Certain Water Filters and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1126

U.S. International Trade Commission
Publication 5082 	June 2020
Washington, DC 20436
In the Matter of
337-TA-1126
CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF

U.S. International Trade Commission
COMMISSIONERS
David S. Johanson, Chairman
Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Commissioner
Jason E. Kearns, Commissioner
Randolph J. Stayin, Commissioner
Amy A. Karpel, Commissioner
Address all communications to
Secretary to the Commission
United States International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436
www.usitc.gov
Publication 5082 	June 2020
In the Matter of
337-TA-1126
CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
- 	Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
' 	Investigation No. 337-TA-1126
CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
' ISSUANCE OF A GENERAL 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 has issued a
general exclusion order (“GEO”) denying entry of certain water filters and components thereof
as well as two cease and desist orders (“CDOs”). The investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORIVIATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Intemational Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205-3228. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Intemet server at httgs://www.usitc. gov. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at httgss//edis.usitc. gov. 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 .
August 1, 2018, based on a complaint, as amended, filed on behalf of Electrolux Home Products,
Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, and KX Technologies, LLC of West Haven, Comiecticut
(collectively, “Complainants”). 83 Fed. Reg. 37514 (Aug. 1, 2018). The complaint alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”)
based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the
United States afler importation of certain water filters and components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,673,146 (“the ’146 patent”), 8,137,551
(“the ’551 patent”), 9,233,322 (“the ’322 patent”), and 9,901,852 (“the ’852 patent”). Id. The
Commission’s notice of investigation names eight respondents. Id. The Office of Unfair
Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation.

On October 3, 2018, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding certain.respondents
in default, specifically, Shenzen Calux Purification Technology Co., Limited (“Calux”); JiangSu
Angkua Environmental Technical Co., Ltd. (“Angkua Environmental”); and Shenzhen Dakon
Purification Tech Co., Ltd. (collectively, “the Defaulting Respondents”). See Order No. 9 (Oct.
3, 2018), not reviewed, Notice (Oct. 25, 2018). The remaining respondents, specifically,
Ningbo Pureza Limited; HongKong Ecoaqua Co., Limited; Ecolife Technologies, Inc.; Ecopure
Filter Co., Ltd.; and Crystala Filters LLC, were terminated from the investigation due to
settlement. See Order Nos. 14, 15, 16, not reviewed, Notice (April 1, 2019).
On February 12, 2019, Complainants filed a motion for summary detennination of
violation of section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents. Complainants requested a general
exclusion order (“GEO”) and cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) against all three Defaulting
Respondents. On March 8, 2019, OUII filed a response supporting a finding of a violation as
well as the requested remedies of a GEO and CDOs for two of the Defaulting Respondents
(Calux and Angkua Enviromnental). 	.
The ALJ issued the subject ID on July 11, 2019, granting the motion for summary
determination and finding a violation of section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents. _
Specifically, the ID found that Complainants established infringement of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 15
of the ’146 patent,‘claim 49 of the ’551 patent, claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ’322 patent, and
claims l, 4-6, 9-11, 14-18, and 21-31 of the ’852 patent with respect to each Defaulting 1
Respondents’ accused product(s) by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. The ALJ
recommended that the Commission issue a GEO and CDOs against Calux and Angkua
Enviromnental. The ALJ also recommended setting a bond during Presidential review in the
amount of 100 percent. Id. No party petitioned for review of the subject ID.
On August 28, 2019, the Commission issued a Notice stating that the Commission
determined to review the ID in part and, on review, to correct an error in a citation and a typo.
84 Fed. Reg. 45170 (Aug. 28, 2019). The Commission’s determination resulted in finding a
violation of section 337. Id. The Notice also requested Written submissions on remedy, the
public interest, and bonding. See id. 	_ 	.
On September 6, 2019, Complainants submitted a brief on remedy, the public interest,
and bonding, requesting that the Commission issue a GEO, issue CDOs against two of the three
Defaulting Respondents, and set a bond of 100 percent during the Presidential review period.
On the same day, OUII also submitted a brief on remedy, the public interest, and bonding,
supporting the ALJ’s recommended GEO, CDOs against two of the Defaulting Respondents, and
bond in the amount of 100 percent. On September 13, 2019, OUII submitted a reply to
Complainants’ opening brief. No other submissions were filed in response to the Notice.
The Commission finds that the statutory requirements for relief under section 337(d)(2)' '
are met with respect to the Defaulting Respondents. See 19 U.S.C. l337(d)(2). In addition, the
2 .

Commission finds that the public interest factors enmnerated in section 337(d)(l) do not
preclude issuance of statutory relief. ' See id. at 1337(d)(l).
The Commission has detennined that the appropriate remedy in this investigation is:
(1) a GEO prohibiting the unlicensed entry of certain water filters and components thereof that
infringe one or more of claims 1—3,6, and 7 of the ’146 patent; claim 49 of the ’55l patent; 1
claims l-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the l’322patent; and claims 14-18 and 21-31 of the ’852 patent;
and (2) CDOs against Angkua Envirornnental and Calux. The Commission has also determined
that the bond during the period of Presidential review pursuant to 19 U.S.C. l337(j) shall be in
the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the imported articles that are subject to the ‘
GEO and CDOs. The Commission’s orders were delivered to the President and to the United
States Trade Representative on the day of its issuance. The investigation is tenninated.
The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the
TariffAct of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 ofthe Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210. 	' ,
By order of the Commission.
flw
V 	Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: November 12, 2019 	1
3

CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. No. -337-TA-1126
THEREOF 	r
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 	,
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Claire Comfort, Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on November 12, 2019.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Electrolux Home Products. lnc.: 	i
Andrew F. Pratt, Esq. 	U Via Hand Delivery
VENEABLE I-‘LP 	i 	X Via Express Delivery
600 Massachusetts Ave NW 	U Via Fkst Class Mail
Washington, D.C. 20001 	U Other:
On Behalf of Complainant KX Technologies, LLC:
R0b6I'I Cl11‘Ci0,ESq. 	i [II Via Hand Delivery
DELIO, PETERSON & CURCIO LLC 	Via Express Delivery
700 State Street, Suite 402 	' U Via first Class Mail
New Haven, CT 06511 	D Other:

' UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 	‘
In the Matter of
CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND _ 	Investigation No. 337-TA-1126 .
COMPONENTS THEREOF
GENERAL EXCLUSION ORDER
The United States Intemational Trade Commission (“Commission”) has detennined that
there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337
(“section 337”), in the unlawful importation, sale for importation, or sale within the United
States after importation of certain water filter cartridges for refrigerators, including Waterfilter
cartridge assemblies and interconnection subassemblies, that infringe one or more of claims 1-3,
6, and 7 ofU.S. Patent No. 8,673,146 (“the ’l46 patent”); claim 49 of U.S. Patent No. 8,137,551
(“the ’551 patent”); claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12~15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,233,322 (“the
’322 patent”); and claims 14—18and 21-31 ofU.S. Patent No. 9,901,852 (“the ’852 patent”).
_ Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the written submissions of
the parties, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. The Commission has determined that a general exclusion from entry
for consumption is necessary to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to ,
products of named persons and because there is a pattern of violation of section 337 and it is
difficult to identify the source of the infringing products. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined to issue a general exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation of
1

infringing water filter cartridges for refrigerators, including water filter cartridgeassemblies
and interconnection subassemblies.
The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in
19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) do not preclude the issuance of the general exclusion order, and that the
bond during the period of Presidential review shall be in the amount of one hundred (100)
percent of the entered ‘valueof the articles in question.
Accordin‘gly,'theCommission hereby ORDERS that:
1. Water filter cartridges for refrigerators, including water filter cartridge
assemblies and interconnection subassemblies, that infringe one or more of
claims 1-3, 6, and 7 of the ’146 patent; claim 49 of the ’55l patent; claims 1
3, 7—9,and 12-15 ofthe "322 patent; and claims 14-18 and 21-31 ofthe
’852 patent (“covered articles”) are excluded from entry for consumption into
the United States, entry for consumption from a foreign trade zone, or
withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining term of the
patents, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Order, covered articles are entitled to
entry into the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a
foreign trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption under
bond in the amount of 100 percent (100%) of the entered value of the '
products, pursuant to subsection (j) of Section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(i)) and
the Presidential Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative of
July 21, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 43,251), from the day after this Order is received
by the United States Trade Representative until such time as the United States
2

Trade Representative notifies the Commission that this Order is approved or
disapproved but, in any event, not later than sixty (60) days after the date of
receipt of this Order. All entries of covered articles made pursuant to this
paragraph are to be reported to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”),
in advance of the date of the entry, pursuant to procedures CBP establishes.
At the discretion of CBP and pursuant to the procedures it establishes, persons
seeking to import covered articles that are potentially subject to this Order
may be required to certify that they are familiar with the terms of this Order,
that they have made appropriate inquiry, and thereupon state that, to the best
of their knowledge and belief, the products being imported are not excluded
from entry under paragraph 1 of this Order. At its discretion, CBP may
require persons who have provided the certification described in this
paragraph to furnish such records or analyses to substantiate the certification.
In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1337(1),the provisions of this Order shall not
apply to covered articles that are imported by and for the use of the United
States, or imported for, and to be used for, the United States with the
authorization or consent of the Government.
The Commission may modify this Order in accordance with the procedures
described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 § 210.76).
The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this
investigation and upon CBP.
3

7. Notice of this Order shall be published in the Federal Register.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: November 12, 2019
\
W29
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission

CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1126
THEREOF 	V
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached COMMISSION ORDER has been
served by hand upon the Commission Investigative Attomey, Claire Comfort, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on November 12, 2019.
?¢?fiLisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Electrolux Home Products. Inc.:
Andrew F. Pratt, Esq. 	El Via Hand Delivery
VENEABLE LLP 	IX]Via Express Delivery
600 Massachusetts Ave NW 	U Via First Class Man
Washington, D.C. 20001 	E] Other:
On Behalf of Complainant KX Technologies. LLC:
Robelt Curcio, Esq. 	El Via Hand Delivery
DELIO, PETERSON & CURCIO LLC 	E Via Express Delively
700 State Street, Suite 402 	U Via First Class Mail
New Haven, CT 06511 	U Other:

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
‘Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
Investigation No. 337-TA-1126
CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND 	g
COMPONENTS THEREOF 	. ’
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Shenzen Calux Purification Technology Co.,
Limited of Guangdong, China cease and desist from conducting any of the following activities in
the United States: importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing,
transferring (except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or distributors, and aiding or
abetting other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale afier importation, transfer
(except for exportation), or distribution of water filter cartridges for refrigerators, including Water
filter cartridge assemblies and interconnection subassemblies, that infringe one or more of claims
1-3, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,673,146 (“the ’146 patent”); claim 49 of U.S. Patent'No._
8,137,551 (“the ’551 patent”); claims 1'-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,233,322 (“the
’322 patent”); and claims 14-18 and 21-31 of U.S; Patent No. 9,901,852 (“the ’852 patent”)
(collectively, “the asserted patents”) in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C; § 1337) (“section 337”). 	,
I.
Definitions
As used in this order:
(A) “Commission” shall mean the United States International Trade Commission.
1

(B) " “Complainants” shall mean Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and KX
Technologies, LLC.
(C) “Respondent” shall mean Shenzen Calux Purification Teclmology Co., Limited of
Guangdong, China. 	,
(D) “Person” shall mean an individual, or any non-governmental partnership, firm,
association, corporation, or other legal or business entity other than Respondent or
itsmajority-owned or controlled subsidiaries, successors, or assigns.
(E) “United States” shall mean the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.
(F) The tenns “import” and “importation” refer to importation for entry for
consumption under the Customs laws of the United States.»
_ (G) The term “covered products” shall mean water filter cartridges for refrigerators,
including water filter cartridge assemblies and interconnection subassemblies, that
infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 6, and 7 of the ’146 patent; claim‘49 of the
’551 patent; claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ’322 patent; and claims 14—18and
2l—3l of the ’852 patent. Covered products shall not include articles for which a
provision of law orlicense avoids liability for infringement.
II.
Applicability A V'
' _ The provisions of this Cease and Desist Order shall apply to Respondent and to any of its
principals, stockholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, licensees, distributors, controlled
(whether by stock ownership or otherwise) and majority-owned business entities, successors, and
assigns, and toeach of them, insofar as they are engaging in conduct prohibited by section III,
infia, for, with, or otherwise on behalf of, Respondent.
2

III.
Conduct Prohibited
The following conduct of Respondent in the United States is prohibited by this Order.
For the remaining terms of the asserted patents, Respondent shall not:
(A) import or sell for importation into the United States covered products;
(B) market, distribute, sell, or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) imported
covered products; 	"
(C) advertise imported covered products; 	_
(D) solicit U.S. agents or distributors for imported covered products; or
(E) aid or abet other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after
importation, transfer, or distribution of covered products. l
IV.
Conduct Permitted
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, specific conduct otherwise prohibited
by the terms of this Order shall be permitted if: 	_
(A) in‘a written instrument, the owner of the asserted patents licenses or authorizes
such specific conduct; or
(B) such specific conduct is related to the importation or sale of covered products by
T or for the United States.
V.
_ Reporting
For purposes of this requirement, the reporting periods shall commence on July 1 of each
year and shall end on the subsequent June 30. The first report required under this section shall‘
cover the period from the date of issuance of this order through June 30, 2020. This reporting
3

requirement shall continue in force until such time as Respondent has truthfully reported, in two
consecutive timely filed reports, that it has no inventory of covered products in the United States.
g Within thirty (30) days of the last day of the reporting period, Respondent shall report to
the Commission: (a) the quantity in units and the value in dollars of covered products that it has
imported and/or (ii) sold in the United States after importation during the reporting period, and
(b) the quantity in units and value in dollars of reported covered products that remain in
inventory in the United States at the end of the reporting period. 	V
When filing written submissions, Respondent must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to
the Office of the Secretary by noon the nextday pursuant to section 2l0.4(1‘)of the
Commissi0n’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 2lO.4(t)). Submissions should refer
to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1126”) in a prominent place on the cover pages
and/or the first page. See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, ‘
http://vvww.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000). If
Respondent desires to submit a document to the Commission in confidence, it must file the
original and a public version of the original with the Office of the Secretary and must serve a
copy of the confidential version on Complainant’s counsel} 	'
Any failure to make the required report or the filing of any false or inacctuate report shall
constitute a violation of this Order, and the submission of a false orinaccurate report may be
referred to the U.S. Department of Justice as a possible criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
1Complainants must file a letter with the Secretary identifying the attorney to receive
reports and bond information associated with this Order. The designated attomey must be on the
protective order entered in the investigation.
4

A)
(B)
, VI.
Record-Keeping and Inspection ‘ 	~
For the purpose of securing compliance with-this Order, Respondent shall retain
any and all records relating to the sale, offer for sale, marketing, or distribution in
the United States of covered products, made and received in the usual and
ordinary course of business, whether in detail or in summary fonn, for a period of
three (3) years from the close of the fiscal year to which they pertain.
For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Order and for
no other purpose, subject to any privilege recognized by the federal courts of the
United States, and upon reasonable written notice by the Commission or its staff,
duly authorized representatives of the Commission shall be pennitted access and
the right to inspect and copy, in Respondent’s principal offices during office
hours, and in the presence of counsel or other representatives if Respondent so
chooses, all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda,_and other
records and documents, in detail and in summary form, that must be retained
under subparagraph VI(A) of this Order.
' . VII.
Service of Cease and Desist Order
Respondent is ordered and directed to:
(A) Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this Order, a copy of this
Order upon each of its respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents, and
employees who have any responsibility for the importation, marketing,
distribution, or sale of imported covered products in the United States;
(B) Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the succession of any persons referred to in
5

subparagraph VII(A) of this order, a copy of the Order upon each successor; and
(C) Maintain such records as will show the name, title, and address of each person
upon whom the Order has been served, as described in subparagraphs VII(A) and
VII(B) of this order, together with the date on which service was made.
The obligations set forth in subparagraphs VIl(B) and VII(C) shall remain in effect Lmtil
the expiration of the asserted patents. 	-
' e i VIII.
Confidentiality 	_ t
Any request for confidential treatment of information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to Section VI of this order should be made in accordance with section 201.6 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 201.6). For all reports for which
confidential treatment is sought, Respondent must provide a public version of such report with
confidential infonnation redacted.
IX.
' 	Enforcement
Violation of this order may result in any of the actions specified in section 210.75 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.75), including an action for
civil penalties under section 337(1),as well as any other action that the Commission deems
appropriate. In determining whether Respondent is in violation of this order, the Commission
may infer facts adverse to Respondent if it fails to provide adequate or timely information.
Modification
The Commission may amend this order on its own motion or in accordance with the
procedure described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of.Practice and Procedure (19
C.F.R. § 210.76). ' _
6 .

\
XI.
. ‘ 	Bonding ‘ 	_ ‘ 	'
The conduct prohibited by Section III of this order may be continued during the sixty
(60) day period in which this Order is under review by the United States Trade Representative,
as delegated by the President (70 Fed. Reg. 43,251 (Jul. 21, 2005)), subject to Respondent’s
posting of a bond in the amount of 100 percent (100%) of the entered value of the covered
products. This bond provision does not apply to conduct that is otherwise permitted by Section
IV of this Order. Covered products imported on or after the date of issuance of this Order are
subject to the entry bond as set forth in the exclusion order issued by the Commission, and are
not subject to this bond provision.
The bond is to be posted in accordance with the procedures established by the
Commission for the posting of bonds by complainants in connection with the issuance of
temporary exclusion orders. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.68. The bond and any accompanying
docmnentation are to be provided to and approved by the Commission prior to the ‘
commencement of conduct that is otherwise prohibited by Section III of this Order. Upon the
Secretary’s acceptance of the bond, (a) the Secretary will serve an acceptance letter on all
parties, and (b) Respondent must serve a copy of the bond and accompanying documentation on
Complainants’ counsel? 	I
The bond is to be forfeited in the event that the United States Trade Representative
approves this Order (or does not disapprove it within the review period), unless (i) the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final
determination and order as to Respondent on appeal, or (ii) Respondent exports or destroys the
products subject to this bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the
2See Footnote 1.
7

Commission.
p This bond is to be released in the event the United States Trade Representative
disapproves this Order and no subsequent order is issued by the Commission and approved (or
not disapproved) by the United States Trade Representative, upon service on Respondent of an
order issued by the Commission based upon application therefore made by Respondent to the
Commission.
By order of the Commission.
WW
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: November 12, 2019 	'
Y 	8

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
I ' 	- 	Investigation No. 337-TA-1126
CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT JiangSu Angkua Environmental Technical Co.,
Ltd. of RuGao, China cease and desist from conducting any of the following activities in the
United States: importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing,
transferring (except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or distributors, and aiding or
abetting other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer
(except for exportation), or distribution of water filter cartridges for refrigerators, including water
filter cartridge assemblies and interconnection subassemblies, that infringe one or more of claims
1-3, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,673,146 (“the ’146 patent”); claim 49 of U.S. Patent No.
8,137,551 (“the ’551 patent”); claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 ofU.S. Patent No. 9,233,322 (“the
’322 patent”); and claims 14-18 and 21-31 of U.S. Patent No. 9,901,852 (“the ’852 patent”) _
(collectively, “the asserted patents”) in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337) (“section 337”). 	A
’ 	I.
Definitions
As used in this order:
(A) “Commission” shall mean the United States International Trade Commission.
1

(B) “Complainants” shall mean Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and KX
Technologies, LLC.
(C) “Respondent” shall mean JiangSu Angkua Enviromnental Technical Co., Ltd. of
RuGao, China. 	. 1
(D) “Person” shall mean an individual, or any non-governmental partnership, firm,
association, corporation, or other legal or business entity other than Respondent or
its majority-owned or controlled subsidiaries, successors, or assigns.
(E) “United States” shall mean the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.
(F) The terms “import” and “importation” refer to importation for entry for
consumption under the Customs laws of the United States. _
(G) The tenn “covered products” shall mean water filter cartridges for refrigerators,
. including water filter cartridge assemblies and interconnection subassemblies, that
r infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 6, and 7 of the ’146 patent; claim 49 of the
’551 patent; claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ’322 patent; and claims l4—18and
21-31 of the ’852 patent. Covered products shall not include articles for which a
provision of law or license avoids liability for infringement.
II.
Applicability
The provisions of this Cease and Desist Order shall apply to Respondent and to any of its
principals, stockholders, offieers, directors, employees, agents, licensees, distributors, controlled
(whether by stock ownership or otherwise) and majority-owned business entities, successors, and
assigns, and to each of them, insofar as they are engaging in conduct prohibited by section III,
infra, for, with, or otherwise on behalf of, Respondent.
2

III.
_ 	Conduct Prohibited‘
The following conduct of Respondent in the United States is prohibited by this Order.
For the remaining terms of the asserted patents, Respondent shall not:
(A) import or sell for importation into the United States covered products; I ‘
(B) market, distribute, sell, or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) imported
covered products;
(C) advertise imported covered products; ‘
(D) solicit U.S. agents or distributors for imported covered products; or '
(E) aid or abet other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after
importation, transfer, or distribution of covered products.
IV. _
Conduct Permitted _
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, specific conduct otherwise prohibited
by the terms of this Order shall be pennitted if:
(A) in a written instrtunent, the owner of the asserted patents licenses or authorizes
such specific conduct; or
(B) such specific conduct is related to the importation or sale of covered products by
or for the United States. ‘ 	' .
V.
Reporting
For purposes of this requirement, the reporting periods shall commence on July ll of each
year and shall end on the subsequent Jtme 30. The first report required under this section shall
cover the period from the date of issuance of this order through Jtme 30, 2020. This reporting
3

requirement shall continue in force until such time as Respondent has truthfully reported, in two
consecutive timely filed reports, that it has no inventory of covered products in the United States.
Within thirty (30) days of the last day of the reporting period, Respondent shall report to
the Commission: (a) the quantity in units and the value in dollars of covered products that it has
imported and/or (ii) sold in the United States after importation during the reporting period, and
(b) the quantity inlunits and value in dollars of reported covered products that remain in
inventory in the United States at the end of the reporting period.
When filing written submissions, Respondent must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) -truepaper copies to
the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(1) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 21O.4(i)). Submissions should refer
to the investigation ntunber (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1126”) in a prominent place on the cover pages
and/or the first page. See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pd£
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000). If
Respondent desires to submit a document to the Commission in confidence, it must file the
original and a public version of the original with the Office of the Secretary and must serve a "
copy of the confidential version on Complainant’s counsel.‘
_ Any failure to make the required report or the filing of any false or inaccurate report shall
constitute a violation of this Order, and the submission of a false or inaccurate report may be
referred to the U.S. Department of Justice as a possible criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
‘ Complainants must file a letter with the Secretary identifying the attomey to receive
reports and bond infonnation associated with this Order. The designated attorney must be on the
protective order entered in the investigation. 4

