Notice2026-09439
Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting Complainants' Motion for Summary Determination of Violation; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
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
May 12, 2026
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part an initial determination ("ID") (Order No. 16) issued by the presiding administrative law judge ("ALJ") granting Complainants' motion for summary determination of violation, and to request written submissions from the parties on the issues under review and from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons, on remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25921-25923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09439]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1452]
Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II; Notice of a
Commission Determination To Review in Part an Initial Determination
Granting Complainants' Motion for Summary Determination of Violation;
Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on
Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review in part an initial determination
(``ID'') (Order No. 16) issued by the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') granting Complainants' motion for summary determination
of violation, and to request written submissions from the parties on
the issues under review and from the parties, interested government
agencies, and interested persons, on remedy, the public interest, and
bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3459. 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#7e3b3a372d4d361b120e3e0b0d170a1d50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c6968657f1f6449405c6c595f45584f024b435a">[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: On June 17, 2025, the Commission instituted
this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (``section 337''), based on a complaint filed
by Epson America, Inc. of Los Alamitos, California; Epson Portland,
Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon; and Seiko Epson Corporation of Nagano, Japan
(collectively ``Epson''). 90 FR 25644-45 (June 17, 2025). The
complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 based
upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation,
and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ink
cartridges and components thereof by reason of the infringement of
certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,764,172 (``the '172 patent'');
9,370,934 (``the '934 patent''); 11,535,038 (``the '038 patent'');
12,240,248 (``the '248 patent''); and 12,240,249 (``the '249 patent'').
Id. The complaint, as supplemented, further alleged that a domestic
industry (``DI'') exists in the United States. Id.
The Commission's notice of investigation named the following
entities as respondents: Shenzhen Hongxinyuan E-Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/
a Jianjai (``Shenzhen Hongxinyuan'') of Shenzhen, China; Shangrao
Shixuan E-Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a Inkgo (``Shangrao Shixuan'') of
Shangrao, China; Shen Zhen Sailing Technology Limited d/b/a Triple-
Color (``Shen Zhen Sailing'') of Shenzhen, China; Qiong Wang d/b/a 7-
Magic (``Qiong Wang'') of Leizhou City, China; Dongguan Ocbestjet
Digital Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ocbestjet (``Ocbestjet Dongguan'')
of Dongguan City, China; Ocbestjet Printer Consumables (HK) Co., Ltd.
d/b/a Ocbestjet (``Ocbestjet HK'') of Hong Kong, China; Shenzhen
Kaizhen Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a PayForLess (``Kaizhen'') of
Shenzhen, China; ZhuHai MeiJiAn Trading Co., Ltd. d/b/a HaloFox
(``ZhuHai MeiJiAn'') of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai Shuofeng E-commerce Co.,
Ltd. d/b/a super-ink-club (``Shuofeng'') of Zhuhai, China; Tatrix
International China Co., Ltd. (``Tatrix'') of Guangdong, China; Luozhi
Trading Co., Ltd. (``Luozhi'') of Guanzhou, China; Zhuhai Zhenyang
Electronics Co., Ltd. (``Zhenyang'') of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai Hengyunda
Electronics Co., Ltd. (``Hengyunda'') of Zhuhai, China; Zhuhai
Rongtaida Electronics Co., Ltd. (``Rongtaida'') of Zhuhai, China;
Zhuhai Shi Wei Tai Electronics Co., Ltd. (``Shi Wei Tai'') of Zhuhai,
China; Zhuhai Yixing Electronics Co., Ltd. (``Yixing'') of Zhuhai,
China; Zhuhai Bowang Technology Co., Ltd. (``Bowang'') of Zhuhai,
China; Mei Jin Technology HK Co., Ltd. (``Mei Jin'') of Hong Kong,
China; Mountain Peak, Inc. (``Mountain Peak'') of Industry, CA; and
Straightouttaink, LP (``Straightouttaink'') of San Jose, CA. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') was also named as a party in
this investigation. Id.
The Commission previously found respondents Tatrix, Luozhi,
Zhenyang, Hengyunda, Rongtaida, Shi Wei Tai, Yixing, Bowang, Mei Jin,
Mountain Peak, and Straightouttaink in default. See Order No. 8 (Sept.
15, 2025),
[[Page 25922]]
unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 17, 2025). The Commission also
previously found respondents Ocbestjet Dongguan, Ocbestjet HK, Kaizhen,
ZhuHai MeiJiAn, and Shuofeng in default. See Order No. 10 (Dec. 3,
2025), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Dec. 22, 2025).
On January 8, 2026, the Commission terminated the following
respondents from the investigation: Shenzhen Hongxinyuan, Shangrao
Shixuan, Shen Zhen Sailing, and Qiong Wang. See Order No. 11 (Dec. 11,
2025), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 8, 2026).
On January 20, 2026, the Commission terminated the investigation as
to claims 2, 3, 8, and 10 of the '172 patent; claims 8 and 10 of the
'934 patent; claims 12, 17, 19-20, and 24 of the '038 patent; claims
13, 15, and 20-21 of the '248 patent; and claims 2, 8, 13-15, and 20-22
of the '249 patent. Order No. 12 (Dec. 18, 2025), unreviewed by Comm'n
Notice (Jan. 20, 2026).
