, 2025 Federal
Register notice.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
FID, the parties' petitions for review, the responses thereto, and the
submissions to the Commission regarding remedy, the public interest,
and bonding, the Commission has determined to find a violation of
section 337 as to all of the Asserted Patents. As set forth in the
simultaneously-issued Commission opinion, the Commission reverses the
FID's finding that the ROVE(C), ROVE(V), ROVE-REDESIGN(C), and ROVE-
REDESIGN(V) do not infringe any of asserted claims 1, 6-8, and/or 10 of
the '580 patent. The Commission also affirms with supplemental
reasoning the FID's finding that the STIIIZY-1G-REDESIGN(C), STIIIZY-
ORIG-1G-REDESIGN, and the STIIIZY-AIO-REDESIGN infringe claims 1, 6-8,
and/or 10 of the '580 patent.
The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief
is an LEO prohibiting the unlicensed entry of infringing oil vaporizing
devices, components thereof, and products containing the same that are
manufactured by or on behalf of Respondents or any of their affiliated
companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities,
or their successors or assigns. The Commission has also determined to
issue CDOs against STIIIZY.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest
factors enumerated in subsections (d)(l) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C.
1337(d)(l), (f)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the above-referenced
remedial orders. Additionally, the Commission has
[[Page 2962]]
determined to impose a bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%)
of the infringing products imported during the period of Presidential
review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on January
20, 2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: January 20, 2026.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-01231 Filed 1-22-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 23, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.