(A)
(B)
VI.
Record-Keeping and Inspection 	- '
For the purpose of securing compliance with this Order, Respondent shall retain
any and all records relating to the sale, offer for sale, marketing, or distribution in
the United States of covered products, made and received in the usual and
ordinary course of business, whether in detail or in summary fonn, for a period of
three (3) years from the close of the fiscal year to which they pertain.
For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Order and for
no other purpose, subject to any privilege recognized by the federal courts of the
United States, and upon reasonable written notice by the Commission or its staff,
duly authorized representatives of the Commission shall be permitted access and
the right to inspect and copy, in Respondent’s principal offices during office
hours, and in the presence of counsel or other representatives if Respondent so
chooses, all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, and other
records and documents, in detail and in sunmiary fonn, that must be retained »
under subparagraph VI(A) of this Order.
. VII. .
Service of Cease and Desist Order
Respondent is ordered and directed to: 	_
(A)
(B)
Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this Order, a copy of this
Order upon each of its respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents, and
employees who have any responsibility for the importation, marketing,
distribution, or sale of imported covered products in the United States;
Serve, within fifteen (l5) days after the succession of any persons referred to in
5

subparagraph VII(A) of this order, a copy of the Order upon each successor; and
(C) Maintain such records as will show the name, title, and address of each person
upon whom the Order has been served, as described in subparagraphs VII(A) and
VII(B) of this order, together with the date on which service was made.
1 The obligations set forth in subparagraphs VII(B) and VII(C) shall remain in effect until
the expiration of the asserted patents. ’
‘ 	VIII. '
Confidentiality 	,
Any request for confidential treatment of information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to Section VI of this order should be made in accordance with section 201.6 of the
Commissi0n’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 201.6). For all reports for which
confidential treatment is sought, Respondent must provide a public version of such report with
confidential infonnation redacted.
IX.
Enforcement
Violation of this order may result in any of the actions specified in section 210.75 of the
Com1nission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.75), including an action for
civil penalties under section 337(f), as well as any other action that the Commission deems
appropriate. In determining whether Respondent is in violation of this order, the Commission
may infer facts adverse to Respondent if it fails to provide adequate or timely information.
Modification
The Commission may amend this order on its own motion or in accordance with the
procedure described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
C.F.R. § 210.76). .
6

XI.
Bonding ' ' _
The conduct prohibited by Section III of this order may be continued dtuing the sixty
(60) day period in which this Order is under review by the United States Trade Representative,
as delegated by the President (70 Fed. Reg. 43,251 (Jul. 21, 2005)), subject to Respondent’s '
posting of a bond in the amount of 100 percent (100%) of the entered value of the covered
products. This bond provision does not apply to conduct that is otherwise permitted by Section
IV of this Order. Covered products imported on or after the date of issuance of this Order are
subject to the entry bond as set forth in the exclusion order issued by the Commission, and are
not subject to this bond provision. 	~
The bond is to be posted in accordance with the procedures established by the
Commission for the posting of bonds by complainants in connection with the issuance of
temporary exclusion orders. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.68. The bond and any accompanying
documentation are to be provided to and approved by the Commission prior to the '
commencement of conduct that is otherwise prohibited by Section III of this Order. Upon the
Secretary’s acceptance of the bond, (a) the Secretary will serve an acceptance letter on all
parties, and (b) Respondent must serve a copy of the bond and accompanying documentation on
Complainants’_counsel?
The bond is.to be forfeited in the event that the United States Trade Representative
approves this Order (or does not disapprove it within the review period), unless (i) the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final
determination and order as to Respondent on appeal, or (ii) Respondent exports or destroys the
products subject to this bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the
2See Footnote 1.
7

Commission. 	.
This bond is to be released in the event the United States Trade Representative _
disapproves this Order and no subsequent order is issued by the Commission and approved (or
not disapproved) by the United States Trade Representative, upon service on Respondent of an
order issued by the Commission based upon application therefore made by Respondent to the
Commission. 	~
By order of the Commission.
WWLisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: November 12, 2019 	'
8

CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. N0. 337-TA-1126
THEREOF
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached COMMISSION ORDER has been
served by hand upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Claire Comfort, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on November 12, 2019.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
_ Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Electrolux Home Products. Inc.:
Andrew F. Pratt, Esq. 	II] Via Hand Delivery
VENEABLE LLP 	E1 Via Express Delivery R
600 Massachusetts Ave NW 	_ U Via First Class Mail
Washington, D.C. 20001 	U Other:
On Behalf 0f Complainant KX Technologies, LLC:
Robert Curcio, Esq. 	Cl Via Hand Delivery
DELIO, PETERSON & CURCIO LLC 	Via Express Delivery
State Sll1'€€l,Sllltfi 	U class
New Haven, CT 06511 	U other

PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
_ Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of _
Investigation No. 337-TA-1126
CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND 	V
COMPONENTS THEREOF 	,
COMMISSION OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 23, 2019, the Commission detennined that three respondents to this
investigation, that were all found in default, violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”). Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. 45170 (Aug. 28, 2019). All
other respondents named in this investigation were previously terminated from the investigation
due to settlement. See id.; see also Order Nos. 14, 15,-16(all Mar. 5, 2019), not reviewed, Notice
(April 1, 2019). The Commission has detennined that the appropriate remedy in this investigation
is a general exclusion order (“GEO”) and cease and desist orders (“CD05”) directed to two of the
defaulting respondents. The Commission has detennined to set a bond in the amount of 100
percent of the entered value for subject articles imported during the period of Presidential review.
See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(i)(3).
II. BACKGROUND
The Commission instituted this investigation on August 1, 2018, based upon a_complaint,
as amended, filed on behalf of Electrolux Home Products, Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, and
KX Technologies, LLC of West Haven, Connecticut (collectively, “Complainants”) alleging
violations ofsection 337 in the sale for importation, importation, or sale after importation of certain

PUBLIC VERSION
water filters and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent
Nos. 8,673,146 (“the ’l46 patent”), 8,137,551 (“the ’55l patent”), 9,233,322 (“the ’322 patent”),
and 9,901,852 (“the ’852 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). 83 Fed. Reg. 37514
(Aug. l, 2018); see also Amended Complaint (June 27,_ 2018) (“Arn. Compl.”). The
Complainants also alleged that a domestic industry exists. Id. The Commission’s notice of
investigation named eight respondents. 83 Fed. Reg. 37514'(Aug. 1, 2018). The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (“OUI1”) was also participating in the investigation. Id.
. ' The following respondents were previously terminated from the investigation due to
settlement: Ningbo Pureza Limited of Ningbo, China; Hong Kong Ecoaqua Co., Limited of
Hong Kong, China; Ecolife Technologies, Inc. of City of Industry, Califomia; Ecopure Filter
Co., Ltd. of Qindao, China; and Crystala Filters LLC of Patterson, New Jersey (collectively, “the
Settled Respondents”). See Order Nos. 14, 15, 16 (all Mar. 5, 2019), not reviewed, Notice
(April 1, 2019). V
The following three respondents were found in default: Shenzen Calux Purification
Technology Co., Limited of Guangdong, China (“Calux”); JiangSu Angkua Environmental p
Teclmical Co., Ltd. of RuGao, China (“Angkua Environmental”); and Shenzhen Dakon
Purification Tech Co., Ltd. Guangdong, China (“Dakon”) (collectively, “the Defaulting
Respondents”). See Order No. 9 (Oct. 3, 2018), not reviewed, Notice (Oct. 25, 2018).
On October 29, 2018, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted Complainants’
unopposed motion seeking termination of claim 15 of the ’146 patent and claims 1, 4-6, and 9-1 1
of the ’852 patent from this investigation. See Order No. 12 (Oct. 29, 2018), not reviewed,
Notice (Nov. 26, 2018). 	'
2

PUBLIC VERSION
On Febmary 12, 2019, Complainants moved for summary detennination that the
domestic industry requirement was satisfied and that the Defaulting Respondents violated section
337. See Complainants’ Memorandum in Support of Complainants’ Motion for Summary 1
Detennination (“MSD”). OUII supported Complainants’ motion. See OUII Response to
Complainants’ Motion “forSummary Determination (“IA Response”). On July ll, 2019, the
presiding ALJ issued Order No. 17 granting Complainants’ motion. See Order No. l7 (July 11,
2019), reviewed in part, Notice (Aug. 28, 2019). Specifically, Order No. 17 found, inter alia,
that: (1) the accused products infringe the Asserted Patents; (2) “the evidence satisfies the
importation element by specific instances of importation and/or a sale for importation”,of the
accused products by the Defaulting Respondents; and (3) Complainants satisfy the domestic
industry requirement, including both the so-called technical and economic prongs. Order
No. 17 at 22, 34-62 (citing MSD at Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Exs. D, E, F); see also MSD at 29
31; IA Response at 24-27. The Order includes the ALJ’s recommendation that the Commission
issue a GEO and CDOs against two of the Defaulting Respondents, and impose a bond of 100
percent of entered value during the periodiof Presidential review. Order No. 17 at 62-80.
On August 23, 2019,lthe Commission issued a Notice of its detennination to review
Order No. 17 in part and, on review, to correct an error in a citation and a typo. 84 Fed. Reg. at
45170. The Commission’s detennination resulted in finding a violation of section 337. Id.
The Notice also requests written-submissions on remedy, public interest, and bonding from the
parties, government agencies, and the public. Id. _
1 On September 6, 2019, Complainants submitted a brief (“Comp. Br.” or “Comp1ainants’
Remedy Brief’) on remedy, public interest, and bonding, requesting that the Commission issue a
GEO, issue CDOs against two of the three Defaulting Respondents, and set a bond in the amount
3

PUBLIC VERSION
of 100 percent of entered value during the period of Presidential review. On the same day, OU_II
also submitted a brief (“OUII Br.”) on remedy, public interest, and bonding supporting the ALJ ’s
recommended GEO, CDOs against two of the Defaulting Respondents, and bond of 100 percent.
On September 13, 2019, OUII submitted a reply to Complainants’ Remedy Brief. No. other
submissions were filed in response to the Notice. 	'
III. DISCUSSION _ .
Where a violation of section 337 has been fotmd, the Commission must consider the issues
of remedy, the public interest, and bonding applicable to infringing imports that enter the United
States during the Presidential review period. The Commission has “broad discretion in selecting
the form, scope, and extent of the remedy.” Viscojan, S.A. v. Int ’l Trade Comm ’n, 787 F.2d 544,
548 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Commission may issue an exclusion order excluding the goods of the
person(s) found in violation (a limited exclusion order) or, if certain criteria are met, against all
infringing goods regardless of the source (a general exclusion order). See Fuji Photo Film v. Int ’l
Trade Comm ‘n, 474 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d)(2), (g)(2).
In addition to, or in lieu of, the issuance of an exclusion order, the Commission has authority to
issue cease and desist orders as a remedy for a violation of section 337. See Certain Table Saws
Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA
965, C0mm’n Op. at 4-6 (Feb. l, 2017) (public version) (“Table Saws”); Certain Protective Cases
and Components Thereoj‘, Inv. No. 337-TA-780, Con1m’n Op. at 28 (Nov. 19, 2012) (“Protective
Cases”); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1337(i)(1). 	'
For the reasons described herein, the Commission has determined to issue a GEO pursuant
to section 337(d)(2), issue two CDOs pursuant to section 337(f)(l), and set a bond in the amount
of 100 percent of the entered value of products covered by the GEO. I
4

PUBLIC VERSION
A. A General Exclusion Order Under Section 337(d)(2) is Appropriate
General exclusion orders reach entities beyond those that appeared before the Commission.
Therefore, the Commission exercises caution when issuing this broad ‘remedy. As the
Commission has explained:
' A general exclusion order may have far reaching consequences and applies to
entities not respondents in the investigation, and even to entities who could not have
been respondents, such as entities who did not import until after the conclusion of '
A the investigation. Thus, the Commission has stated that “[b]ecause of its
P considerable impact on intemational trade, potentially extending beyond the parties
and articles involved in the investigation, more than just the interests of the parties
is involved. Therefore, the Commission exercises caution in issuing general
exclusion orders and requires that certain conditions be met before one is issued.”
Certain Cases for Portable Elec. Devices, 337-TA-867/861, Comm’n Op. at 7-8 (July 10, 2014)
(public version) (“Cases for Portable Elec. Devices”) (quoting Certain Agricultural Tractors
Under 50 Power Takeofi’Horsepower, Inv. No. 337-TA-380, Comm’n Op. at 15 (Mar. l2, 1997)).
Section 337 includes two subsections that address when the Commission may issue a GEO:
section 337(d)(2) and section 337(g)(2). The principal difference between these two subsections
is that subsection (d)(Z) applies where one or more respondents appeared to contest the
investigation, while subsection (g)(2) is reserved for investigations where no person appears to
contest the investigation. See Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories, and Packaging Thereof,
Inv. No. 337.-TA-754, Com_m’nOp. at 5 n.3 (June 13, 2012) (“Handbags”) (“Although 19 U.S.C.
§ l337(g)(2) govems theconsideration of whether to issue a GEO in default cases, this provision
applies only when no respondent appears to contest the investigation. In this case, since several
respondents did appear and were later _terminatedbased on consent orders or settlement agreements,
section 337(g)(2) does not apply.”); c0mpare§ l337(d)(2) with§ l337(g)(2). While only the text
of section 337(g)(2) explicitly states that the underlying violation of section 337 must be
“established by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence” (see § 1337(g)(2)(B)), a GEO under
5

PUBLIC VERSION
section 337(d)(2) must also rest upon a violation established by the same standard of proof. See
Certain Sildenafil or Any Pharmaceutically Acceptable Salt Thereof Such as Sildenafil Citrate,
and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-489, Cor_nm’nOp. at 4 (July 23, 2004) (public
version) (explaining that “a violation of section 337 may not be found unless supported by
‘reliable, probative, and substantial evidence,’” regardless of whether subsection (d)(2) or (g)(2)
applies). Section 337(g)(2) also explicitly incorporates the requirements of subsection (d)(2)
among its own requirements. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2). 	_
Here, three respondents defaulted without appearing, but five other respondents appeared
and were terminated based on settlement and consent orders. Therefore, section 337(d)(2)
provides the correct legal framework to analyze whether a GEO is an appropriate remedy in this
investigation. See Handbags, Comm’n Op. at 5 n.3; Certain Self-Anchoring Beverage
Containers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1092, Comm’n Op. at 15 (July 24, 2019) (public version) (“[W]here
a respondent appears and was terminated based on a settlement agreement, section 337(g)(2) does
not apply”). 	.
Section 337(d)(2) provides:
The authority of the Commission to order an exclusion from entry of articles shall
be limited to persons determined by the Commission to be violating this section
unless the Commission detennines that—
(A) a general exclusion from entry of articles is necessary to prevent
circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named
persons; or ~ '
(B) there is a pattem of violation of this section and it is difficult to identify
the source of infringing products.
19 U.S.C. § l337(d)(2). Satisfaction of either of the requirements in subsection (d)(2) will suffice
to support issuance of a GEO. See Fuji Photo Film, 474 F.3d at 1286. _Asdiscussed below, the
Commission has determined that both conditions are satisfied, z'.e.,a GEO is necessary to prevent
6

PUBLIC VERSION .
circumvention of limited exclusion orders (“-LEOs”)directed to only the Defaulting Respondents,
and there is both a pattem of violation of section 337 with respect to products that infringe the
Asserted Patents and it is difficult to identify the source of the infringing products.
1 1. A GEO is Necessary to Prevent Circumvention of an LEO
The Commission has determined that a GEO is necessary to prevent circumvention of an
LEO. The record evidence shows numerous intemet seller listings on Amazon and eBay as well
as generic, unmarked product shipments.‘ See Order No. 17 at 67-68 (citing Am. Compl., Ex. 37
(Bayne Decl.) at 111]4-5 (Exs. A-D); Am. Compl. Exs. 10-12, 15; MSD at Ex. B (Ramos Decl.) at
Exs. C, E; Declaration of Thai-Hoa X. Nguyen, Esq. in Support of Complainants’ Motion for
Summary Determination (“Nguyen Decl.”) (Mar. 7, 2019) at 111]4-6); see also Certain Toner
Cartridges and Components Thereof: Inv. No. 337-TA-918, Comm’n Op. at 6 (Oct. 1, 2015)
(“Toner Cartridges”). Further, the distribution networks that the Defaulting Respondents use for
selling and importing the infringing products are not clear. Id. For example, the evidence shows
that Complainants attempted to place an order with Calux, but the order was fulfilled by Dakon.
See Order No. 17 at 67 (citing Am. Compl., Ex. 37 (Bayne Decl.), 111]4-5 (Exs. A-D)). Thus,
there is a high likelihood that an LEO directed to only the Defaulting Respondents would be
ineffective from its inception, as it would immediately be circumvented through Internet
operations, masking of identities and product sources, and use of urunarked, generic, or reseller
branded packaging. 	_ 	'
Further, the record evidence demonstrates that the Defaulting Respondents can sell or route
the infringing water filters through other intemet sellers into the United States such that the product
sources are masked. Comp. Br. at 14 (citing MSD at Ex. B (Ramos Decl.) 117 at Ex. C
(Alibaba.com LLC O02) (listing Calux (d/b/a “caluXwell”) and Angkua Environmental (d/b/a
“aqfeel”) address in China); Amended Complaint at Ex. 28 (displaying Dakon’s location in
7

PUBLIC VERSION
China)). The evidence further shows that the sources of infringing water filers can be obscured
by using a freight company to ship the products in a generic cardboard shipping box without any
branding or identification of the producer or the source. Id. at 15; see, e.g., MSD at Ex. H
(NPL_0000lOll) (U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) form did not identify actual
source); MSD at Ex. I (Aston Decl.)1]1]9, 12. The Commission has previously found the practices
of “facilitating circumvention through Intemet operations; masking of identities and product
sotuces; and use of unmarked, generic, and/or reseller-branded packaging” would all indicate a
likelihood of circumvention. See Toner Cartridges, Cornm’n Op. at 6. Based on the evidence
of-record, there is a high likelihood _thatan LEO would be circumvented, and thus, a GEO is
necessary. 	' _
Finally, the conclusion that an LEO would likely be circumvented is reinforced by the fact
that nearly all of the foreign sellers identified in the record offer their products for sale through
online commerce sites such as Amazon.com, eBay.com, and Alibaba.com. See Order No. 17 at
4, 44; MSD at Ex. B (Ramos Decl.) at Exs. B, C (Alibaba LLC 002), E (Alibaba LLC 004); Nguyen
Decl. at 1H[4-8 (Amazon inventories held in names of third parties); MSD at Ex. D (Adair Decl.)
at Ex. C). The Commission has previously recognized that such online sales indicate a likelihood
that an LEO would be circumvented by virtue of the ease with which sellers can mask or change
their identities. See Toner Cartridges, Comm’n Op. at 7 (“[T]he evidence shows that many of the
Retailer Respondents . . . in this investigation conduct their operations via one or more Internet
websites, thereby facilitating circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named
respondents.”); ‘Certain Loom Kitsfor Creating Linked Articles, Inv. No. 337-TA-923, Comm’n
Op. at 12 (June 26, 2015) (public version) (“Loom Kits”) (“If the Commission entered an exclusion
order limited to the products of the defaulting respondents, the defaulting respondents could
8

PUBLIC VERSION
circumvent the order via anonymous sales on the Internet”); Cases for Portable Elec. Devices,
Comm’n Op. at 9-10, 15-18 (“[T]he respondents can easily circumvent an LEO by selling
infringing goods on1ine.”). 	I I l
Accordingly, based on the record before it, the Commission has determined that a.GEO
barring entry of articles is necessary to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to the
Defaulting Respondents. Thus, section 337(d)(2)(A) is satisfied.
2. There is a Pattern of Violation of Section 337 with Respect to .the
Asserted Patents and the Sources of the Infringing’ Products are
Difficult to Identify ‘ 	'
The Commission has determined that there is _apattem of violation of section 337.
Complainants presented substantial, reliable, and probative evidence demonstrating that certain
water filters, which are marketed as replacements and appear to infringe, are offered for sale by
numerous foreign entities over the intemet, with suspect product listings numbering into the
thousands. See Order No. 17 at 68-71 (citing MSD at 98-105, 108-110; MSD at Ex. 1 (Aston
Decl.) at 1111	6-8, 11, 15; IA Response at 39; MSD at Ex. D (Adair Dec1.)at111]7-8, Exs. B-C; MSD
at Ex. C (Conlin Depo.) at Exs. 1-3, 7; MSD at Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at 111]54-55; MSD at Ex. J).
The thousands of online product listings for replacement water filters supports the conclusion that
there is a pattem of violation with respect to the products that infringe the Asserted Patents. Id.
. The Commission has further detennined that the sources of the infringing products are
difficult to identify based on record evidence. See Order No. 17 at 71-72 (citing MSD at 99,
111; MSD at Ex. H; IA Response at 41; MSD at Ex. I (Aston Decl.) at 1[1]9, 12; MSD at Ex. J).
For example, the evidence of record shows that domestic sellers on Amazon and eBay operate
virtually anonymously by using various pseudonymous names, which can be changed easily and
at Will,and using listings that provide no information about the real account owner. See Order
No. 17 at 69-70; Comp. Br. at 17-19 (citing MSD at Ex. D (Adair Decl.)111]7-8 at Exs. B-C
9