On February 26, 2026, Epson filed a motion for summary
determination on violation of section 337 by all sixteen remaining
respondents previously found in default in the investigation--Tatrix,
Luozhi, Zhenyang, Hengyunda, Rongtaida, Shi Wei Tai, Yixing, Mei Jin,
Bowang, Mountain Peak, Straightouttaink, Ocbestjet Dongguan, Ocbestjet
HK, Kaizhen, ZhuHai MeiJiAn, and Zhuhai Shuofeng--and requested
issuance of a GEO and CDOs against Mountain Peak and Straightouttaink,
and a bonding of 100 percent.
On March 9, 2026, OUII filed a response generally supporting the
motion, but indicated an evidentiary error pertaining to infringement.
On March 11, 2026, Epson filed corrected exhibits addressing the
evidentiary error OUII identified. On March 13, 2026, OUII filed for
leave to amend its response based on Epson's corrections on March 11,
2026. The ALJ granted OUII's motion for good cause shown.
On March 24, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 16) granting
Epson's motion for summary determination of violation of section 337.
The ID also includes a Recommended Determination recommending that the
Commission issue a GEO for the asserted claims, issue CDOs against
respondents Mountain Peak and Straightouttaink, and set a bond of 100
percent of the entered value of the infringing articles imported during
the period of Presidential review.
No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, the Commission has
determined to review the subject ID in part with respect to the
economic prong of the DI requirement. The Commission has determined not
to review the remainder of the ID.
In connection with its review, the Commission requests that the
parties brief their positions on the following questions with citations
to the existing evidentiary record:
1. Please explain whether Epson has submitted into evidence any
foreign manufacturing or labor investments related to its ink cartridge
business and whether Epson provided any DI economic prong analysis that
considers such foreign investments.
2. Please explain the nature of the ``Insurance'' expenses
presented in the summary of Epson's DI investments, and the basis for
including such expenses in the DI economic prong analysis under section
337(a)(3)(A).
3. Where are each of the domestic industry products manufactured?
What activities related to the domestic industry products take place
outside the United States (please identify which activities correspond
to which domestic industry product)?
4. Does the record permit an assessment of the significance of
Epson's domestic industry investments/expenses that takes into account
all non-U.S. activities, including manufacturing, related to the
domestic industry products? Examples of such an assessment include a
comparison of domestic with foreign investments; a value-added
analysis; or a comparison of domestic investments to non-U.S. cost of
goods sold for the domestic industry products.
5. Please address the ID's findings at pages 49-51 and whether the
ID properly analyzes the significance of the asserted DI investments.
In doing so, please explain the comparison of DI investments in plant
and equipment and labor to ``total COGS and G&A'' referred to on pages
98-99 of Epson's motion for summary determination, including what
comprises ``total COGS and G&A.'' Do you agree with the ID at pages 49-
50 that this comparison is a value-add analysis and that line items
``Materials'' and ``Other'' referred to on page 49 of the ID are
properly treated as foreign expenses as suggested by the ID?
6. Please provide a holistic analysis of the facts of record
pursuant to Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. ITC, 127 F.4th 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2025) regarding (1) whether Epson's investments in plant and
equipment with respect to the domestic industry articles protected by
each asserted patent are significant under subsection 337(a)(3)(A); and
(2) whether Epson's employment of labor or capital with respect to the
domestic industry articles protected by each asserted patent is
significant under subsection 337(a)(3)(B). Please include in your
discussion, all relevant indicia of significance consistent with
judicial and Commission precedents regarding the domestic industry
requirement of section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B).
The parties are invited to brief only the discrete issues requested
above. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are
adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that
could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into
the United States; and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result
in the respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly,
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party
seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate
and provide information establishing that activities involving other
types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so.
For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via
Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op.
at 7-10 (Dec. 1994).
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and
cease and desist orders would have on: (1) the public health and
welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those
that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The
Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions
that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context
of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve,
disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination. See
Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
[[Page 25923]]
During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the
United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. In the initial
submission, Complainants are also requested to identify the remedy
sought and submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's
consideration. Complainants are further requested to state the date
that the asserted patents expire, to provide the HTSUS subheadings
under which the accused products are imported, and to supply the
identification information for all known importers of the products at
issue in this investigation. The initial written submissions and
proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business
on May 22, 2026. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the
close of business on May 29, 2026. Opening submissions from the parties
are limited to 50 pages. Reply submissions from the parties are limited
to 25 pages. All submissions from third parties and/or interested
government agencies are limited to 10 pages. No further submissions on
any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the
Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19
CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number
(``Inv. No. 337-TA-1452'') in a prominent place on the cover page and/
or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
<a href="https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf">https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf</a>).
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary,
(202) 205-2000.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document
with a header indicating that the document contains confidential
information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request
procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b)
& 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-
party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information
must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant
to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-
confidential version of the document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties to the investigation within two
business days of any confidential filing. All information, including
confidential business information and documents for which confidential
treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes
of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding,
or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations
relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government
employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on May 8,
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: May 8, 2026.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-09439 Filed 5-11-26; 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 May 12, 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.