PUBLIC VERSION
(AMZNOOOOOOI-AMZNOOOOOOZ)	(containing product listings by sellers using pseudonymous
names); MSD at Ex. C (Conlin Depo.) at Exs. 1-3 (EBAYOOOOOOI-EBAYOOOOOOS)	(same);
MSD at Ex. L (Zhibin Depo.) at 68: 18-22; 69: l-9). In addition, Complainants presented
evidence demonstrating that the source of infringing water filters can be obscured by using a
freight company to ship the infringing water filters in_a generic cardboard shipping box without
any branding identifying the producer. Comp. Br. at l5 (citing MSD at Ex. H
(NPL_00O0l0l 1)). Complainants also provided CBP seizure notices that show importers use
counterfeit packaging with the name of one Complainant in this investigation but the original
source is usually unknown. Id. (citing MSD at Ex. I (Aston Decl.)1l1{9, 12).
Accordingly, based on the record before it, the Commission has detennined that there is a
pattem of violation of section 337 and that the sources of the infringing products are difficult to
identify. Thus, the conditions of section 337(d)(2)(B) are satisfied. 	‘
B“. Cease and Desist Orders as to Two Defaulting Respondents Under Section
' 337(f) are Appropriate‘ 	< 	_ 	.
In addition to, or in lieu of, the issuance of an exclusion order, the Commission has
1 Commissioner Schmidtlein does not join. section III.B. of the Commission’s opinion.
Instead, she finds that the requested CDO relief is govemed by section 337(g)(l), rather than
section 337(f)(1), because each of the Defaulting Respondents satisfy the conditions of
subsections (A) through (E) of section 337(g)( 1). See Order No. 9 (Oct. 3, 2018), not reviewed,
Notice (Oct. 25, 2018). In prior investigations, Commissioner _Schmidtleinhas explained her_
view that absent public interest considerations to the contrary the “shall, upon request, issue”
language in section 337(g)(l) does not grant the Commission discretion to decline to issue ai .
requested CDO when the conditions of subsections (A) through (E) are satisfied. See Certain
Industrial Automation Systemsand Components Thereof Including Control Systems, Controllers,
Visualization Hardware, Motion and Motor Control Systems, Networking Equipment, Safety
Devices, and Power Supplies, Inv. No. 337-TA-1074, Comm’n Op., Dissenting Views of
Commissioner Schmidtlein (April 23, 2019). Consistent with that view, Commissioner
Schmidtlein finds that the Commission is required -toissue the requested CDOs against Angkua
Environmental and Calux. No CDO against Dakon is warranted since Complainants are no
longer seeking a CDO against that entity. See Comp. Br. at 8-1 1.
10

PUBLIC VERSION
authority to issue a CDO as a remedy forviolation of section 337. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(1).
The Commission has generally issued a CDO when,“with respect to the imported infringing
products, a respondent maintains commercially significant inventories in the U.S. or has significant
domestic operations that could undercut the remedy providedby an exclusion order. See, e.g.,
Table Saws, Comm’n Op. at 4-6; Protective Cases, Comm’n Op. at 28 (citing Certain Laser Bar
Code Scanners and Scan Engines, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, 1IlV.No.
337-TA-551, Con'un’n Op. at 22-23 (June 14, 2007)). “A complainant seeking a cease and desist
order must demonstrate, based on the record, that this remedy is necessary to address the violation
found in the investigation so as to not undercut the relief provided by the exclusion order. ” Table
Saws, Comm’n Op. at 5 (citing Certain Integrated Repeaters, Switches, Transceivers, and
Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-435, Comm’n Op; at 27 (Aug. 16, 2002) (“Integrated
Repeaters”); H.R. Rep. No. 100-40, at 160 (1987)).
In prior investigations, the Commission has looked to factual allegations and evidence in
the record, including the complaint, showing that a defaulting foreign respondent maintains
domestic inventories of subject products or engages in domestic activities with respect to the
subject products such as evidence of intemet sales, sales through online retailers like Amazon.eom,
and sales receipts. See, e.g., Certain Digital Photo Frames and Image Display Devices and
Components Thereojf Inv. No. 337-TA-807 (“Digital Photo Frames”), Comm’n Op. at 9 (Mar. 27,
2013); Certain Hand Dryers and Housingsfor Hand Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015, Comm’n Op.
at 11 (Oct. 30, 2017) (“Hand Dryers”); Certain Arrowheads with Deploying Blades and
Components Thereofand Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-977, Comm’n Op. at 21-22 (Apr.
28, 2017); Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefore, and Kits
Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-959, Comm’n Op. at 31.-33(Feb. 13, 2017)).
11

PUBLIC VERSION
1. Angkua Environmental
The Commission has determined that the record evidence demonstrates that Angkua
Enviromnental maintains commercially significant inventories and engages in business activities
in the United States, which could undercut the effectiveness of a GEO. For example, the evidence
shows that thereare Amazon inventories containing large quantities of Angkua Enviromnental’s
infringing Water filter products. See Nguyen Decl., 1111	5-6 (citing to MSD at Ex. D (Adair Decl.)
at Ex. C (indicating nearly 200,000 units are in inventory at Amazon warehouses)); see also Hand
Dryers, Comm’n Op. at 11 (evidence of product sales fulfilled from domestic Amazon warehouses
sufficient to allow for CDO). Further, the evidence demonstrates that Angkua Environmental
previously sold for importation hundreds of infringing water filters to a non-respondent entity in
Minnesota as well as thousands more to a. non-respondent entity in Georgia. See Am. Compl.,
Ex. 11 (Arvig Decl.), 11118-13, 19 (describing importation of water filters from Angkua
Environmental; and intemet advertising and sales by Water Filters Direct LLC d/b/a Tier 1 in
Minnesota); Am. Comp1., Ex. ll (Arvig Decl.) at Ex. A (invoices and shipping doctunents); Am.
Compl., ‘Ex. 12 (Sebree Decl.), 11-17, 21, 26 (Angkua Enviromnental sold for importation
thousands of infringing water filters for Brixton Holdings, LLC in Georgia for sale in the U.S.);
Am. C0mpl., Ex. 1-2 (Sebree Decl.) at Exs. 1-2. There is also evidence that Angkua
Environmental completed 103 sales transactions from 2016-2018 through Alibaba.com with
delivery in the United States. See MSD at Ex. B. (Ramos Decl.) at Ex. E (Alibaba.com 0004).
Therefore, based on the record evidence, the Commission has determined to issue a CDO against
Angkua Enviromnental.
2. Calux
The Commission has determined that the ‘record evidence demonstrates that Calux
maintains commercially significant inventories and engages in business activities in the United
12

PUBLIC VERSION
\
States. For example, the evidence shows that Calux previously imported thousands of the
infringing water filters for AGA Imports LLC (“AGA”) to sell in the United States. Comp. Br.
at 10 (citing Am. Compl., Ex. 10 (Grazi Decl.), 1111	22-23 (describing sales of filters manufactured
by Calux, imported by AGA, and advertised by AGA on AmaZon.com, Jet.com, Walmartcom and
eBay.com)). Further, in April 2018, Calux advertised on Alibaba.com that it had the ability to
supply commercial quantities of 20,000 pieces a month of replacement water filters under either
Calux’s brand name or an OEM brand name of the purchaser’s choosing. Order No. 17 at 76
(citing Am. Compl., Ex. 25 (advertising replacement water filters with “Supply Ability: 20000
Piece/Pieces per Month ULTRAWF Refrigerator Water Filter” from the “Port: Shenzlien”)). The
record evidence further demonstrates that Calux made four sales of commercial quantities of water
filters on Alibaba.com in July and August 2018 for delivery to addresses in the United States. Id.
(citing MSD at Ex. B. (Ramos Decl.) at Ex. E (Alibaba LLC 004) (see sales by “caluxwell” for
I“refrigerator air filter” sales to both an “MRX STORE” and to a zip code in Texas)). Based on
the record evidence, it is reasonable‘ to infer that Calux maintains commercially significant
inventories and engages in business activities in the United States. Accordingly, the Commission
has determined to issue a CDO against Calux.
. 3. Dakon I .
Complainants previously sought a CDO against the third Defaulting Respondent, Dakon,
but Complainants’ Remedy Brief does not include a request, evidence, or arguments related to a
CDO against Dakon. Compare Comp. Br. at 8-11 to MSD at 117; Am. Compl. at 2-3, 37.2 _The
2 We note that the Federal Circuit has found that the Commission must grant relief
against defaulting respondents, subject only to public interest concems, if all prerequisites of
section 337(g)(1) are satisfied. Laerdal Medical Corp. v. Int ‘l Trade Comm ’n, 910 F. 3d 1207,
12,12(Fed. Cir. 2018). However, the Federal Circuit in Laerdal evaluated defaulting
respondents under section 337(g), whereas here, the Commission evaluates the violation under
l3

- PUBLIC VERSION
Commission finds the absence of a request supported by evidence and arguments in Complainants’
Remedy Brief to mean that Complainants are not seeking a CDO against Dakon. The
Commission has, therefore, detennined not to issue a CDO against Dakon.
C. Entry of the GEO and Two CDOs Is Not Contrary to the Public Interest
Section 337(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, directs the Cormnission to consider
certain public interest factors before issuing a remedy. These public interest factors include the
effect of any remedial order on the “public health and Welfare,competitive conditions in the United
States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and
United States consumers.” 19 U.S.C. § l337(d)(l). The public interest analysis does not concern
whether there is a public interest in issuing a remedial order, but whether issuance of such an order
will adversely affect the public interest. Certain Agricultural Vehiclesand Components Thereofi
Inv. No. 337-TA-487, Comm’n Op. at 17 (Dec. 2004)._ 	»
The record in this investigation contains no evidence that a GEO or the two CDOs would
adversely affect the public health.and~'welfare, competitive conditions in the United States
economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United
States consumers. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1). The Commission requested submissionsfrom
the public with respect to the public interest, but no third party filed a submission in response to
the Commission’s notice. See 84 Fed;Reg. 45170 (Aug. 28, 2019). In addition, the record
shows that Complainants have sufficient capacity to readily replace the infringing products at issue
section 337(d)(2) and (f)(l). The Commission evaluates the GEO here under (d)(2) rather than
(g)(2) because the Settled Respondents participated in the investigation. See 19 U.S.C.
§§ 1337(d)(2), (g)(1). Further, because Complainants requested a GEO under section 337(d)(2),
then under the language of the statute, the requested CDOs are “[i]n addition to ..'. taking action
under subsection (d)” and therefore considered under section 337(t)(1). See 19 U.S.C. §
l337(t)(l). Thus, in this investigation, Laerdal does not apply to the Co1nmission’sremedy
analysis. V 	.
14

PUBLIC VERSION
if they are excluded. See Comp. Br; at 29-30; see also OUII Br. at 17-18; see also-MSD at 119
(citing Complainants’ Statement on the Public Interest, at p. 4-5 (June 8, 2018).).
. Accordingly, the Commission‘finds that the statutory public interest factors do not preclude
issuance of a GEO. _ 	"
D. A Bond of 100 Percent of Entered Value is Appropriate Due to the Absence of
Reliable Pricing Information
During the 60-day period of_Presidential review, imported articles otherwise subject to
remedial orders are entitled to conditional entry under bond. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(3). The
amount of the bond is specified by the Commission and must be an amount sufficient to protect
the complainant from any injury during this 60-day period. Id.; 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.50(a)(3). The
Commission frequently sets the bond by attempting to eliminate the difference in sales prices
between the patented domestic product and the infringing product or alternatively based upon a
reasonable royalty. Certain Microsphere Adhesives, Process For Making Same, and Products
Containing Same, Including Self-Stick Repositionable Notes,_Inv. No. 337-TA-366, Comm’n Op.
at 24 (Jan. 1996). In cases where the Commission finds that the evidence is either unavailable or
the complainant demonstrates that the available evidence is inadequate to base a determination of
the appropriate amount of the bond, the Commission has set a 100 percent bond. See Certain
Sortation Systems,Parts Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-460, Cormn’n
Op. at 21 (Mar. 2003). The complainant bears the burden of establishing the need for a bond and
the bond amount. Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Components.Thereof and Prods. Containing
Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-533, Comm’n Op. at 39-40 (July 21, 2006).
Here, the ALJ, Complainants, and OUII all recommend a bond in the amount of 100
percent. Order No. 17 at 78-80; Comp. Br. at 30; OUII Br. at 18-19. For the following reasons,
the Commission agrees that a 100 percent bond is appropriate. 	l
15

PUBLIC VERSION
In this investigation, the Defaulting Respondents provided no discovery. Thus, there is a
lack of reliable pricing information. Because of the large number of infringing water filters that
are offered for sale at substantially varying prices online, it is not feasible to calculate a price
differential or reasonable royalty from that lI1fOI‘I1'l£¢1[l0I1	without additional information. See Order
No. l7 at,78-80; Comp. Br. at 30; OUII Br. at 18-l9. Further, the record as itstands lacks
infonnation sufficient to determine whether any particular online product listing is an unreliable
outlier such that it should be excluded from an average price differential calculation.
Moreover,ithe Commission has set a bond of 100 percent in similar circumstances to those
of this investigation. See Loom Kits, Comrn’n Op. at 19 (The Commission set the bond at 100
percent where “the record [] shows that a large nmnber of infringing loom kits are sold on the
Internet at different prices,” “the defaulting respondents in th[e] investigation provided no
discovery, including discovery about pricing,” and “[t]he record [] lacks a reliable comparison of
the price of the domestic industry products to the price of theinfringing products.”). _
Accordingly, the Commission has determined to set the bond in the amount of 100 percent
of the entered value of infringing water filters imported during the period of Presidential review.
IV. CONCLUSION i
i The Commission has considered the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding and
has determined to issue a GEO and CDOs directed to two Defaulting Respondents, Angkua
Environmental and Calux. The GEO excludes from entry for consumption into the United States
water filters for refrigerators and components thereof that infringe one or more of the asserted
claims of the Asserted Patents‘. The Commission has also determined to set a bond in the amount
of 100 percent of the entered value of the infringing water filters for refrigerators and components
thereof imported during the period of Presidential review. The Commission has also determined
that the public interestconsiderations of section 337(d) and (f)(l) do not preclude the issuance of
16

the remedies for the violation found.
iBy order of the Commission.
Issued: November 15, 2019
PUBLIC VERSION
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
17

CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1126
THEREOF 	- 	»
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
r AI, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached COMMISSION ORDER has been
served by hand upon the Commission Investigative Attomey, Claire Comfort, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on November 15, 2019.
r 	S
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. Intemational Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112 ~
' Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Electrolux Home Products. Inc.:
AI1d1‘6WF. Pratt, Esq. 	I 	C] Via Hand Delivery
VENEABLE LLP 	Via Express Delivery
600 l\/Iassachusetts Ave NW 	U Via First Class Mail
Washington, D.C. 20001 	U Other
On Behalf of Complainant KX Technologies. LLC: 	‘
Robert Curcio, Esq. 	El Via Hand Delivery
Stat€ Street, Suite 	U Via First Cl-ass .
New Haven, CT 06511 	D other

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
Investigation No. 337-TA-1126
CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF 	1 	'
NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO REVIEW-IN-PART AN
INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 337 BY THE
DEFAULTING RESPONDENTS, AND, ON REVIEW, TO MODIFY CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF THE INITIAL DETERMINATION; REQUEST FOR WRITTEN 1
SUBMISSIONS ON REMEDY, BONDING, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
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. 17) of the presiding
administrative lawjudge (“ALJ”) granting summary determination of violation of section 337 by
certain defaulting respondents. The limited ptupose of the review is to correct an error in a ‘
citation on page 44 and two typos on page 31 of the ID. The Commission requests written
submissions on remedy, bonding, and the public interest.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Intemational Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone 202-205-3228. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Intemational Trade Commission, 500 Street,
SW, Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General infonnation conceming the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Intemet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at https://edis. usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the Commissio11’sTDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
August 1, 2018, based on a complaint, as amended, filed on behalf of Electrolux Home Products,
Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, and KX Technologies, LLC of West Haven, Connecticut
(collectively, “Complainants”). 83 Fed Reg. 37514 (Aug. 1, 2018). The complaint alleges
violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”)
based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the

United States after importation of certain water filters and components thereof by reason of
infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,673,146 (“the ’l46 patent”), 8,137,551 (“the
’55l patent”), 9,233,322 (“the ’322 patent”), and 9,901,852 (“the ’852 patent”) (collectively, the
“Asseited Patents”). Id. The Commission’s notice of investigation names eight respondents.
Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation.
On October 3, 2018, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding certain respondents
in default, specifically, Shenzen Calux Purification Technology Co., Limited (“Calux”); JiangSu
Angkua Environmental Technical Co., Ltd. (“Angkua Enviromnental”); and Shenzhen Dakon
Purification Tech Co., Ltd. (collectively, “the Defaulting Respondents”). See Order No. 9 (Oct.
3, 2018), not reviewed, Notice (Oct. 25, 2018). The remaining respondents, specifically,
Ningbo Pureza Limited; HongKong Ecoaqua Co., Limited; Ecolife Technologies, lnc.; Ecopure
Filter Co., Ltd.; and Crystala Filters LLC (“Settled Respondents”), were terminated from the
investigation due to settlement. See Order Nos. 14, 15, 16, not reviewed, Notice (April 1, 2019).
On February 12, 2019, Complainants filed a motion for summary determination of
violation of section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents. Complainants requested a general
exclusion order (“GEO”) and cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) against all three Defaulting
Respondents. On March 8, 2019, OUII filed a response supporting a finding of a violation as
well as the requested remedies of a GEO and CDOs for two of the Defaulting Respondents
(Calux and Angkua Environmental).
The AL] issued the subject ID on July 11, 2019, granting the motion for summary
detennination and finding a violation of section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents.
Specifically, the ID finds that Complainants established infringement of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 15
of the ’146 patent, claim 49 of the ’551 patent, claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ’322 patent, and
claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-18, and 21-31 of the ’852 patent with respect to each Defaulting
Respondents’ accused product(s) by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. The ALJ
recommended that the Commission issue a GEO and CDOs against Calux and Angkua
Enviromnental.‘ The ALJ also recommended setting a bond during Presidential review of 100
percent. Id. No party petitioned for review of the subject ID.
The Commission has determined to review the subject ID in part for the limited purpose
of correcting an error in a citation on page 44 and two typos on page 31 of the ID. See ID at 44,
31. The ID’s findings of section 337 violations as to the Defaulting Respondents are based on
substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, and they do not require fiu'ther substantive review.
See 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2). The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the
ID.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1)
issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United
States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s)
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
2

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 (December 1994). In addition, if Complainants seek a cease and desist
order against a respondent, the written submissions should respond to the following requests:
1. Please identify with citations to the record any infonnation regarding
commercially significant inventory in the United States as to each respondent
against whom a cease and desist order is sought. If Complainants also rely
on other significant domestic operations that could undercut the remedy
provided by an exclusion order, please identify with citations to the record
such infonnation as to each respondent against whom a cease and desist
order is sought.
2. In relation to the infringing products, please identify any information in the
record, including allegations in the pleadings, that addresses the existence of
any domestic inventory, any domestic operations, or any sales-related
activity directed at the United States for each respondent against whom a
cease and desist order is sought.
If the Commission contemplates some fonn of remedy, it must consider the effects of that
remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect
that an exclusion order and/or 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 or disapprove the Commission’s action. See
Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 Fed. Reg. 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this
period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount
determined by the Corrnnission and prescribed bylthe 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: 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. Such submissions should address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. 	'
Complainant and OUII are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the p
Commission’s consideration. Complainant is also 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 identification infonnation for all known importers of the products at
issue in this investigation.
3

i 	\
_ Written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of
business on September 6, 2019. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of
business on September 13, 2019. Such submissions should address the ALJ’s recommended
determinations on remedy and bonding made in Order No. 17. No further submissions on these
issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. i
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or
before the deadlines stated above and submit eight true paper copies to the Office of the
Secretary pursuant to section 21O.4(t) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 2lO.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1 126”)
in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook on Filing
Procedures, https://ww'w.usitc.gov/documenls/handb00k_0n_/iling_pr0cedures.pdf). Persons
with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary at (202) 205-2000.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the
proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must
include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19
CFR 210.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be
treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed
simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business
infomation 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 persomiel (a) for developing or
maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in intemal investigations, audits,
reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, persomiel, and operations of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. govermnent employees and contract
persormel (all contract persomiel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements), solely for
cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. ,
The authority for the Commission’s detennination is contained ir1section 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.
WWLisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: August 23, 2019
4

CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND COMPONENTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1126
THEREOF
1, PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Claire Comfort, Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on 8/23/2019 _
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Electrolux Home Products. Inc.:
AI1d1‘CW	F. Pratt, Esq. 	E] Via Hand Delivery
VENEABLE LLP 	El Via Express Delivery
600 Massachusetts Ave NW 	E Via First class Mail
Washington, D.C. 2000] 	U Other:
On Behalf ofComplainant KX Technologies. LLC:
Robert CllT¢i0,Esq- 	w 	El Via Hand Delivery
DELIO, PETERSON & CURCIO LLC 	|:| Via Express Delivfiy
State Stffifit, SUITE _ First Class
New Haven, CT 06511 	' U Other:

PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
In the Matter of
CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Order N0. 17
Investigation No. 337-TA-1126
INITIAL DETERMINATION
Granting Complainants’ Motion for Summary Determination of
Violation by the Defaulting Respondents
And
RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION
On Remedy and Bonding

PUBLIC VERSION
1
' 	TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background..... ..>	............................................. ..
A. Institution of the Investigation; Procedural History
B. TheParties............................................ ..
C. TechnologicalBackground ......................... ..
D. TheProductsat Issue ................................ ..
Jurisdiction.................................................... ..
GeneralPrinciplesof ApplicableLaw ...................... ..
SummaryDetermination..................................... ..
A. Importation........................................... ..
B. Infringement.......................................... ..
C. 	Validity................................................ ..
D. Domestic Industry (TechnicalProng) ............. ..
E. Domestic Industry (Economic Prong) ............. ..
Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding .
A. GeneralExclusionOrder ...................... ..
B. Ceaseand DesistOrders ............................ ..
C. 	Bond................................................... ..
InitialDeterminationandOrder ............................ ..

PUBLIC VERSION
I. Background
A. Institution of the Investigation and Procedural History
By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on August 1, 2018, pursuant to
subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Commission instituted
this investigation to determine:
[W]hether there is a violation of subsection (a)(l )(B) of section
337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation
of products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of
one or more of claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 15 of the ‘146 patent; claim 49
h ofthe ‘S51patent; claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 ofthe ‘322 patent;
and claims l, 4-6, 9-1 1, 14-18, and 21-31 of the ‘852 patent; and
whether an industry in the United States exists as required by
subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. 210.10(b)(1), the plain language
description of the accused products or category of accused
products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “water
filter cartridges for refrigerators, including water filter cartridge
assemblies and interconnection subassemblies[.]”
83\Fed. Reg. 37514 (Aug. 1, 2018).
The complainants are Electrolux Home Products, Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, and
KX Technologies, LLC of West Haven, Connecticut. The named respondents are:
1. Shenzhen Calux Purification Technology Co., Limited of Shenzen,
Guangdong, China, V .
2. Ningbo Pureza Limited of Yinzhou, Ningbo, China,
3. JiangSu Angkua Environmental Technical Co., Ltd. of RuGao (Jiangsu),
China,
4. Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd. of Qindao (Qingdao), China, .
5. Shenzhen Dakon Purification Tech Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, Guangdong,
China, '
6. Hong Kong Ecoaqua Co., Limited of Hong Kong, China,
7. Ecolife Technologies, Inc. of City of Industry, California, and

PUBLIC VERSION
8. Crystala Filters LLC of Patterson, New Jersey
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“Staff”) is also a party to this investigation. Id.
The target date for completion of this investigation was set at 15.3 months, i.e.,
November 11, 2019. See Order No. 3 at 2 (Aug. 15, 2018). Accordingly, the initial
determination on alleged violation of section 337 is due on July 11, 2019.
On August 30, 2018, Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”), and KX
Technologies, LLC (“KXT”) (collectively, “complainants”) filed a motion for an order to show
cause why certain respondents that had not responded to complainants’ complaint or discovery
requests should not be found in default. Motion Docket No. 1126-4. On September 12, 2018,
the administrative law judge issued an order to show cause, ordering, inter alia, respondents
Shenzhen Calux Purification Technology Co., Limited (“Calux”); JiangSu Angkua
Environmental Technical Co., Ltd. (“Angkua Environmental”); and Shenzhen Dakon
Purification Tech Co., Ltd. (“Dakon”), to respond by no later than September 27, 2018. See
Order No. 8. None of those respondents responded to the show cause order. On October 3,
2018, the administrative law judge issued an initial determination finding those respondents
(collectively, “defaulting respondents”) in default. Order No. 9 (Oct. 3, 2018), ajfd, Notice of
the Commission’s Decision Not to Review an Initial Determination Finding Certain Respondents
in Default (Oct. 25, 2018).
The remaining respondents (Ecolife Technologies, Inc., Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd., Hong
Kong Ecoaqua Co. Limited, Ningbo Pureza Limited, and Crystala Filters LLC) appeared in the
investigation. The administrative law judge issued initial determinations terminating these five
respondents based on settlement agreements and the entry of consent orders as to each of these
respondents. See Order Nos. 14-16 (Mar. 6, 2019), afl’d, Notice of a Commission Decision Not
2

PUBLIC VERSION
to Review an Initial Detenninations Granting Joint Motions for Partial Termination of the
Investigation as to Certain Respondents Based on Consent Order Stipulations and Proposed
Consent Orders; lssuance of Consent Orders (Apr. 1, 2019).
On November 1, 2018, a Markman hearing was held in this investigation. See Order
No. 6 (Sept. 4, 2018) (Procedural Schedule); Markman Tr. 1-84 (Nov. 1, 2018). Issuance of a
Markman order was not required. V
On February 6, 2019, complainants filed a notice under 19 C.F.R. § 210.16(c)(2) that
they intend to file a motion for summary determination of violations by defaulting respondents
and entry of a general exclusion order. See EDIS Doc. ID No. 666169.
On February 12, 2019, complainants filed a motion for (1) summary determination
that the defaulting respondents have sold for importation into the United States, imported into the
United States, or sold after importation certain water filters and components thereof (collectively,
“accused products”), that infringe one or more of four U.S. patents owned by KX Technologies,
LLC and licensed exclusively to Electrolux North American, lnc., and, particularly, infringe U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,673,146 (‘ 146 patent), 8,137,551 (‘551 patent), 9,233,322 (‘322 patent), and
9,901,852 (‘852 patent) (collectively, “asserted patents”) in violation of section 337 of the Tariff
Act as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337; (2) summary determination that complainants satisfy the
domestic industry requirement with respect to the asserted patents; and (3) a recommended
determination for entry of a general exclusion order, cease and desist orders directed to the
defaulting respondents, and a bond set at 100 percent of entered value during the Presidential
review period. See Motion Docket. No. 1126-18 at 1-2.
On March 8, 2019, the Staff filed a response supporting the motion for a finding of a
violation, and supporting the requested remedy of a general exclusion order and cease and desist
3

PUBLIC VERSION
orders for at least certain defaulting respondents. See Staff at 2-3.
B. The Parties
1. Complainants Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; and KX
Technologies, LLC 1
Complainant KXT is the sole owner of the asserted patents. See Compl., Exs. 5-8 '
(certified assigmnent records). KXT is a Delaware company with its principal place of business
in West Haven, Connecticut. Compl., 11l4. KXT is primarily in the business of designing and
producing water filtration systems, including the ULTRAWF, WF3CB, and “[ 	]” water
filter products that complainants are relying upon to show a domestic industry. See id., 1]20.
Complainant Electrolux is the exclusive licensee to the asserted patents. See Compl., Ex.
24. Electrolux is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Compl., 119. Electrolux is a subsidiary of Electrolux North America, Inc., which is itself a
subsidiary of AB Electrolux, a major manufacttuer of home appliances, including the Frigidaire®
line of refrigerators. Compl., 111]10-l l.
Electrolux purchases the water filters that come preinstalled in certain models of its
refrigerator products as well as the replacement filters that it also sells to the consumers of these
products from KXT. See id., 1]4. Electrolux also designs, develops, and tests certain models of
refrigerators and their associated ice and water filtration units at a domestic facility in Anderson,
South Carolina. See id. , 111]ll-13.
2. Respondents
Respondents Calux and Dakon are both Chinese corporations with their principal place of
business in Guangdong, China. See Compl., 1[1l21-22, 33-36. Respondent Angkua
Environmental is a Chinese corporation with its principal place of business in Rugao, China.
4

PUBLIC VERSION
See id., 1]29-30.
The defaulting respondents all sell for importation, import, and/or sell after importation
into the United States replacement refrigerator water filters, including the accused products
which are offered and sold for use in the selected models of Electrolux-manufactured
refrigerators designed for the ULTRAWF and WF3CB domestic industry filters. See Mem. at 8
9. The accused water filter products that Angkua Environmental sells for importation, imports,
and/or sells after importation are known as Tierl RWFl180 and Etemawater EWRF1022. Id. at
9. The accused water filter products that Calux sells for importation, imports, and/or sells after
importation are known as Mist by Clearwater CWMF011 and Pumeat Frigidaire ULTRAWF
WF3CB. Id. The accused products that Dakon sells for importation, imports, and/or sells after
importation is also known as Purneat Frigidaire ULTRAWF WF3CB. 1d. However, there is
evidence that the defaulting respondents sell essentially the same accused replacement water
filter products under many different labels or brand names. See Compl., Ex. 25. _
C. Technological Background
The asserted patents are related patents in the same patent family. See Am. Compl., Ex. 1
(‘ 146 patent), Ex. 2 (‘551 patent), Ex. 3 (‘322 patent), Ex. 4 (‘852 patent). The asserted patents
are all entitled “Push Filter with Floating Key Lock.” See id. The asserted patents all claim their
earliest priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 12/188,816, which was filed on August 8, 2008.
See Am. C0mpl., Ex. 2 (‘551 patent). The first patent in the family issued on March 20, 2012.
See id.
The asserted patents are directed to a filter assembly with a push-activated lock and
push-activated release mechanism (i.e., a push-push lock). See Am. Compl., Ex. 2 (‘55 1 patent)
at col. 1, lns. 3-21 (“the filter housing may be attached to, and removed from, the mount by a
5

PUBLIC VERSION
push-actuated release”). The disclosed filter housing assembly has a removable, detachable
filter cartridge and a separate filter base. See id. at col. 9, lns. 57-59. The filter cartridge is
composed of a filter head with an attached filter manifold and a filter housing (which encloses
filter media such as a carbon block filter). See id. at col. 9, ln. 59 —col. 10, ln. 30. Figures 1A
and 1B provide an exploded top view and a side plan view of a preferred embodiment of the
filter assembly of the patented invention. See id. at col. 9, lns. 46-47, col. 10, lns. 28-30.
(0 	.
p fis
._. E """
<‘X‘,7 ,
- 	(vital 	§\ 	2
@
t 	W 	1
"5-'*’e;é	M \
\\:-/3‘
w 	_:_
.\.
-.»,._
“ -i~.;,-_i..,/ 	I
~\:
’551 Patent at Fig. 1 '
6

PUBLIC VERSION
\
The ‘551 patent indicates that the disclosed assembly is intended for use “as a filter for a
refrigerator having a water dispenser and/or an ice dispenser.” Id. at col. 2, lns. 2-17, col. 17,
lns. 39-41 (“It is envisioned that the preferred embodiment of the present invention would be
disposed in a refrigerator, most likely within the door.”). 	_
A unique filter key that mates with a floating lock on the filter base is connected to the
filter manifold on the filter assembly. See id. at col. 6, lns. 39-54. The patent describes designs
for the filter key which can “be used simultaneously as a lock and as an identifier for particular
filter attributes.” Am. Compl., Ex. 2 (‘S51 patent) at col. 1, lns. 7-8; Fig. 2. As disclosed, the
filter key preferably has a plurality of fingers that mate and interlock with corresponding drive
keys on the floating lock of the filter base. Id. at col. 12, lns. 11-63. The following Figures 2A
2E provide an illustration of a preferred embodiment for the filter key shown from multiple
different views or angles.
/52 52 	J 	5
, 	a,/5| 	P
S3’ 	._ 	§
- 	54/ F1625\5-1 	A‘_ 	‘ 	/ \| .
' 	‘ _ p 	'£ 	°‘b ~ 	. no 2c
I,» 	_ i‘ 	seq
. 	_ 	53
FIG 20
' 5// \5,, ew 561,if " FlG2A51 nszr 54 nsza
’551 Patent at Fig. 2
7

PUBLIC VERSION
Each of the fingers of the disclosed filter key includes a slanted face for sliding contact with
complementary angled features on the drive keys of the floating lock. Id at col. 12, ln. 64 —col
13, ln. 1. Upon the insertion of the filter cartridge, the sliding contact of the filter key’s fingers
will transversely shift the floating lock off of its initial position so that the fingers of the filter
key are inserted within gaps between the drive keys of the floating lock. Id. at col. 13, lns.1-5.
The automatic locking mechanism is specifically designed to provide facile removal and
replacement of the filter cartridge in the filter base. Id. at col. 7, lns. 20-22.
D. The Products at Issue
' 1. The Accused Products
Below is a table that provides a summary of the defaulting respondents’ accused
products: L
REPRESENTATIVE ACCUSED
DEFAULTING RESPONDENTS 	PRODUCT(S)
Purneat Frigidaire ULTRA WF3CB
Shenzen Calux Purification Technology Co., Filter One RF22
Limited 	' A 	t
Clearwater Filters a/k/a Mist by Clearwater
CWMF01 1
JiangSu Angkua Environmental Technical Etemawater E H 1002
C°*>L” 	e 	"rim RWFI 180
Shenzhen Dakon Purification Tech Co., Ltd. Pumeat Frigidaire ULTRAWF WF3CB
See Mem. at 9.
8
\

PUBLIC VERSION
2. The Domestic Industry Products
Complainants’ asserted patents are practiced by the domestic industry filters (“DI
Filters”), which are comprised of two production models and one model under development.
The production models are the ULTRAWF (“PureSource Ultra” or “Ultra”) and WFBCB
(“PureSource III”). Below are photos of the DI Filters sold under Electr01ux’s Frigidaire®
PureSource Ultra and PureSource 3 brands:
"~<..».
‘" 	mam‘
l-‘ 	-\ 	'1
...." 	S-'2]-1 ,
.
Frigidaire1"’PureSou1'ce Ultra 	F|'i'gidai1*e“‘Piu'eSom'ce 3
See Am. C_ompl.,Ex. 19C (Barrillon Decl.), 1]6. Despite the different brand names and model
numbers, the ULTRAWF and WF3CB filters are configured in the same way, with the
differences relating mainly to the housings’ length, and the characteristics of the carbon block
within the housing. See Am. Compl., Ex. _l9C (Ban-illon Decl.), 1]7. »
[
]:
9

PUBLIC VERSION
\
See Mem. at 14-16; Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.), 1]53; Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. G
([_ ] Claim Charts). _ '
II. Jurisdiction
No party has contested the Commission’s in rem jurisdiction over the accused products.
Evidence of specific instances of importation of the accused products were provided in the
amended complaint and accompanying exhibits. See Am. Compl., Ex. 25 at 1; Am. Compl., Ex
10 (AGA Decl.); Am. Compl., Ex. 14 and Ex. 37 (Bayne Decl.), 111]4-7, 9; Am. Comp1., Ex. 12
(Brixton Holdings Decl.), 1126; see also Am. Compl., Ex. 11 (Tierl Decl.), 111]5-7, 9-11, and 16
~
(Ex. A). Additionally, evidence of specific instances of importation of the accused products is
discussed in the importation section of this initial determination. Accordingly, it is found that
the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the accused products.
As indicated in the Commission’s notice of investigation, discussed above, this
investigation involves the importation of products alleged to infringe United States patents in a
manner that violates section 337 of the Tariff Act, as amended. No party has contested the
Commission’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of this investigation. It is found that the
Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over this investigation.
No party has contested the Com1nission’spersonal jurisdiction over it. In particular, the
respondents have all been given notice of this investigation at least through service of the
complaint and notice of investigation. It is therefore found that the Commission has personal
jurisdiction over all parties. 	'
10

PUBLIC VERSION
III. General Principles of Applicable Law
A. Summary Determination
Section 337 prohibits “[t]he importation into the United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of
articles that (i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent ....” 19 U.S.C.
§ l337(a)(1)(B). A complainant need only prove importation of a single accused product to
satisfy the importation element. See Certain Trolley WheelAssemblies, Inv. No. 337-TA-161,
Comm’n Op. at 7-8, USITC Pub. No. 1605 (Nov. 1984).
The Commission Rules provide that “[a]ny party may move with any necessary
supporting affidavits for a summary determination in its favor upon all or part of the issues to be
determined in the investigation. 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.l8(a). Summary determination “shall be
rendered if pleadings and any depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to summary determination as a matter of law.” 19 C.F.R.
§ 210. l 8(b).
B. Claim Construction
Claim construction begins with the plain language of the claim.1 Claims should be given
their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art,
viewing the claim terms in the context of the entire patent? Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d
1Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
-necessary to resolve the controversy. Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int ’I Trade Comm.,
366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vivid Tech, Inc. v. American Sci. & Eng ’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 	.
2 Factors that may be considered when determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include:
ll

PUBLIC VERSION
1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170 (2006).
In some instances, claim tenns do not have particular meaning in a field of art, and claim
construction involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
t
commonly understood words. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “In such circumstances, general
purpose dictionaries may be helpful.” Id
In many cases, claim terms have a specialized meaning, and it is necessary to determine
what a person of skill in the art would have understood the disputed claim language to mean.
“Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is often not
immediately apparent, and because patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court
looks to ‘those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would
have understood disputed claim language to mean.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (quoting
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir.
2004)). The public sources identified in Phillips include “the words of the claims themselves,
the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning
relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical tenns, and the state of the art.” Id.
(quoting Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116).
In cases in which the meaning of a claim term is uncertain, the specification usually is the
best guide to the meaning of the term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. As a general rule, the
particular examples or embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into the
“(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior
art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication
of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Environmental
Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil C0., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1043
(1 984). ‘
'12

PUBLIC VERSION
claims as limitations. Markman v. WestviewInstruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The specification is, however, always highly relevant to
the claim construction analysis, and is usually dispositive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Moreover, “[t]he
construction.that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s
description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id at 1316.
C. Infringement
1. Direct Infringement
Under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), direct infringement consists of making, using, offering to sell,
or selling a patented invention without consent of the patent owner. The complainant in a
section 337 investigation bears the burden of proving infringement of the asserted patent claims
by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Certain Flooring Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-443,
C0mm’n Notice of Final Determination of N0 Violation of Section 337, 2002 WL 448690, at
*59, (Mar. 22, 2002); Enercon GmbH v. Int’! Trade Comm ’n, 151 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Literal infringement of a claim occurs when every limitation recited in the claim appears
in the accused device, i.e., when the properly construed claim reads on the accused device
exact1y.3 Amhil Enters, Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Southwall
Tech. v. Cardinal [G C0., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed Cir. 1995).
If the accused product does not literally infringe the patent claim, infringement might be
3 Each patent claim element or limitation is considered material and essential. London v. Carson
Pirie Scott & C0., 946 F.2d 1534, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If an accused device lacks a limitation
of an independent claim, the device cannot infringe a dependent claim. See Wahpeton Canvas
Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1552 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
13

‘ PUBLIC VERSION
found under the doctrine of equivalents. “Under this doctrine, a product or process that does not
literally infringe upon the express tenns of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if
there is ‘equivalence’ between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed
elements of the patented invention.” Warner-Jenkinson C0., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.,
520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997) (citing Graver Tank & Mfg. C0. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605,
609 (1950)). “The determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an
element-by-element basis.”4 Id. at 40.
“An element in the accused product is equivalent to a claim limitation if the differences
between the two are insubstantial. The analysis focuses on whether the element in the accused
device ‘performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the
same result’ as the claim limitation.” AquaTex Indus. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374,
1382 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Graver Tank, 339 U.S. at 608); accord Absolute Software, 659 _
F.3d at 1139-40.5
2. Indirect Infringement
a. Induced Infringement 	\
p Section 271(b) of the Patent Act provides: “Whoever actively induces infringement of a
patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
4 “Infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact.”
Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, 1nc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
5“The known interchangeability of substitutes for an element of a patent is one of the express
objective factors noted by Graver Tank as bearing upon whether the accused device is
substantially the same as the patented invention. Independent experimentation by the alleged
infringer would not always reflect upon the objective question whether a person skilled in the art
would have known of the interchangeability between two elements, but in many cases it would
likely be probative of such knowledge.” Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 36.
14

PUBLIC VERSION
“To prevail on a claim of induced infringement, in addition to inducement by the
defendant, the patentee must also show that the asserted patent was directly infringed.” Epcon
Gas Sys. v. Bauer Compressors, Ina, 279 F.3d 1022, l033 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Further, “[s]ection
271(b) covers active inducement of infringement, which typically includes acts that intentionally
cause, urge, encourage, or aid another to directly infringe a patent.” Arris Group 14.British
Telecomm. PLC, 639 F.3d 1368, 1379 n.l3 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Supreme'Cou1t held that
“induced infringement under § 27l(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent
infringement.” Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011) (“Global
Tech”). The Court further held: “[g]iven the long history of willful blindness[6] and its wide
acceptance in the Federal Judiciary, we can see no reason why the doctrine should not apply in
civil lawsuits for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 27l(b).” Global-Tech, 563 U.S.
at 768 (footnote omitted).
b. Contributory Infringement
Section 271(c) of the Patent Act provides: “Whoever offers to sell or sells within the
United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine,'manufacture,
combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process,
constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or
especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
v.
6 “While the Comts of Appeals articulate the doctrine of willful blindness in slightly different
ways, allappear to agree on two basic requirements: (1) the defendant must subjectively believe
that there is a high probability that a fact exists and (2) the defendant must take deliberate actions
to avoid leaming of that fact. We think these requirements give willful blindness an
appropriately limited scope that surpasses recklessness and negligence.” Global-Tech, 563 U.S.
at 769. - 	.
l5

PUBLIC VERSION - 	‘
commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a
contributory infringer. 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). 	,
Section 27l(c) “covers both contributory infringement of system claims and method
claims.”7 Arris, 639 F.3d at 1376 (footnotes omitted). To hold a component supplier liable for
contributory inii/ingement, a patent holder must show, inter alia, that (a) the supplier’s product
was used to commit acts of direct infringement; (b) the product’s use constituted a material part
of the invention; (c) the supplier knew its product was especially made or especially adapted for
use in an infringement” of the patent; and (d) the product is not a staple article or commodity of
commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Id.
D. Domestic Industry
A violation of section 337(a)(l)(B), (C), (D) or (E) can be found “only if an industry in
the United States, with respect to the articles protected by the patent, copyright, trademark, mask
work, or design concemed, exists or is in the process of being established.” 19 U.S.C. §
1337(a)(2). Section 337(a) further provides:
i 	(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), an industry in the United States
shall be considered to exist if there is in the United States, with
respect to the articles protected by the patent, copyright, trademark,
mask work, or design concerned~ 	.
‘(A) significant investment in plant and equipment;
(B) significant employment of labor or capital; or
(C) substantial investment in its exploitation, including
engineering, research and development.
7“Claims which recite a ‘system,’ ‘apparatus,’ ‘combination,’ or the like are all analytically
similar in the sense that their claim limitations include elements rather than method steps. All
such claims can be contributorily infringed by a component supplier.” Arris, 639 F.3d at 1376
n.8. 	V
16

PUBLIC VERSION
19 U.S.C. § l337(a)(3). 	.
These statutory requirements consist of an economic prong (which requires certain
activities)8 and a technical prong (which requires that these activities relate to the intellectual
property being protected). Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components Thereofi Inv.
No. 337-TA-586, Comm’n Op. at 13 (May 16, 2008) (“Stringed Musical Instruments”). The
burden is onthe complainant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the domestic
industry requirement is satisfied. ' Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and
Systems, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-694, Comm’n
Op. at 5 (July 22, 2011) (“Navigation Devices”).
“With respect to section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), the technical prong is the requirement that
the investments in plant or equipment and employment in labor or capital are actually related to
‘articles protected by’ the intellectual property right which forms the basis of the complaint.”
Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 13-14. “The test for satisfying the ‘technical
prong’ of the industry requirement is essentially same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison
of domestic products to the asserted claims.” Alloc, Inc. v. Int ‘l Trade Comm 'n, 342 F.3d 1361, p
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “With respect to section 337(a)(3)(C), the technical prong is the
8The Commission practice is usually to assess the facts relating to the economic prong at the
time that the complaint was filed. See Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components
Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-560, Comm’n Op. at 39 n.l7 (Apr. 14,
2010) (“We note that only activities that occurred before the filing of a complaint with the
Commission are relevant to whether a domestic industry exists or is in the process of being .
established under sections 337(a)(2)-(3).”) (citing Bally/Midway Mfg. Co. v. US. Int ’l Trade
Comm ’n, 714 F.2d 1ll7,'1 121 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In some cases, however, the Commission will
consider later developments in the alleged industry, such as “when a significant and unusual
development occurred after the complaint has been filed.” See Certain VideoGame Systems and
Controllers, Inv. No. 337-TA-743, Comrn’n Op., at 5-6 (Jan. 20, 2012) (“[l]n appropriate
situations based on the specific facts and circmnstances of an investigation, the Commission may
consider activities and investments beyond the filing of the complaint”). 	_
17

PUBLIC VERSION
requirement that the activities of engineering, research and development, and licensing are
actually related to the asserted intellectual property right.” Stringed Musical Instruments,
C0mm’n Op. at 13.
With respect to the economic prong, and whether or not section 337(a)(3)(A) or (B) is
I
satisfied, the Conunission has held that “whether a complainant has established that its
investment and/or employment activities are significant with respect to the articles protected by
the intellectual property right concemed is not evaluated according to any rigid mathematical
formula.” Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA
690, Comm’n Op. at 27 (Feb. 17, 2011) (citing Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337
TA-546, Comm’n Op. at 39 (Aug. 1, 2007)). Rather, the Commission examines “the facts in
each investigation, the article of commerce, and the realities of the marketplace.” Id. “The
detemiination takes into account the nature of the investment and/or employment activities, ‘the
industry in question, and the c0mplainant’s relative size.”’ Id. (citing Stringed Musical
Instruments, Cormn’n Op. at 26). _
With respect to section 337(a)(3)(C), whether an investment in domestic industry is
“substantial” is a fact-dependent inquiry for which the complainant bears the burden of proof.
Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 14. There is no minimum monetary expenditure
that a complainant must demonstrate to qualify as a domestic industry under the “substantial
investment” requirement of this section. Id at 25. There is no need to define or quantify an
industry in absolute mathematical terms. Id. at 26. Rather, “the requirement for showing the
existence of a domestic industry will depend on the industry in question, and the complainant’s
relative size.” Id. at 25-26.
18

PUBLIC VERSION
E. Default
“In any motion requesting the entry of default or the termination of the investigation with
respect to the last remaining respondent in the investigation, the complainant shall declare
whether it is seeking a general exclusion order.” 19 C.F.R. § 21O.16(b)(4)(2). “A party found in
default shall be deemed to have waived its right to appear, to be served with documents, and to
contest the allegations at issue in the investigation.” 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.16(b)(4). Afier a
respondent has been found in default by the Commission, “[t]he facts alleged in the complaint
will be presmned to be true with respect to the defaulting respondent.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.16(c).
IV. Summary Determination
Complainants request the following:
(1) an initial detennination that those Respondents who have been folmd in
default in this Investigation (“Defaulting Respondents”) have violated
Section 337 ofthe TariffAct of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337,
through their importation into the United States, sale for importation,
and/or sale within the United States after importation of certain water
filters and components thereof (collectively, “Accused Products”), that
infringe one or more of four U.S. patents owned by KX Technologies,
LLC and licensed exclusively to Electrolux North American, Inc., and,
more particularly, of Accused Products that infringe one or more of the
following thirty-two claims (independent claims are shown in bold):
U.S. Patent No. 	Asserted Claims
8,673,146 	1, 2, 3, 6, 7
8,137,551 	49
9,233,322 	1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12,
13, 14, 15
9,901,852 	14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
' 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31
19

PUBLIC VERSION
(2) an initial determination that Complainants have satisfied both the technical
V and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement of 19 U.S.C. §
l337(a)(3)[ ]. 	_
Mot. at 1-2.9
The Staff argues:
The Staff supports Complainants’ Motion for a summary determination of
violation of Section 337 based on the evidence and declarations submitted, and
because the Staff has not identified any material facts in dispute. In the Staffs
view, Complainants have made the showing necessary to establish that each of the
Defaulting Respondents has violated‘Section 337. Specifically, Complainants
have set forth substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that:
‘ 	.
(1) with respect to the Accused Products, the Defaulting Respondents
have each imported into the United States, sold for importation, or sold
within the United States after importation;
(2) the Accused Products infringe claims 1-3 and 6-7 of the ’l46‘Patent,
claim 49 ofthe ’551 Patent, claims l-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ’322
Patent, and claims 14-18 and 21-31 of the ’852 Patent; and
(3) a domestic industry exists with respect to products protected by the
Asserted Patents.
The Staff knows of no reason to dispute the material facts that Complainants have
set forth in their Motion and the declarations submitted therewith. Accordingly,
Complainants motion for summary determination of violation of Section 337 by
1 the Defaulting Respondents should be granted.
Staff Resp. at 2.10
A. Importation
Section 337 prohibits “[t]he importation into the United States, the sale for importation,
or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of
articles that —(i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent . . . .” 19 U.S.C.
§ l337(a)(1)(B). A complainant “need _onlyprove importation of a single accused product to
9 Emphasis in original unless noted otherwise.
'0 Citations omitted unless noted otherwise.
20

PUBLIC VERSION
satisfy the importation element.” Certain Purple Protective Gloves, Inv. No. 337-TA-500, Order
No. 17 at 5 (Sept. 23, 2004); Certain Trolley WheelAssemblies, Inv. No. 337-TA-161, Views of
the Commission at 7-8 (Aug. 29, 1984), USITC Pub. No. 1605 (Nov. 1984), available as 1984
WL 951859 (importation of product sample sufficient to establish violation, even though sample
“had no commercial value and had not been sold in the United States”). The evidence shows a
specific instance of importation and/or a sale for importation of the accused water filters by each
of the defaulting respondents.
5
Complainants argue:
There is substantial, reliable, and probative evidence establishing that the
Defaulting Respondents have violated Section 337 through their importation into
the United States, sale for importation, and/or sale within the United States after
importation of the Accused Products that infringe the Asserted Claims of the
Asserted Patents. There is also substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
establishing that non-Respondent importers and sellers have violated Section 337
while operating from abroad and/or behind the protection of anonymous seller
IDs on online sales platfomis such as Amazon and eBay.
Mem. at 40.
The Staff argues: “The evidence shows a specific instance of importation and/or a sale for
importation of the accused water filters by each of the Defaulting Respondents.” Staff Resp. at
17.
For Calux, a declaration from Albert Grazi of AGA Imports LLC d/b/a Clearwater Filters
(AGA) and attached shipping invoices show that “Clearwater Filters a/k/a Mist by Clearwater,”
which are sold as replacements for the Frigidaire®ULTRAWF filter cartridge, were sent directly
from Calux in Shenzhen, China to AGA in Lakewood, NJ and/or its importer BINO Products
LLC in New York, NY. See Am. Compl., Ex. 10 (AGA Decl.), 1I1[12-14, 17, and 22 (AGA006—
21

PUBLIC VERSION
009 (shipment inv0ices)).
For Dakon, evidence shows that KXT’iscounsel made a purchase through Alibaba.com
from Michelle Cao of respondent Calux and then was sent, by respondent Dakon, two water
filters labeled with the brand name “Purneat,” to be used as ULTRAVVF/WF3CBreplacement
filter cartridges. See Am. Compl., Ex. 37 (Bayne Decl.), {I114-5, Exs. A-D. The Dakon-supplied
“Purneat” water filters were sent from Shenzhen, China to Wallingford, CT. See id.; see also
Am. Compl., Ex. 14 (Receipts) (shipping invoice). 	'
For Angkua Environmental, a declaration from Kerry Sebree of Brixton Holdings LLC
d/b/a Etemawater and attached shipping invoices show that “Etemawater” filters, sold as
replacements for the Frigidaire®ULTRAWF filter cartridge, were sent from respondent Angkua
Enviromnental in RuGao, China to Brixton Holdings LLC in Suwanee, GA. See Am. Compl.,
Ex. 12 (Brixton Holdings Decl.), W 13, 16, 21, 26, Exs. 1-2. A declaration from Jarnin Arvig on
behalf of Water Filters Direct LLC and U.S. Water Filters, Inc. d/b/a Tierl (Tierl), and attached
shipping invoices also show that replacement water filters for the Frigidaire®WF3CB and
ULTRAWF filter cartridge were sent by respondent Angkua Environmental in RuGao, China to
Tierl in Zumbrota, MN. See Am. Compl., Ex. ll (Tierl Decl.), W 9-l3“, 16-17, Ex. A.
V Thus, the administrative law judge has determined that the evidence satisfies the
importation element by specific instances of importation and/or a sale for importation of the
accused water filters by each of the defaulting respondents.
B. Infringement
Complainants argue:
The Defaulting Respondents and the Non-Respondent Sellers all sell
identical infringing water filters as replacement for the DI Products. Complainants
_ and their expert, Dr. Joseph J. Beaman, Sc.D., professor of mechanical
22

PUBLIC VERSION
1
engineering at the University of Texas, evaluated each of the Accused Products
and determined that they infringe each of the Asserted Patents literally and/or
~ under the doctrine of equivalents.
Mem. at 26. It is argued:
There is substantial, reliable, and probative evidence establishing that the
Accused Products of the Defaulting Respondents and Non-Respondent Sellers
infringe each Asserted Claim of each Asserted Patent literally and/or under the
doctrine of equivalents. Dr. Beaman evaluated each of the Accused Products as
compared to the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents and concluded that each
and every claim was infringed literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
The analysis below is intended to be read in conjunction with the claim charts and
analysis prepared by Dr. Beaman, which further illustrate these concepts in
comparison to the actual Accused Products.
Mem. at 28.“
The Staff argues: “In the Staffs view, substantial evidence shows that the Accused
Products of the Defaulting Respondents infringe claims 1-3 and 6-7 of the T146Patent, claims 1
3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ’322 Patent, claims 14-18 and 21-31 of the ’852 Patent, and claim 49 of
the ’55l Patent.” Staff Resp. at 18-19.
Complainants allege infringement of fo1.u'patents in the same patent family: the ‘146
patent, the ‘551 patent, the ‘322 patent, and the ‘852 patent, all titled “Push Filter with Floating
Key Lock.” See Am. Compl., Ex. l‘(‘146 patent); Ex. 2 (‘S51 patent); Ex. 3 (‘322 patent); Ex. 4
(‘852 patent). The asserted patents all claim their earliest priority to U.S. Patent Application No.
12/188,816, filed on August 8, 2008. See Am. Compl., Ex. 2 (‘551 patent). In particular,
complainants assert claims 1-3 and 6-7 of the ‘146 patent, claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ‘32~2
patent, claims 14-18 and 21-31 of the ‘852 patent, and claim 49 of the ‘551 patent against
accused products of defaulting respondents. See Mem. at 6. The asserted claims of the ‘146
11Footnotes omitted unless noted otherwise.
23

PUBLICvEi2sIoN
patent, ‘322 patent, and ‘852 patent are directed to a filter cartridge or a filter housing assembly.
Claim 49 of the ‘S51 patent is directed to a method for attaching a filter housing assembly to a
filter base.
Complainants and theirexpert, Dr. Joseph J. Beaman, Sc.D., professor of mechanical
engineering at the University of Texas, evaluated each of the accused products and determined
that they infringe each of the asserted patents literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
Dr. Beaman is an endowed professor and fonner chair of the Department of Mechanical
Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin in Austin, Texas. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman
Aff.), 111. Dr. Beaman has forty years of experience as a professor in mechanical engineering at
the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Beaman received Bachelor and Master of Science degrees
in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 1972 and 1975,
respectively. He received a Doctor of Science in Mechanical Engineering in 1979 from
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dr. Beaman is a registered
professional engineer in Texas. He has received numerous awards and commendations. He was
named a member of the National Academy of Engineers in 2013, and received the Distinguished
Centennial Engineering Research Award at the University of Texas at Austin in 2018. See id.
For each of the defaulting respondents and each of the accused products, complainants
and Dr. Beaman provided limitation-by-limitation infringement claim charts that address all
thirty-two of the asserted claims of the asserted patents. See id. at Exs. C-F. The infringement
claim charts attached to the “Beaman Affidavit” are organized as follows: (1) Exhibit_C includes
all ‘551 patent claim charts for each of the defaulting respondents and accused products; (2)
Exhibit D includes all ‘146 patent claim charts for each of the defaulting respondents and
accused products; (3) Exhibit E includes all ‘322 patent claim charts for each of the defaulting
24

PUBLIC VERSION
respondents and accused products; and (4) Exhibit F includes all ‘852 patent claim charts for
each of the defaulting respondents and accused products.
1. Asserted Patents
As noted above, the asserted patents are related patents in the same patent family. See
Am. Compl., Ex. 1 (‘146 patent), Ex. 2 (‘S51 patent), Ex. 3 (‘322 patent), Ex. 4 (‘852 patent).
The asserted patents are all entitled “Push Filter with Floating Key Lock.” See id. The asserted
patents all claim their earliest priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 12/188,816, which was
filed on August 8, 2008. See Am. Comp1., Ex. 2 (‘S51 patent). The first patent in the family
issued on March 20, 2012. See id. V
The asserted patents are directed to a filter assembly with a push-activated lock and
push-activated release mechanism (i.e., a push-push lock). See Am. Compl., Ex. 2 (‘S51 patent)
at col. 1, lns. 3-21 (“the filter housing may be attached to, and removed from, the mount by a
push-actuated release”). The disclosed filter housing assembly has a removable, detachable
filter cartridge and a separate filter base. See id. at col. 9, lns. 57-59. The filter cartridge is
composed of a filter head with an attached filter manifold and a filter housing (which encloses
filter media such as a carbon block filter). See id. at col. 9, ln. 59 —col. 10, ln. 30. Figures 1A
and 1B provide an exploded top view and a side plan view of a preferred embodiment of the
filterassembly of the patented invention. See id. at col. 9, lns. 46-47, col. 10, lns. 28-30.
25

PUBLIC VERSION
_ 	g 	V
/fr,
GO 	. 	("1 	LO 	1
“K/J 	it
>1.
5
51'»
‘=5:.;»,. 	1
,_' ?:,'i;§Z;I” 	_
‘ 	’S51 Patent at Fig. 1
The ‘S51 patent instructs that the disclosed assembly is intended for use “as a filter for a
refrigerator having a water dispenser and/or an ice dispenser.” Id. at col. 2, lns. 2-17, col. 17
lns. 39-41 (“It is envisioned that the preferred embodiment of the present invention would be
disposed in a refrigerator, most likely within the door.”).
26
9

PUBLIC VERSION
A unique filter key that mates with a floating lock on the filter base is connected to the
filter manifold on the filter assembly. See id. at col. 6, his. 39-54. The patent describes designs
for the filter key which can “be used simultaneously as a lock and as an identifier for particular
filter attributes.” Am. C0mpl., Ex. 2 (‘S51 patent) at col. l, lns. 7-8; Fig. 2. As disclosed, the
filter key preferably has a plurality of fingers that mate and interlock with corresponding drive
keys on the floating lock of the filter base. Id. at col. 12, lns. ll-63. The following figures 2A
2E provides an illustration of a preferred embodiment for the filter key shown from multiple
different views or angles. .
5
/52 52 .
, 	_/ 	5l'\ 	’ “ /5	—‘ —l — 	—, _ 	53 	'
iI
-. .. . ,
4/ haze 	\54 	3/ 	gnil‘
sen 	ii“ FIG2c
_._5 	U
we 2|: 	53 53
VJ‘. 	*
| 	|=-| e8 \__ 	_.. 	_=!l 	55	v 	::'
a I v 4 , 5*“
52/ \54 53 56b FIG2A
I 52 	FIG 2F 54 	FBG 2B
’55l Patent at Fig. 2
‘ 27

PUBLIC VERSION
Each of the fingers of the disclosed filter key includes a slanted face for sliding contact with
complementary angled features on the drive keys of the floating lock. Id. at col. 12, ln. 64 —col.
13, ln. 1. Upon the insertion of the filter cartridge, the sliding contact of the filter key’s fingers
will transversely shift the floating lock off of its initial position so that the fingers of the filter
key are inserted within gaps between the drive keys of the floating lock. Id. at col. 13, lns.1-5.
The automatic locking mechanism is specifically designed to provide for facile removal and
replacement of the filter cartridge in the filter base. Id. at col. 7, lns. 20-22.
As discussed above, the thirty-two patent claims that are presently at issue in this
investigation are the following: claims 1-3 and 6-7 of the ’146 patent; claim 49 of the ’55l
patent; claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 ofthe ’322 patent; and claims 14-18 and 21-31 ofthe ’852
patent. 	I
The asserted claims of the ’l46 patent, ’322 patent, and ’852 patent are directed to a filter
cartridge or a filter housing assembly. Claim 49 of the ’55l patent is directed to a method for
attaching a filter housing assembly to a filter base.
2. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Neither the complainants nor the Staff offered any arguments conceming the technical
qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed inventions.
Nonetheless, the administrative law judge has determined that a person of ordinary skill in the _
art at the time of the claimed inventions would have had (1) a mechanical engineering degree or
an equivalent education; and (2) two to three years of experience in industry with regard to fluid
devices or fluid handling apparatus. See Markman Tr. 49 (“We’ve all seem to have come to
terms with a person having ordinary skill in the art having a mechanical engineering degree,
28

PUBLIC VERSION
having experience in industry with regard to fluid devices or fluid handling apparatus”).
3. Claim Construction
Complainants, the settled respondents, along with the Staff, filed a joint claim
construction chart regarding certain disputed terms from claims of the asserted patents. As
noted, a Markman hearing was held on November 1, 2018.
The parties agreed to the following claim constructions:
extending laterally from said top surface
‘146 patent claim 1 | ‘322 patent claims 1, 12 I ‘852 patent claim 14
extending sideways from the top surface
on each longitudinal side [of said filter key] extending laterally from said top surface
‘322 patent claims 1, 12 | ‘852 patent claim 14
located on both lengthwise sides [of the filter key] extending sideways from the top surface
winged extensions
‘146 patent claim l I ‘322 patent claims 1, 12, 14, 15 | ‘852 patent claims 14, 16, 17 | ‘S51
patent claim 49
extensions outward from the width ofthe body of the protrusion, finger, attachment finger, or
‘ lateral finger
See Mem. at 26-27; see also Staff Resp. at 10. 	“
29

PUBLIC VERSION
The disputed terms are provided in chart form below:
a plurality of spaced protrusions or fingers
‘146 patent claim 1 | ‘322 patent claims 1, 12 I ‘852 patent claim 14
Complainants’ Construction Settled Respondents’ and Staff’s
Construction C V
Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction
necessary multiple gap-separated projections
laterally facing opposing side faces
‘852 patent claims 25, 28
Complainants’ Construction Settled Respondents’ and Staffs
Construction
opposing surfaces oriented in the same opposing flat surfaces oriented in the same I
direction as the filter key’s shortest sides direction as the filter key’s shortest sides
lateral fingers [of filter key]
‘S51 patent claim 49
Settled Respondents’ and Staff’s	. , 	.
Complainants Construction 	Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning. No constmction
necessary multiple sideways gap-separated projections
slanted or angled face(s) 	_
‘I46 patent claim 1 | ‘322 patent claims 1, 12 | ‘852 patent claims 16, 21, 27
Complainants’ Construction Settled Respondents’ and Staffs ‘
Construction
flat surface(s), each of which is slanted or
surface(s), each of which is slanted or angled angled
See Mem. at 26-27; see also Staff Resp. at 10.
30

PUBLIC VERSION
L For infringement analysis (discussed below in the infringement sections), Dr. Beamon
considered all claim constructions including those for the disputed claim terms. See Mem. at 28
(“In the analysis that follows, infringement can be established under any party’s constructions,
both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents”); Staff Resp. at 10-11 (“Irrespective of
which of these proposed constructions is adopted for each of the disputed claim tenns, the
Accused Products and the domestic industry products all satisfy the relevant claim limitations.”
(citing Mem. Ex. A (Beamon Aff.) (applying both constructions in the alternative with no
difference in 0utcome))); Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.), 1]25 (“I have been instructed to refer to
the claim constmctions where agreed upon by the parties, and to consider all parties’ claim
constructions where agreement has not been reached.”).
4. Accused Products
Below are photographs of each of the accused products:
Tier 1 RWF1180 _(_;_
(Angkua Environmental)
111$’
31

Eternawater EWRF1022
(Angkua Environmental)
Mist by Cléarwater
CWMF011 (Calux)
PUBLIC VERSION
C—”B
Ii
32
E
Q.
gr!
~...__,____\___,§.=-P‘?
f E
_ 	~ 	.
‘-—-..-=.,,..,__Hu-I,

PUBLIC VERSION
V»
Purneat Frigidaire
ULTRAWF WFSCB
(Calux and Dakon)
$.
~><"‘ 	Z
See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. C (‘S51 patent claim charts).
In each of the accused products, the filter key located on the filter housing has the
following design: 	'
33

PUBLIC VERSION
Filter Key 	'
See id.,1[ 34 (explaining the accused products “all contain identical filter key structure, which is
a direct copy of a ‘multi-finger’ embodiment_of a filter key taught by the asserted patents. These
products are geometrically identical to what is taught by the asserted claims and are identical to
the complainants’ Frigidaire®ULTRAWF/WF3CB products that practice the asserted patents.”).
5. Infringement of the ‘146 Patent
Complainants argue that the accused products of the defaulting respondents and non
respondent sellers each infringe claims 1-3, 6, and 7 of the ‘146 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
27l(a) literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. D
(‘ 146 patent claim charts). 	I '
a. Literal Infringement of the ‘146Patent
Asserted claims l-3 and 6-7 of the ‘146 patent are all apparatus claims that are directed to
a filter housing assembly. See Am. Compl., Ex. 1 (‘ 146 patent) at claims l-3, 6-7. The
complainants provided detailed claim charts demonstrating the infringement by these accused
products. See Mem. Ex, A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. D (‘ 146 patent claim charts). The
administrative law judge has determined the evidence establishes that claims l-3 and 6-7 of the
‘146 patent are literally infringed by the accused products of the defaulting respondents.
b. Infringement ofthe ‘146Patent Under the Doctrine of
Equivalents
The ‘146 patent includes asserted claims l-3, 6, and 7. Complainants note that applicant
submitted arguments in an October 4, 2012 preliminary amendment to distinguish claim 1 over
the cited prior art of Koslow (U.S. Patent No. 5,700,371), stating that Koslow does not teach or
disclose a filter key with a plurality of spaced protrusions or fingers. See Mem. at 34. There
34

PUBLIC VERSION
1
were no claim narrowing amendments presented for dependent claims 2, 3, 6, and 7.
Claim 1 of the ‘146 patent includes a filter key located on the top portion of the filter
housing having a plurality of spaced protrusions or fingers extending laterally from the top
surface, where the fingers include winged extensions having slanted or angled faces for mating
attachment. See Am. Compl., Ex. 1 (‘ 146 patent) at col. 18, lns. 20-26. These limitations read
directly on the accused products that each have a plurality of spaced protrusions or fingers, and
allow for the application of the doctrine of equivalents under the function-way-result test and
insubstantial differences test for other relevant limitations of this claim with respect to the terms,
59 ss 	as is
inter alia, “longitudinal sides, lateral sides, extending laterally from said top surface,”
“winged extensions,” and “slanted or angled faces.” See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.), 1137.
The dependent claims are entitled to the application of the doctrine of equivalents. For
example, claim 2 provides for fingers having a diamond shaped cross-section. The diamond
shaped cross-section provides for an embodiment where the shape of the finger lends itself to
shifting the floating lock, and seating within a drive key. Fingers having curved features (e.g.,
oval cross-section) that simply round-out a coarser diamond shaped cross-section would shift the
floating lock and seat within the drive keys in the same manner, thus, performing theisame
function, in the same way, to produce the same result. See Mem. at 35.
Furthermore, claim 3 provides for snap fit, friction fit, welding, or bonding the filter key
to the filter housing, and each of the accused products includes a filter key which is attached by
snap fit or friction fit to the respective filter housing. Claims 6 and 7 are directly infringed for all
accused designs, and therefore also under any application of the doctrine of equivalents. Id.
Therefore, the administrative law judge has determined the evidence establishes that
claims 1-3 and 6-7 of the ‘146 patent are also infringed by the accused products under the
35

PUBLIC VERSION
doctrine of equivalents.
_ 6. Infringement of the ‘852 Patent
Complainants argue that the accused products of the defaulting respondents and non
I,
respondent sellers each infringe claims 14-18, and 21-31 of the ‘852 patent pursuant to 35 U_S.C.
§ 271(a) literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. F
(‘852 patent claim charts). »
a. Literal Infringement of the ‘852 Patent
Asserted claims 14-18 and 21-31 of the ‘852 patent are all apparatus claims directed to
either a filter housing assembly, a filter cartridge, or a filter key. See Am. Compl., Ex. 4 (‘852
patent) at col. 18, ln. 55 —col. 19, ln. 18; col. 19, ln. 64 - col. 21, ln. 9. The complainants
provided detailed claim charts demonstrating the infringement by these accused products. See
Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. F (‘852 patent claim charts). The administrative law judge has
determined the evidence establishes that claims 14-18 and 21-31 of the ‘852 patent are literally
infringed by the accused products of the defaulting respondents.
l b. Infringement of the ‘852 Patent Under the Doctrine of
, Equivalents
The ‘852 patent includes asserted claims 14-18, and 21-31. Complainants argue that in
an August 30,2016 preliminary amendment, applicant added new claims 26-28 to be prosecuted
to define an attachment structure for the filter key. See Mem. at 36. Complainants assert these
claims were “addedto include the attachment structure, and that the claims were not added to
overcome any cited prior art.
In an interview with the examiner on October 24, 2017, the applicant proposed adding
new claims (originally numbered 29-42) to the application. The proposed claims were
36

PUBLIC VERSION
submitted, “to provide additional protection for different aspects of the invention.” See id.
Furthermore, in a December 27, 2017 amendment, applicant amended originally numbered claim
29 (issued claim 21) and originally numbered claim 35 (issued claim 25) to more clearly
delineate the direction of the filter housing axis (extending in an axial direction along the filter
housing). Id. There were no other amendments to these claims, and the limitation for the filter
key in each independent claim was allowed without amendment. The filter key limitation
presented in each of these claims is entitled to the full-scope of the doctrine of equivalents.
~ The applicant amended the preamble of originally numbered dependent claims 40-42 to
state their dependence upon the filter key of originally numbered claim 39. The applicant further
submitted a terminal disclaimer. Id. 	"
Claim l4 of the ‘852 patent includes a filter key “having a plurality of spaced protrusions
or fingers on each longitudinal side of said filter key extending laterally from said top surface
and having winged extensions.” See Am. Compl., Ex. 4 (‘852 patent) at col 18, lns. 64-66.
These limitations read directly on the accused products that each have a plurality of spaced
protrusions or fing/ers,and further allows for the application of the doctrine of equivalents under
the FWR test and insubstantial differences test for other relevant limitations of this claim with _
respect to the terms, inter alia, “longitudinal sides,” “lateral sides,” “extending laterally from
av GS 	i
said top surface, winged extensions,” and “slanted or angled faces.” See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman
Aff.),1[ 41. Dependent claims 15-18 are entitled to the application of the doctrine of equivalents.
The doctrine of equivalents allows for these limitations to read on a filter key having a
laterally or sideways extending finger or protrusion. The function performed by having a finger
extend laterally or sideways from said top surface is to shift a floating lock drive key, which a
finger of the accused products extending laterally performs, and based on the geometry of the
37

PUBLIC VERSION
finger/winged extension of the accused products, the floating lock will be shifted by the
finger/winged extension in the same way, producing the same result. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman
Aff.), 111139, 48.
The terms “winged extensions” and “slanted or angled faces” are not limited solely to
literal infringement, and the elements of the accused products, represented by “winged
extensions” and/or “slanted or angled faces,” necessarily perform the same function, in-the same
way as required by the patent claims.
With respect to claims 21 and 25 of the ‘852 patent, as noted above, the applicant
amended originally numbered claim 29 (issued claim 21) and originally numbered claim 35
(issued claim 25) to more clearly delineate the direction of the filter housing axis (extending in
an axial direction along the filter housing). See Mem. at 38. There were no other amendments to
these claims. The relevant limitations of these claims are entitled to the application of the
doctrine of equivalents.
Claim 21 includes the limitations:
a filter key located on or connected to the filter housing and having a top surface,
longitudinal sides, and lateral sides shorter than the longitudinal sides, the filter
key having a protrusion extending in a direction parallel to the filter key lateral
sides, wherein the protrusion includes on one side a slanted or angled face angled
with respect to the filter housing axis, and on an opposing side a face having a _
substantially straight edge parallel to the filter housing axis;
See Am. Compl_.,Ex. 4 (‘852 patent) at col. 20, lns 5-l l. Claim 25 includes the limitations:
a filter key located on or connected to the filter housing for mating attachment to
a filter base or manifold, the filter key having a top surface, longitudinal sides,
and lateral sides shorter than the longitudinal sides, the filter key having an
attachment finger extending in a direction parallel to the filter key lateral sides,
wherein the attachment finger includes laterally facing opposing side faces,
wherein one opposing side face forms a first angle with the filter housing axis and
_the other opposing side face forms a second angle with the filter housing axis,
such that the first angle and the second angle are not equal.
38

PUBLIC VERSION
See id. at col. 20, lns. 3l-42. Y
These limitations were allowed without a claim narrowing amendment, and are entitled to
the application of the doctrine of equivalents. See Mem. at 39. The claims are applicable to all
the accused products.
Complainants further argue that the tenn “lateral sides shorter than the longitudinal sides”
identifies a side of the filter key that is in the plane of direction of an attachment finger. See
Mem. at 39. Even if a portion of the filter key has a geometrically square configuration (as
opposed to a rectangular configuration), the directional attributes of a “lateral direction” and
“longitudinal direction” are applicable. The fact that the lateral side of a square is equal to a
longitudinal side of a square does not alter the function-way-result of the filter key. This is so
because the function of the filter key remains to secure the filter housing to the filter base, and
the assignments of the sides of the filter key used to define the directionality of the attachment
finger(s) are consistent with the ‘locationof the finger(s) in relation to the filter key. In this
regard, the doctrine of equivalents remains applicable to this claim limitation. See id.
Both asserted claims include a description on the geometry of the finger. See Am.
Compl., Ex. 4 (‘852 patent) at col. 20, lns 5-11; col. 20, lns. 31-42. In both instances, this
asymmetry is equivalent to the shape of the fingers (winged extensions) of the accused products,
The asymmetry of the accused products’ finger designs (whether under complainants’
construction or respondents’ construction) requires the same function of the finger, locking to the
floating lock, in substantially the same way, shifting the floating lock under a camrning action, to
produce the same result, a locked filter housing to a filter base. See Mem. at 39-40. As
complainants assert, the same argument applies to dependent claims 22-24 and 26.
Claims 27 and 28 are directed to a filter key, and share the filter key limitations of
39

PUBLIC VERSION
claims 21 and 25, respectively. See, e.g., Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. F (‘852 patent claim
charts) at 13-17 (Claim 21), 21-25 (Claim 25), 26-34 (Claims 27 and 28). These limitations were
allowed without a claim narrowing amendment and are entitled to the application of the doctrine
of equivalents. The claims are applicable to all accused products. Therefore, the administrative
law judge has determined the evidence establishes that claims 14-18 and 21-31 of the ‘852 patent
are also infringed by the accused products under the doctrine of equivalents. See, e.g. , Mem.
Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. F (‘852 patent claim charts) at 35-37 (Claims 29-31: Angkua
Enviromnental), 108-10 (Claims 29-31: Calux), 181-83 (Claims 29-31: Dakon).
7. Infringement of the ‘322 Patent
Complainants argue,that the accused products of defaulting respondents and non
respondent sellers each infringe claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ‘322 patent pursuant to 35
U.S;C. § 271(a) literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.)
at Ex. E (‘322 patent claim charts). 	p
a. \ Literal Infringement of the ‘322Patent
Asserted claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ‘322 patent are all apparatus claims that are
directed to a filter housing assembly. See Am. Compl., Ex. 3 (‘322 patent) at col. 16, lns. 24 —
39; col. 16, ln. 61 —col. 17, ln. 2; col. 17, lns. 15 —37. Dr. Beaman has provided detailed claim
charts to show that every limitation of asserted claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ‘322 patent is
present in each of the accused products. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. E (‘322 patent
claim Cl'lflI'lS).
Claim 1 of the ‘322 patent includes a filter key located on the top portion of the filter
housing and having spaced protrusions or fingers on each longitudinal side extending laterally
from the top surface, where the fingers include winged extensions having slanted or angled faces.
40

PUBLIC VERSION
On the other (bottom) side of the filter key, a groove receives an elongated protrusion extending
from the top surface of the filter housing. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.), 1]40. These
limitations read directly on the accused products that each have a plurality of spaced protrusions
or fingers, and further allows for the application of the doctrine of equivalents Lmderthe FWR
test and insubstantial differences test for other relevant limitations of this ‘claimwith respect to
the terms, inter alia, “longitudinal sides,” “lateral sides,” “extending laterally from said top
surface,” “winged extensions,” and “slanted or angled faces” as explained further below. Id.
The same argument applies to independent claim 12. Id., 1]41.
_The detailed claim charts further demonstrate the infringement of the ‘322 patent by the
accused products. See id. at Ex. E. Accordingly, the administrative law judge has determined
the evidence establishes that claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ‘852 patent are literally infringed
by the accused products of the defaulting respondents. 	_
b. Infringement of the ‘322Patent Under the Doctrine of
Equivalents 	e
The ‘322 patent includes asserted claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15. These claims were allowed
without any claim narrowing amendments. A terminal disclaimer was submitted for the
allowance of these claims. See Mem. at 32. Complainants argue that the terms discussed above
in connection with literal infringement have exactly the same meaning when applied to the .
accused products and would present equivalents as well. Id. For example, the directional terms
(“longitudinal sides,’-’“lateral sides” “extending laterally from said top surface”) have equivalent
application to the accused products, and their directional attributes can be applied to the
geometric designs of other multi-finger filter keys. Id. at 32-33.
I
These tenns provide directionality, assigning a lateral direction for the direction of the
41

PUBLIC VERSION
finger, and longitudinal direction perpendicular to the lateral direction. The term “extending
laterally from said top surface” has the finger extend in a lateral direction sideways from said top
surface. Id. The doctrine of equivalents allows for these limitations to read on a filter key
having a laterally or sideways extending finger or protrusion. The function performed by having
a finger extend laterally or sideways from said top surface is to shift a floating lock drive key,
which a finger of the accused products extending laterally performs, and based on the geometry
of the finger/winged extension of the accused products, the floating lock will be shifted by the
finger/winged extension in the same way, producing the exact same result. See Mem., Ex A
(Beaman Aff.), 111]39, 48.
The terms “winged extensions” and “slanted or angled faces” are not limited solely to
literal infringement, and the elements of the accused products, represented by “winged
extensions” and/or “slanted or angled faces,” necessarily perform the same function, in the same
way as required by the patent claims. Therefore, the administrative law judge has determined
that the evidence establishes that claims 1-3, 7-9, and l2-15 of the ‘322 patent are infringed by
the accused products under the doctrine of equivalents.
8. Indirect Infringement of the ‘551Patent
Complainants argue that defaulting respondents were aware of the ‘S51 patent, and
intended for their actions to result in a third-party infringing method claim 49 of the ‘S51 patent.
See Mem. at 29. The Staff notes that complainants only appear to allege inducement under
section 27l(b) and not contributory infringement under Section 27 1(c) of the Patent Act. See
Staff Resp. at 24 n8. The Staff states that there is substantial evidence that the defaulting
respondents have induced infringement of asserted claim 49 of the ‘55'l patent. See Staff Resp.
at 24; see also Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. C (‘S51 patent claim charts).
42

PUBLIC VERSION
The Staff argues that there is clear evidence in the record that claim 49 of the ‘S51 patent
is being directly infringed by the customers (or end users) who install the accused products in
their refrigerators. See, e.g., Staff Resp. at 25; ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABALocks Mfis. C0., 501
F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (for direct infringement, patentee “must either point to specific
instances of direct infringement or show that the accused device necessary infringes the patent in
suit”); see also Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(direct infringement of a method claim may be proven by circiunstantial evidence); Moleculon
Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (same). t
The Staff argues that in addition to an underlying act of direct infringement, a claim for
induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 27l(b) also requires that the accused infringer must
have (1) knowledge of or willful blindness to the existence of the patent, and (2) specific intent
to induce infringement. See Staff Resp. at 25-26; see also Global-Tech, 563 U.S. at 768. The
specific intent required to induce infringement may be proven by circumstantial evidence and
may be inferred from all the circumstances. See Commil USALLC v. Cisco Sys., Ina, 720 F.3d
1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013), afi"'d in relevant part, 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1926-28 (2015); Global
Tech, 563 U.S. at 770-71.
Asserted claim 49 of the ‘551 patent directs to a method for attaching a filter housing
assembly to a filter base. See Am. Compl., Ex. 2 (‘S51 patent) at col. 24, lns. 44-45. Dr.
Beaman provided detailed claim charts showing how every limitation of claim 49 of the ‘551
patent is necessarily practiced—and that claim 49 is therefore directly infringed—whenever the
accused products of the defaulting respondents are installed in a corresponding filter base. See
Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. C (‘551 patent claim charts). Dr. Beaman also opined that the
only use for the accused products is installation in a corresponding refrigerator filter base, in
43
\

PUBLIC VERSION "
accordance with the method of claim 49 of the ‘551 patent. See id., 1H]46-49, Ex. C. The
evidence shows the accused products have no substantial non-infringing use. See id. There is no
dispute with respect to any of the factual issues contained in the ‘S51 patent claim charts.
With respect to knowledge of the patent, there is circumstantial evidence that defaulting
respondents have copied complainants’ ULTRAWF and/or WF3CB filter products. See, e.g.,
Am. Compl., Ex. 25 (Calux advertisement), Ex. 28 (Dakon advertisement), Ex. ll at Ex. A
(Angkua Enviromnental invoices), Ex. 10 at AGA005, 6, 8 (Calux invoices). Thus, the
defaulting respondents had reason to be aware that there could be intellectual property rights
associated with the ULTRAWF and/or WF3CB filter products. The evidence supports an
inference of willful blindness by defaulting respondents where they should have known of the
existence of the patent. See Global-Tech, 563 U.S. at 768; see also Certain Network Devices,
Related Software and Components Thereof (II), Inv.,No. 337-TA-945, Comm’n Op. at 63 (Jtme
l, 2017) (affirming findings in initial detennination that a respondent willfully blinded itself to
I
complainants’ patents and its infringement where it copied certain patented features and
marketed those features to customers).
Additionally, defaulting respondents had actual knowledge of the patent by no later than
the time that they were served with the complaint and notice of institution of investigation. See
Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereoj’,Inv.
No. 337-TA-910, Comm’n Op. at 41-43 (Oct. 30, 2015) (“In the context of section 337, we
concluded that service of a section 337 complaint can be adequate to provide knowledge of the
asserted patents”). The evidence further demonstrates that at least defaulting respondents
Angkua Environmental and Calux continued selling for importation and/or importing accused
products into the United States after this occurred. See Mem. Ex. B. (Ramos Decl.) at Ex. C
. 44

PUBLIC VERSION
(Alibaba LLC 002), Ex. E (Alibaba LLC 004) (sellers “aqfeel” and “caluxwell”).
Aslto specific intent, the evidence shows that the defaulting respondents are all marketing
and/or selling their accused products as stated replacements for complainants’ ULTRAWF and
WFSCB filters. See, e.g., Am. Compl., Ex. 25 (Calux advertisement), Ex. 28 (Dakon
advertisement), Ex. 11 at Ex. A (Angkua Environmental invoices); Ex. 10 at AGAOO5,6, 8
(Calux invoices). For Angkua Environmental, complainants have included evidence in the form
of an Amazon listing for its accused “Tier 1” filter product that expressly provides instructions to
consumers for practicing the patented method by attaching the filter product to a compatible
filter base. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. C (‘S51 patent claim charts) at 5. This is
circumstantial evidence that Angkua Enviromnenta1’s customers are committing direct
infringement of claim 49 of the ‘S51 patent, and that Angkua Enviromnental specifically intends
for this infringement to occur. 	I
Accordingly, the administrative lawjudge finds the record shows defaulting respondents
specifically intended for their accused products to be installed and used in accordance with the
method of claim 49 of the ‘551 patent. Therefore, the evidence establishes that defaulting
respondents have induced the infringement of claim 49 of the ‘551 patent. 	i
C. Validity , i
The patents at issue are presumed valid as a matter of law. 35 U.S.C. § 282. This
presumption of validity may be overcome only by “clear and convincing evidence.” Pfizer, Inc.
v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007).‘
Complainants argue: “Under 35 U.S.C. § 282, the Asserted Patents are presumed to be
valid unless proved otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. There is no present dispute that
the patents are valid.” Mem. at 47.
45

PUBLIC VERSION
The Staff argues: '
The Staff does not seek to challenge the validity of the Asserted Patents.
“A patent shall be presumed valid,” 35 U.S.C. § 282, and can only be proven
invalid by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership,
564 U.S. 91 (2011). The Staff is thus of the view that there is no disputed issue of
material fact relating to the validity of the Asserted Patents.
Staff Resp. at 15. 	‘
No party has challenged the validity or enforceability of any of the patents at issue. Thus,
there is no issue of material fact as to the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents. See
Lannom Mfg. Co., Inc. v. 1nt’l Trade Comm ’n, 799 F.2d 1572, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(Commission did not have authority to redetennine patent validity when no defense of invalidity
had been raised). 	. \
.D. Domestic Industry (Technical Prong)
In a section 337 investigation, the complainant has the burden of proving the existence
(or establishment) of a domestic industry relating to articles protected by the patent-at-issue.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). For a patent-based claim, the domestic industry requirement consists of
a technical prong and an economic prong. See, e.g., Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines &
Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-376, Comm’n Op. at 14-17, USITC Pub. No. 3003 (Nov.
1996) (“Wind Turbines”). The complainant bears the burden of establishing that both prongs
have been satisfied. See, e.g., Certain Concealed Cabinet Hinges & Mounting Plates, Inv. No.
337-TA-289, 1990 WL 710375, Comm’n Op. at 22 (Jan. 8, 1990).
With regard to the technical prong, the requirement is satisfied here for each patent at
issue if the domestic industry products are shown to practice at least one claim of the asserted
patent. Wind Turbines at 15; Certain Point of Sale Terminals & Components Thereof, Inv.
No. 337-TA-524, Order No. 40 at 17-18 (Apr. 11, 2005) (“The test for claim coverage for the
46

PUBLIC VERSION
purposes of the domestic industry requirement is the same as that for infringement”).
Complainants argue:
The technical prong requires that the complainant practice the patents-in
suit in the United States. The test for determining whether the technical prong is
met through the practice of the patent “is essentially same as that for
infringement, i.e., a'comparison of domestic products to the asserted claims.”
Each of the three DI Filters—the ULTRAWF, WR3CB, and the [ ]—
practice each of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents.
Mem. at 47. 	'
The Staff argues that complainants have “demonstrated that the following products
satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement: DI Filters, [ ], and I&W
Modules incorporating DI Filters.” Staff Resp. at 31, see id. at 28-31.
The evidence shows that complainants satisfy the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement for each of the asserted patents. Each of the three DI Filters—the
ULTRAWF, WR3CB, and the [ ]—practice each of the asserted claims of the asserted
patents. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.), 111]51, 53; Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. B
(ULTRAWF.and WF3CB Claim Charts); Mem. Ex. A(Bea1nan Aff.) at Ex. G ([ ] Claim
Charts). As noted, the [ ] uses the same configuration in terms of the patented .
technology. [
]:
47

PUBLIC VERSION
See Mem. at 14-16; Mem. EX. A (Beaman Aff.), 1]53; Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. G
([ ] Claim Charts). Complainants’ expert Dr. Beaman provided detailed claim charts
showing the Seahawk practicing all elements of each of the asserted claims.
The ULTRAWF and WFBCB filters have essentially the same structure, with differences
relating only to the length of the housing and the characteristics of the carbon block within the
housing. See Am. Compl., Ex. 19C (Barrillon Decl.). The following are images of
complainants’ ULTRAWF and WFBCB filters and a corresponding filter base:
,,_ _ ..__. 	-____.__.
iii
i .€_‘dll’-J1
x 	-9 "
P‘ _"
X 	Ia
l Z“.'§7:-3'“ 	m 	A
‘ “""/ 	\ Q‘~ ms“
H ‘Jig-q .
L.-/.11
J 	-.._
—-—w .1 	-1
	~=1r'
._ 0 	|_>.__.<
	E;;".¢ 	I ‘	-_-:. 	‘=7,
‘-:_— ‘
' 1.5.?
ULTRAWF and WF3CB filters (side-by-side)
4s

PUBLIC VERSION
Corresponding Filter Base (installed in refrigerator)
See Staff Resp. at 28-29.
In Exhibits B and G to his affidavit, complainants’ expert Dr. Beaman provided detailed
claim charts for each asserted patent showing that complainants’ DI Filters satisfy every
limitation of every asserted claim in this investigation: claims 1-3 and 6-7 of the ‘146 patent;
claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 ofthe ‘322 patent; claims 14-18 and 21-31 ofthe ‘852 patent; and _
claim 49 of the ‘S51 patent. See Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. B (ULTRAWF and WF3CB
Claim Charts); Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.) at Ex. G ([ ] Claim Charts). There is no
reason to dispute Dr. Beaman’s assessment that every limitation of claims 1-3 and 6-7 of the
‘146 patent, claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-15 of the ‘322 patent, claims 14-18 and 21-31 ofthe ‘852
patent, and claim 49 or the ‘551 patent is literally found in the DI Filters. Every limitation of the
asserted claims is satisfied under all of the claim constructions proposed by the parties.
Complainants provided substantial and probative evidence that their DI Filters practice at
least one claim of each of the asserted patents. Thus, the administrative law judge finds that
complainants have demonstrated that each of the three DI Filters satisfy the technical prong of
49

, 	PUBLIC VERSION
the domestic industry requirement.
E. Domestic Industry (Economic Prong)
With respect to the economic prong, and whether or not section 33‘7(a)(3)(A)or (B) is
satisfied, the Commission has held that “whether a complainant has established that its
investment and/or employment activities are significant with respect to the articles protected by
the intellectual property right concemed is not evaluated according to any rigid mathematical
formula.” Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA
690, Comm’n Op. at 27 (Feb. 17, 2011) (citing Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337
TA-546, Comm’n Op. at 39 (Aug. 1, 2007)). Rather, the Corrmnssion examines “the facts in
each investigation, the article of commerce, and the realities of the marketplace.” Id. “The
determination takes into account the nature of the investment and/or employment activities, ‘the
industry in question, and the complainant’s relative siZe.’” Id. (citing Stringed Musical
Instruments, Comm’n Op. at Z6).
With respect to section 337(a)(3)(C), whether an investment in domestic industry is
“substantial” is a fact-dependent inquiry for which the complainant bears the burden of proof.
Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 14. There is no minimum monetary expenditure
that a complainant must demonstrate to qualify as a domestic industry under the “substantial
investment” requirement of this section. Id. at 25. There is no need to define or quantify an
industry in absolute mathematical terms. Id. at 26. Rather, “the requirement for showing the
existence of a domestic industry will depend on the industry in question, and the complainant’s
relative size.” Id. at 25-26.
50

PUBLIC VERSION
Complainants argie:
A domestic industry related to products that practice the Asserted Patents
exists for both KXT and its licensee Electrolux individually, and in the aggregate.
KXT invented, developed, tested, and validated the DI Filters in West Haven, CT,
where it continues to engage in these activities in addition to packaging the DI
Filters. Electrolux collaborated in the development of the DI Filters, and further
implemented those filters in its refrigerators’ ice and water systems, which was a
predicate to creating the market for the DI Filters. KXT’s investments were
significant and substantial because, without those investments, a saleable,
functioning DI Filter would not exist. Likewise, Electrolux’s investments are
substantial because there is no market for the DI Filters other than as filters for its
refrigerators’ ice and water systems, and thus Electrolux’s substantial efforts to
integrate the filters into those systems was vital to both the refrigerators’ function
and to creating the market for the DI Filters. As explained in the detailed analysis
that follows, the total investments of KXT and Electrolux that related to the DI
Filters that practice the Asserted Patents is at least $[ 	] in plant,
equipment, labor, capital, and exploitation.
Mem at 48.
Complainants argue: *
Electrolux is the exclusive licensee of the Asserted Patents. KXT sells the
DI Filters exclusively to Electrolux to be used.in certain high-end Frigidaire
models. The DI Filters reach end-consumers in two ways: (i) as a pre-installed
component of the water filtration system in certain high-end Frigidaire models,
and (ii) as standalone, OEM replacements that can be purchased separately.
As previously discussed, the DI Filters are comprised of two filters
currently in production, as well as a new filter in development, each of which
practice the Asserted Patents. The two production products are the ULTRAWF
and WF3CB DI Filters, which are primarily marketed to refrigerator customers
under the brand names of “PureSource Ultra” and “PureSource 3,” respectively.
The next generation filter, which also practices the Asserted Patents, is currently
referred to as the “[ ].” 	_
Mem at 49. 	'
./
The Staff argues: “the Complainants have satisfied the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement under each of subsections (A), (B), and/or (C).” Staff Resp. at 31.
51

PUBLIC VERSION
\
1. Plant and Equipment (Section 337(a)(3)(A))
Regarding KXT, complainants argue:
Evidence of domestic investment in plant and equipment used for activities
related to products practicing the Asserted Patents by KXT is three-fold: 1)
investment in plant, as measured by square footage, for the portion of the West
Haven, CT facility economically associated with activities related to practicing
products; 2) expenditures on facilities at the West Haven, CT facility
economically associated with practicing products; and 3) investment
economically associated with equipment at that facility.
Mem. at 66. With respect to Electrolux, complainants argue:
Electrolux has made substantial domestic investments in plant and equipment
related to products incorporating the DI Filters. Evidence of domestic investment
in plant and equipment used for activities related to products incorporating the DI
Filters by Electrolux is three-fold: (1) investment in plant, as measured by square
footage, for the portion of the Anderson, SC facility economically associated vw'th
activities related to products incorporating DI Filters; (2) expenditures on
facilities at the Anderson, SC facility economically associated with products
incorporating DI Filters; and (3) investment economically associated with
equipment at that facility_
Mem. at 82.
The Staff argues that “the collective plant and equipment investments by KXT and
Electrolux are significant.” Staff Resp. at 35.
Complainant KXT
Complainant KXT has its headquarters at a [ ] square foot facility in West Haven,
Connecticut.” See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1]67 (citing Ex. 27 (KXT Floor Plan)). The
evidence shows that nearly all the product development and engineering for the DI Filters was
12KXT uses its headquarters for multiple purposes, including the research and development and
packaging for certain of its water filtration products, administrative and sales activities, the
manufacture of certain filtration media, and storage space. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1111	44
45.
52

PUBLIC VERSION
performed by KXT at its headquarters. See id., 1117. Although the DI filters are manufactured
abroad in Singapore, the evidence further shows that approximately [ ] square feet (about
[ ]%) of KXT’s West Haven headquarters is exclusively used for the post-manufacture
packaging of the DI Filters that are not preinstalled in Electrolux refrigerators but are instead
independently sold as replacement water filters. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 111]67-68 (citing
Ex. 27 (KXT Floor Plan)); see also Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.) at Ex. 41 (Barrillon Decl.), 1]10
(photograph of KXT’s domestic packaging line).
The evidence shows that between 2015 and 2018 these packaging activities are important
to KXT’s business as they make the product saleable and packaging quality affects the
reputations of KXT. Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), ll 79. KXT’s packaging materials include
instructions for installing the DI filters in accordance with asserted claim 49 of the ‘S51 patent.
See id., 1]65. ,
The evidence shows that from 2015 to June 2018, about [ ] square feet of space was
dedicated for packaging activities of DI Filters. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1]68 (citing Ex. 27
(KXT Floor Plan), KXT0006962).13 This is about [ ]% of the total square feet of the facility.
Id. The evidence shows that, in 2017-2018, workspace was provided for [ ] KXT
employees in West Haven, Connecticut to spend some of their time on activities for these
products. See id., 1168 n131-33 (citing Ex. 29 (KXT Investments), KXT0006969-77), Table 1.
In 2018, these employees have more than ,[ ] square feet of office workspace at KXT’s
headquarters. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1]68 n131. From this number, complainants’ expert
Dr. Pallavi Seth specifically allocated [ ] square feet of office workspace at KXT’s West Haven
13The Seth affidavit cites to “Exhibit 28 “KST Floor Plan,” KXTOO06962,”however this floor
plan is Exhibit 27, not Exhibit 28.
53

PUBLIC VERSION
facility as dedicated to the DI filters based on the percentage of time each employee spent on
tasks related to DI filters. See id, 1]68.” 	,
From 2015 to June 2018, KXT incurred approximately $[ ] in real property and
personal tax expenses and $[ ] in utilities expenses. See id., 1[‘fl6,9-70, Table 2.
Complainants’ expert Dr. Seth thus estimates that approximately $[ ] in property taxes and
$[ ] in utilities expenses can be specifically allocated to KXT’s activities related to the DI
filters. Id. Dr. Seth has also determined that KXT has incurred $[ ] in equipment
depreciation expenses at its West Haven facility tied to the packaging line and leak testing
activities directly related to the DI filters. See id., 1[71. Accordingly, Dr. Seth concludes that
from 2008-2018, KXT has expended approximately $[ ] in domestic plant and equipment
expenses tied to the DI Filters. See id.,1l 72.
The investments by KXT in plant and equipment discussed above are significant._ The DI
filters of KXT were invented in West Haven, where activities related to DI filters in engineering,
research, materials, packaging, and sales and management were performed. Mem. at 6, 57, 68
70; Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), W 73-74, Table l. Thus, given KXT’s domestic industry products
would not exist without these investments, under the required contextual analysis, KXT’s plant
and equipment investments are significant.
Complainant Electrolux
Electrolux’s domestic refrigerator operations are headquartered in Anderson, South
Carolina. Mem. at 78. The evidence shows that Electrolux researches and develops refrigeration
14Dr. Seth states that this is a highly conservative figure in that it fails to account for how other
portions of the West Haven facility (such as laboratory facilities) are also used in relation to the
DI filters and the recent work that KXT has done on the [ ] DI filter. See id., 1]68.
54

PUBLIC VERSION
devices and technologies at its Cold Technology Center (“CTC”), which occupies [ ]
square feet at its Anderson facility. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1188. The Ice and Water Group
(“I&W Group”) within the CTC consists of approximately [ ] employees: [ ] engineers,
[ ] teclmician, and [ ] engineering manager. See id., 1[84 nl53 (citing McCollough Dep.
Tr. 53). The I&W Group uses approximately [ ] square feet (about [ ]%) of the CTC’s
total square footage to test and develop ice and water modules (“IWMs”). See Mem. Ex. E (Seth
Aff.), 1]88 n160. It is estimated that, as of the time of filing of the complaint, approximately
[ ]% of the I&W Group’s time was dedicated to IWMs incorporating DI filters. See z'd.,1189.
This yields an allocation of approximately [ ] square feet to the testing and development of
IWMs incorporating the DI filters.“
The evidence shows that from 2013 to June 2018, the CTC incurred approximately
$[ 	] in direct rental expenses for the Anderson facility, which amounts to $[ ] per
square foot. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1189. For the same period, Dr. Seth determined that
Electrolux incurred approximately $[ ] in direct rental expenses for engineering work
related to the IWMs incorporating the DI filters. See id., 1H]89-90.
The evidence shows that Electrolux has further invested a total (non-depreciated) value of
approximately $[ 	] in equipment assets used fully or partially to support the IWMs
incorporating the DI filters. See id., 1]91. Additionally, based on asset-level utilization
estimates, depreciation of CTC assets was allocated to the I&W Group in the amount of
$[ ]. Id. According to Dr. Seth, a fixed assets depreciation expense of $1 ] can
therefore be allocated to the IWMs incorporating the DI filters. Id. p 8
'5 [ 	]. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1189.
55

PUBLIC VERSION
/
Thus, the evidence shows that Electrolux has expended over $[ ] in domestic plant
and equipment depreciation expenses that are specifically attributable to the DI filters. See Mem.
Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 11116, Table 4. '6 Electrolux has also separately made significant investments
totaling nearly $[ 	] for equipment that is used in whole or in part for the DI filters. See
id., 1191. The evidence shows that while Electrolux is a sizeable corporation, a significant
portion of the engineering work performed by the Electrolux I&W Group in Anderson, SC is
specific to the DI filters. See id." A
The investments by Electrolux in plant and equipment discussed above is significant.
Thus, given Electrolux’s domestic industry products would not exist without these investments,
tmder the required contextual analysis, Electrolux’s plant and equipment investments are
l
significant.
\
* 	>l= 	*
Accordingly, there is no dispute and indeed no genuine issue as to any material fact that
complainants satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. §
1337(a)(3)(A).
2. Labor and Capital (Section 337(a)(3)(B))
Regarding KXT, complainants argue:
KXT’s domestic efforts directly relate to the DI Filters, and comprise both R&D
16In Table 4, in the section labelled “Plant & Equipment” under “Electrolux,” see rows marked
“Rent” and “Capitalized Assets.”
17The I&W Group’s engineering work relating to the DI Filters is based on Mr. Candeo’s
estimate that approximately [ 	| of the I&W Group s time
was dedicated to IWMs incorporating DI Filters in 2013-2014, 2015-2017, and through June
2018, respectively. See Mem. EX. E (Seth Aff.) at Ex. 43 (Candeo Dep. Tr.) at 172; 203.
56

PUBLIC VERSION
(including engineering, design, and testing) and packaging operations of the DI
Filters. The initial R&D involved collaborating with Electrolux to design the
filters, testing them internally, and sending them to NSF for certification. Ongoing
R&D activities include continued intemal testing, obtaining re-certifications from
NSF, and collaborating with Electrolux to’resolve any issues with the DI Filters
and creating models for potential redesigns.
Mem. at 7l. Complainants argue that “Electrolux has also made substantial domestic
investments in employment related to products incorporating DI Filters.” Mem. at 84.
The Staff argues that “C0mplainants’ collective investment in labor is significant.” Staff
Resp. at 36.
Complainant KXT
As discussed above, KXT employed in 2008-2018, [ 	] employees on
activities related to DI filters in engineering, research, materials, packaging and sales and
management. Mem. at 68-70; Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1[1|.73-74,Table l. .
In 2017, the evidence shows KXT employed approximately [ ] individuals in its West
Haven facility, of whom [ ] domestic employees who devote some of their time to the DI
filters. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1]46 n86 (citing Ex. 29 (KXT Investments), KXTOO06969
77, at 970-72). [ ] of those employees work on product development, materials procurement,
and packaging for the DI filters. Id. Dr. Seth excludes labor costs relating to sales activities
from all DI investment allocations. Id., 1[47. Dr. Seth has determined that from 2008-2018,
KXT has incurred over $[ 	] in salary and benefits for research and development,
engineering, materials, packaging, and related management activities specific to the DI Filters.
Id. at 1]74, Table l. I
57

PUBLIC VERSION
Complainant Electrolux
The evidence shows that between 2013 and June 2018, Electrolux‘s I&W Group at
Anderson, South Carolina incurred $[ 	] in total salaries and benefits for its engineers.
See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1]96. Dr.' Seth allocated approximately $[ 	] of these labor
expenses by Electrolux to the DI products. See id. Thus, the record evidence establishes that
Electrolux has made significant investments in labor with respect to the products protected by the
asserted patents.
* * *
<
Thus, the record evidence establishes that complainants have made significant
investments in labor and capital with respect to the products protected by the asserted patents.
There is no dispute and indeed no genuine issue as to any material fact that-complainants satisfy
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. § l337(a)(3)(B).
3. Exploitation of the Asserted Patents (Section 337(a)(3)(C))
Regarding KXT, complainants argue:
KXT’s exploitation activities also include working with OEM customer
Electrolux to understand its requirements for KXT’s DI Filters in its current and
future products, meeting and collaborating with Electrolux engineers, design
teams, and architecture teams, and working with other manufacturing teams in
Singapore to ensure KXT’s custom water filtration products, such as the DI
Filters, meet E1ectrolux’stechnical and packaging requirements. Accordingly, the
R&D, design, engineering, testing, and validation investments and activities
exploit the Asserted Patents. 	i
Mem. at 74 (citing Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1[77). 	_ y
l
Complainants argue that Electrolux has substantial investments and activities related to
the DI filters and asserted patents in Anderson, South Carolina:
58

PUBLIC VERSION .
0 Regarding labor, [ 	] of the I&W Group’s
time was dedicated to lWMs incorporating DI Filters in 2013-2014, 2015
2017, and through June 2018, respectively. This corresponded to $[ 	]
in labor costs from 2013 through the Jtme 2018 period. _ ~
0 Between 2013 and June 2018, the I&W Group consisted of [ 	]
engineers, responsible for interfacing and collaborating with KXT, designing
and engineering lWMs, and conducting and reporting on ongoing tests related
to the DI Filters and other components of the lWMs.
0 Between 2013 and June 2018, Electrolux incurred $[ ] in direct rental
expense for engineering work related to IWM’s incorporating the DI Filters.
0 Fixed assets allocable to lWMs that utilize the DI Filters that amounts to
.$[ ] between 2013 to June 2018. 	S
0 E1ectrolux’s domestic R&D investments in the [ ] DI Filter ‘project
were approximately $[ ] over the same period.
0 [ ] percent of the CTC’s total square feet for testing and development of
lWMs, corresponding to $[ ] per year in rent allocable to the
development and testing of lWMs.
In view of the investments, the nature of the activities, and their relationship
to both the DI Filters and Asserted Patents, Complainants have demonstrated
substantial investments by Eleetrolux in the Asserted Patents under Section
337(a)(3)(C). 	f
Mem. at 91-92.
The Staff argues that complainants have collectively f‘madesubstantial investments in
exploitation of the patents which satisfy the economic prong for domestic industiy under
subsection (C).” Staff Resp. at 37. 	i
\
Complainant KXT
The technologies claimed in the Asserted Patents were invented and developed in the
United States. Mem. at 6, 57. The evidence shows that KXT has expended approximately $[
] allocated to salaries and benefits for its employees who work on research and
development, engineering, materials procurement, and related management specific to the DI
59

PUBLIC VERSION
filters. See Seth Aff at 36, Table 2.18
These research and development, engineering, materials procurement, and related
\
management costs are substantial. As discussed above, the domestic industry filters of KXT
. 	1
were designed and developed in the United States, and activities related to DI filters in
engineering, research, materials, packaging, and management were performed in West Haven.
As such, the domestic industry products of KXT would not exist without these investments, and
under the required contextual analysis, KXT’s research and development costs are substantial.
Complainant Electrolux
The discussion of evidence related to investments by Electrolux in plant and equipment,
and labor, from above is repeated here. As explained by Dr. Seth, the DI filters are a crucial
component of the IWMs. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), fil97. There is no market for the DI filters
other than for use with their associated IWMs in certain Electrolux refiigerators. Id. Further,
asserted claim 49 of the ‘551 patent is directed to a method for attaching a filter housing
assembly to a filter base, which would necessarily need to reside in the IWM. See Am. Compl.,
Ex. 2 (‘S51 patent) at claim 49. 	' 	'
The imported filter is a component of the Electrolux refrigerator, a downstream product.
In such cases, the relevant domestic industry can be defined in terms of a downstream product.
See Video Game Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-770, Comm’n Op at 66-67. The reality of the
marketplace dictates that while filters may be purchased singly, they are exploited with the IWM
in the refrigerator because the filters are a critical component of a system, the IWM within the
18See Table 2, middle section, $[ 	| (row 7 “Total Salaries +
Benefits for Employees Allocated to DI Filters” —row ll “Packaging”).
60

PUBLIC VERSION
Electrolux refrigerator.
Nexus to the United States
Section 3_37(a)(3)(C)requires that the investment occur in the United States. 19 U.S.C. §
1337(a)(3)(C). Electrolux conducts its development, design and exploitation of the DI filters in
Anderson, South Carolina. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1H[19-20, 112.
Whether the Investment Is “Substantial”
The evidence shows that between 2013 and 2018, Electrolux has invested approximately
$[ 	] in plant & equipment (Prong A) and labor expenses (Prong B) specific to IWMs
incorporating the DI Filters. See Mem. Ex. E (Seth Aff.), 1]98, Table 3. 	a
These research and development, engineering, and related management costs are
substantial. As discussed above, Electrolux has made substantial investments in the United
States to exploit the asserted patents through engineering and research and development.
Accordingly, there is no dispute and indeed no genuine issue as to any material fact, and
it is found that complainants satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement
under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C).
* * *
There is no dispute with respect to the evidence offered by complainants. Complainants
presented substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement has been satisfied. Therefore, complainants are entitled to a summary
detennination that they have satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
61

/
PUBLIC VERSION
V. Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding
The Commission has broad discretion in selecting the form of the remedy in a section
337 proceeding. See Fuji Photo Film v. International Trade Comm ’n, 386 F.3d 1095, 1106-07 i
(Fed: Cir. 2004); Certain Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereofi Inv. N0. 337-TA-582,
Comrn’n Op. at 15 (Feb. 3, 2009), USITC Pub. No. 4115 (Dec. 2009). Where a violation is
found, the Commission generally issues a limited exclusion order directed against products
imported by persons found in violation of the statute. In certain circumstances, however, the
Commission may issue a general exclusion order directed against all infringing products. 19
U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2).
Complainants request, along with a finding of violation, that the administrative law judge
recommend a remedy in the form of a general exclusion order (GEO) with respect to each of the
asserted claims of the asserted patents. See Mem. at 95. Complainants request that bond during
the presidential review period be set at 100% of the value of the accused products. See Mem. at
121. Complainants also request that cease and desist orders (CDO) be issued against each of the
defaulting respondents. See Mem. at 112.
The Staff supports complainants’ request for a GEO, and request for a 100% bond. See
Staff Resp. at 38, 47. However, the Staff only supports complainants’ request for a CDO against
defaulting respondents Angkua Enviromnental and Calux, but does not support complainants’
request for a CDO against defaulting respondent Dakon. See id. at 38. 	‘
A. General Exclusion Order
A GEO is warranted when “a general exclusion from entry of articles is necessary to
prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named persons” or “there is a
pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products.”
62

PUBLIC VERSION
19 U.S.C. § l337(d)(2)(A); 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B). Satisfaction of either criterion is
sufficient for imposition of a GEO. Certain Cigarettes and Packaging Thereofi Inv. No.
337-TA-643, Comm’n Op. at 24 (Oct. 1, 2009). The ‘Commission “now focus[es] principally on
the statutory language itself” when determining whether a GEO is warranted. Certain Ground
Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-615, Comm’n Op. at
25 (Mar. 27, 2009). The Commission may look not only to the activities of active respondents,
but also to those of non-respondents as well as respondents who have defaulted or been
tenninated from an investigation. See, e.g., Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components
Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-650, Comm’n Op. at 59 (Apr. l4,
2010).
The Commission has long recognized that it has the authority to issue a general exclusion
order where, as here, some respondents have been found in default. See, e.g., Certain Plastic
Molding Machines WithControl SystemsHaving Programmable Operator Interfaces
Incorporating General Purpose Computers, and Components Thereof II, Inv. No. 337-TA-462,
Comm’n Opinion, 2003 WL 24011979 at *8 (April 2, 2003) (The Commission made clear that
section l337(g)(2) applied not only to situations in which all respondents were found in default,
but also to situations where some respondents werein default and others were not.).
A GEO is warranted in this investigation both to prevent circumvention of an exclusion
order limited to products of named entities, and because there is a pattern of violation of section
337 and it is difficult if not impossible to identify the source of infringing products, as discussed
below. 	y.
In the event the Commission does not issue a GEO, the administrative law judge finds
that the default determination is sufficient to establish a violation for the purpose of issuing
63

PUBLIC VERSION
limited exclusion orders directed to the defaulting respondents.” See 19 C.F.R. § 210. l6(c)(1).
Complainants argue: 	V
0 The Defaulting Respondents are China-based producers of the
Accused Products that sell their products in bulk to domestic
reseller-customers through the web-giant Alibaba’s sales platform.
0 The Defaulting Respondents continued to offer the Accused
Products on Alibaba after the date for responding to the Amended
Complaint had passed.
. 0 Alibaba further revealed that additional Non-Respondent China- '
based entities are selling the Accused Products to domestic
customers.
0 It is difficult or impossible to determine thelsource of the Accused
Product because (l) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”)
forms list logistics companies and not the producers, (2) Alibaba
sellers can and do sell the Accused Products to other Alibaba
sellers who then route the Accused Products to the United States,
and (3) the products themselves often include no source¢
identifying information.
0 The domestic customers of these Alibaba producer-sellers buy the
Accused Products in bulk and then sell through Amazon and
eBay’s sales platforms.
0 The Amazon and eBay sellers sell under pseudonymous
“storefront” names on those platforms, which obscure their actual
identities and can be changed at will to, e.g., frustrate enforcement
efforts of rights holders.
0 Despite being able to trace some Alibaba sales to Amazon and
eBay sellers, sources for thousands of Amazon and eBay sellers of
the Accused Products cannot be determined despite having
received full discovery from each of these sales platforms.
)
Accordingly, without a GEO the widespread infringement by
producers and sellers will continue as before. Should that happen,
Complainants will have very limited ability to trace the sources of the
19“After a respondent has been found in default by the Commission, the complainant may file
with the Commission a declaration that it is seeking immediate entry of relief against the
respondent in default. The facts alleged in the complaint will be presumed to be true with respect
to the defaulting respondent. The Commission may issue an exclusion order, a cease and desist
order, or both, affecting the defaulting respondent only after considering the effect of such
order(s) upon the public [interest.]” 19 C.F.R. § 210. 16(c)(l). ,
64

PUBLIC VERSION
continued unlawful imports because the domestic sellers of the Accused
Products will be hidden by pseudonymous storefront names that can be
changed at will. Accordingly, and as explained below, the facts support
the issuance of a GEO to stanch the flow of the Accused Products into the
country.
Mem. at 96-97. The Staff agrees. See Staff Resp. at 39-42.
The Commissionis authority to issue a GEO in a situation such as this one, where some
respondents have been tenninated and the remaining respondents have been found in default, is
found in 19 U.S.C. § l337(d)(2). See Certain Handbags, Luggage, Accessories, and Packaging
Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-754, Comm’n Op. at 5 n.3 (June 13, 2012) (“Although 19 U.S.C. §
l337(g)(2) governs the consideration of whether to issue a GEO in default cases, this provision
applies only when no respondent appears to contest the investigation. In this case, since several
respondents did appear and were later terminated based on consent orders or settlement
agreements, section 337(g)(2) does not apply.”).
Section 337(d)(2) states in relevant part:
(d) Exclusion of articles from entry . . .
(2) The authority of the Commission to order an exclusion from entry of articles
shall be limited to persons determined by the Commission to be violating this
section unless the Commission determines that .—
(A) a general exclusion from entry of articles is necessary to prevent
circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named
persons; or 	_
(B) there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to
' identify the source of infringing products.
19 U.S.C. § l337(d)(2). “The standards for finding a violation of 337 under section 337(d)(2)
are the same as those for finding a violation under 337(g)(2).” Certain Digital Multimeters, and
Products with Multimeter Functionality, Inv. No. 337-TA-588, Connn’n Op. at 4 (June 3, 2008).
65

PUBLIC VERSION .
In other words, a violation of section 337 under 337(d)(2) must be supported by “substantial,
reliable, and probative evidence.” Id. at 4 (citing Certain Sildenafil or any Pharmaceutically
Acceptable Salt Thereof Such as Sildenafil Citrate, and Products Containing Same, Inv. 337-TA
489, Comm’n Op. at 5 (Feb. 9, 2004) (under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 556,
a violation under section 337(d) must be supported by “reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence”; there is no difference between this standard and the “substantial, reliable, and
probative evidence” standard of 337(g)(2)). 	»
1. Necessary to Prevent Circumvention of an LEO
Under section 337(d)(2)(A), the Commission considers whether conditions are ripe for
circumvention of a limited exclusion order. See Certain Electronic Paper TowelDispensing
Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-718, Comrn’n Op. (Pub. Version), at 8, 16
(Jan. 20, 2012). In considering whether conditions are ripe for circumvention, the Commission
has relied on “evidence [that] shows the following: (1) there is a strong demand for the [patented
products]; (2) the importation and sale of infringing products can be extremely profitable. . .; (3)
extensive domestic marketing and distribution networks already exist which allow foreign
manufacturers to widely distribute infringing [products] throughout the United States. ..; (4)
large online marketplaces . .. have emerged which provide both foreign manufacturers and
domestic retails a dedicated, flexible way to sell to consumers; (5) it is difficult to identify the
sources of infringing products because of the ability to package infringing [products] in
unmarked, generic packaging, . . . and (6) manufacturers can easily evade a limited exclusion
order by establishing shell offshore distribution companies with unclear ties to the original
manufacturer.’_’Certain lnkjet Ink Supplies & Components Thereq/'(“Inkjet Ink”), Inv. No. 337
TA-730, Comm’r1 Op. (Pub._Version), at 4-5 (Feb. 24, 2012).
66

J
PUBLIC VERSION
As discussed below, complainants presented substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
that a GEO is necessary Lmdersection 337(d)(2)(A) to prevent circumvention of a LEO.
The evidence shows that a GEO is necessary to prevent circumvention of a LEO. The
evidence showing numerous Amazon and eBay seller listings and generic, unmarked product
shipments illustrates a clear risk of circumvention of any LEO in the absence of a GEO. See
Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-918, Comm’n Op. at 6
(Oct. l, 2015) (finding the practices of “facilitating circumvention through Intemet operations;
masking of identities and product sources; and use of unmarked, generic, and/or reseller-branded
packaging” would all indicate a likelihood of circumvention). Furthemiore, the distribution
networks that the defaulting respondents use for selling and importing the accused products are
not clear. For example, complainants’ attempt to place a product order with defaulting l
respondent Calux resulted in having the order fulfilled by defaulting respondent Dakon. See Am.
Compl., Ex. 37 (Bayne Decl.), 1H[4-5 (Exs. A-D).
The evidence also shows that unnamed and unknown third party resellers are involved in
the importation and/or sale after importation of the accused products in the United States. See
Mem. Ex. B. (Ramos Decl.) at Ex. C (Alibaba LLC 002), Ex. E (Alibaba LLC 004); Declaration
of Thai-Hoa X. Nguyen, Esq. in Support of Complainants’ Motion for Summary Determination (
EDIS Doc. ID No. 669342) (Mar. 7, 2019) (“Nguyen Decl.”), 111]4-6 (Amazon inventories held
in names of third parties). Moreover, likelihood of circumvention is increase by evidence that at
least defaulting respondents Calux and Angkua Environmental advertise and/or sell some portion
of their accused products with reseller-branded packaging, making it difficult to identify the V
source of the product. See Am. Compl., Ex. 25 (advertising OEM packaging); see also Am.
Compl., Exs. 10-12.
67

PUBLIC VERSION
Accordingly, the issuance of a general exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. § l337(d)(2)(A)
is appropriate with respect to the asserted patents.
2. Widespread Pattern of Violation Where It ls Difficult to
Identify the Source of Infringing Products
Complainants argue:
There is a clear pattern of violation of Section 377 by the Defaulting
Respondents and thousands of Non-Respondent Sellers. As noted above, the
Accused Product is being produced abroad, primarily in China, sold into the
United States by Alibaba sellers and possibly others, and then sold in large
volumes on Amazon and eBay. The sellers can change their names and listings at
will to always stay steps ahead of Complainants’ enforcement efforts, and the
pseudonymous names those sellers use to obscure the identities of the sellers can
only be determined through use of subpoenas; Accordingly, a GEO is necessary to
address this widespread unlawful activity.
Mem. at 100. _ _
As discussed below, complainants presented substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
for the issuance of GEO under section 337(d)(2)(B) directed to the asserted patents due to a
pattern of violation and the difficulty in identifying the source of infringing earpiece devices.
Widespread Pattern of Violation
As discussed below, the evidence shows a widespread pattern of violation with respect to
the asserted patents. 	' 	'
In addition to the three defaulting respondents named in this investigation, complainants
presented evidence that thousands of non-respondent sellers are also involved in a clear pattern
of violation. See Mem. at 100. The record shows accused products and other structurally
identical altemative to the DI filters are sold on online retailers such Alibaba.com, Amazon, and
eBay. See Mem. at 110; see also Mem. Ex. I (Aston Decl.) (test buys); Staff Resp. at 39.
Complainants argue that accused products sold on Amazon and eBay originates from Alibaba
68

PUBLIC VERSION
sellers, and from there “thousands and thousands of listings have sold the Accused Products after
importation into the United States.” Mem. at 100.
Complainants provided a “tiny sample” of the non-respondent sellers of the “Accused
Products” on Amazon and eBay:
- 	Non-Respondent Seller Names 	Online Retailer
Express Parts!! 	Amazon
OSSOLA Direct or HomeMaster 	Amazon
COOPLAY 	Amazon
LN3 	Amazon
TopGlobalStore 	Amazon
i MIARA’s Collections 	Amazon
Jianyuanhong2223 	eBay
Forcus-professor 	eBay
Xingg_8660 	eBay
Ghnew88 	eBay
Sky-lines 	eBay
See Mem. at 101; see also Mem. Ex. D (Adair Decl.), 111]7-8, Exs. B-C (AMZN000000l
AMZN0000002) (containing product listings by sellers using pseudonymous names); Ex. C
(Conlin Depo.) at Exs. l-3 (EBAYOOOOOOI-EBAYO000003).The Commission has found that
such evidence of numerous online sales of infringing imported goods can demonstrate a pattern
of violation of section 337. See, e.g., Certain Loom Kitsfor Creating Linked Articles, Inv. N0.
33 7-TA-923,Comm’n Op. at 14 (June 26, 2015) (citing Certain Cases for Portable Electronic
69

PUBLIC VERSION
Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-867/861, Comm’n Op. at l0 (July 10, 2014)).
Complainants presented evidence that shows that non-respondent sellers, as well as
defaulting respondents, sell allegedly infringing water filters. See Mem. at 98-105; see also
Mem. Ex. A (Beaman Aff.), 111}	54-55; Mem. Ex. I (Aston Decl.), W 6-8, ll; Staff Resp. at 39.
Complainants have presented evidence that despite its efforts to enforce its intellectual
property by identifying and seeking removal and takedown of such product listings on Amazon,
other anonymous infringing listings appeared. See Mem at 108; see also Mem. Ex. I (Aston
Decl.), fil15;Mem. Ex. J (CBP Seizure Notices). The evidence from Amazon’s document»
production showsthat since the filing of the complaint, thousands of allegedly infringing water
filters listings were created by non-respondent sellers. See Mem at 108-09; see also Mem. Ex. D
(Adair Decl.), 1111	7-8 at Exs. B and C (AMZN000000l and AMZNOOOOOOZ).According to
complainants, for those entities that have removed their product listings, either new entities have
appeared, or the original entities may now be operating under different names and continuing to
import allegedly infringing products. See Mem. at 109. The evidence shows that thousands of
non-respondent entities located in multiple countries including Armenia, Australia, Bahrain,
Bulgaria, Canada, Hong Kong, China, Columbia, Costa Rica, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Thailand,
and Vietnam created thousands of allegedly infringing water filter listings. See Mem. at ll0; see
also Mem. Ex. C (Conlin Dep. Tr.) at Ex. 7 (EBAY0000009).
Thus, the evidence presented by complainants establishes a widespread availability of
imported allegedly infringing water filters in the United States.
70

PUBLIC VERSION
Difficulty Identifving Sources of Infringing Products 	.
As discussed below, in addition to the widespread pattern of violation evidenced above
and by the defaulting respondents, the evidence establishes that it is difficult to identify the
sources of the infringing products. 	_
Complainants argue that the industry of water filters, in particular, is susceptible to
repeated violations because many sales after importation are made via Amazon and eBay,
making it difficult to both identify and locate manufacturers and sellers. See Mem. at lll.
Complainants further argue that defaulting respondents and non-respondent sellers can and likely
do obscure the sources of their allegedly infringing products when selling into the United States.
See Mem. at 99. The evidence shows that defaulting respondents and non-respondent sellers
could import accused products or allegedly infringing products to the United States while
obscuring the identity of the seller and thereby prevent CBP from identifying the accused
product from exclusion based on the information provided by the importer. See Mem. at 98-99;
see also Mem. Ex. H (NPL_00()()l0l1) (settled respondent Ningbo Pureza Filters sold accused
product for importation to a customer, the CBP form did not identify Pureza anywhere on the
form, and instead listed another entity, [ 	], as the importer of
record); Staff Resp. at 4l. 	A
The evidence also shows that inspection of the product itself would not indicate the
ultimate source of the product. See Mem. at 99. Complainants provide evidence that accused
products ship to customers in a generic cardboard shipping box, without any branding identifying
the producer. See Mem. Ex. I (Aston Decl.), 1H]9, 12; see also Mem. at 99. Furthennore, record
evidence shows seizures by CBP of counterfeit Electrolux packaging used by importers that r
indicate the original source of the accused product as unknown or at best simply the logistic
71

PUBLIC VERSION
company with the recipient’s address. See Mem. Ex. J (CBP Seizure Notices); see also Mem. at
99; Staff Resp. at 41. p
Complainants further state that in efforts to identify sources of infringing product
shipments, they served Commission subpoenas on three parties listed as addresses for these
products, and received no response. See Mem. at 99; see also Mem. Ex. K (Subpoenas Duces
Tecum and Ad Testificandum to Wonder Cross Wholesale LLC; E Mart Intl., Inc; and YJD, Inc.)
Based on the undisputed evidence presented, complainants have met their burden of
establishing a pattem of infringement by respondents, and that it is difficult to identify the
sources of infiinging products. See 19 U.S.C. § l337(d)(2)(B). Therefore, the circumstances of
this particular industry are such that a GEO is necessary to provide complainants with an
effective remedy. i
Accordingly, the issuance of a GEO'under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B) is appropriate with
respect to the asserted patents. 	'
B. Cease and Desist Orders
Section 337(g)(l) authorizes the Commission to issue cease and desist orders against
defaulted respondents. 19 U.S.C. § l337(g)(l); see also Certain Hand Dryers and Housingfor
Hand Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015, Conmfn Op. at 9-10 (Oct. 30, 2017) (“Hand Dryers”).
This provision provides:
t 1f_
t (A) a complaint is filed against a person under this section;
(B) the complaint and a notice of investigation are served on the person; ~
(C) the person fails to respond to the complaint and notice or otherwise fails to
appear to answer the complaint and notice;
72

PUBLIC VERSION
/.
\
(D) the person fails to show good cause why the person should not be found in
default; and
(E) the complainant seeks relief limited solely to that person;
the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and
shall, upon request, issue an exclusion from entry or a cease and desist order, or
both, limited to that person unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion
or order upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United
States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the
United States, and United States consumers, the Commission finds that such
exclusion or order should not be issued.
19 U.S.C. § l337(g)(1).
As discussed above, the Commission has personal jurisdiction over all the respondents in
this investigation. Nevertheless, “[i]n determining whether the issuance of a CDO against a
defaulted respondent is appropriate, the Commission considers whether the defaulted respondent
maintains commercially significant inventories in the United States or has significant domestic
operations that could undercut the remedy provided by an exclusion order.” Hand Dryers, Inv.
No. 337-TA-1015, Comm’n Op. at 10; see also Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and
Chargers Therefore, and Kits Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-959, Comm’n Op. at 21-31
(Feb. 13, 2017) (“Skin Care Devices”) (discussion of statutory provision and Commission
precedent). The Comrnission’s practice recognizes that inasmuch as a defaulted respondent has
chosen not to participate in the investigation, complainants are not able to obtain detailed
information in discovery to support a request for a cease and desist order. See Hand Dryers, Inv.
No. 337-_TA-1015, Comm’n Op. at 10.
As to domestic respondents found in default under section 337(g)(l), the Commission has
'u
consistently inferred the presence of commercially significant inventories in the United States
and granted complainant’s request for relief in the form of a cease and desist order. See Hand
73

PUBLIC VERSION
Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015, Comm’n Op. at 24 (citing Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn
Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers, and Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-486, Comm’n Op. at
17-18 (July 14, 2003)); Certain Mobile Device Holders and Components Thereofl Inv. No. 337
TA-1028, Commin Op. at 24 (Mar. 22, 2018) (“Mobile Devices”). In this investigation, there are
no domestic respondents found in default.
With respect to the foreign respondents found in default under section 337(g)(1), the
Commission has declined to presume the presence of domestic inventories in the United States
that would support the issuance of a cease and desist order. Mobile Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA
1028, Comm’n Op. at 24. Rather, the Commission has examined whether the facts alleged in the
complaint and any other record evidence support the inference that the foreign defaulting
respondent or its'agents maintains a commercially significant inventory and/or engages in
significant commercial operations in the United States. See id; Hand Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA
10l5, Comm’n Op. at 1'1.
For example, the Commission has examined “circumstantial evidence of U.S. distribution
of infringing products with corresponding supporting documents relating to those sales by
foreign defaulting respondents.” Mobile Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1028, Comm’n Op. at 24-25
(citing Skin Care Devices, Comm’n Op. at 31; Certain Arrowheads with Deploying Blades and
Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-977, Comm’n Op. at 18-20
(Apr. 28, 2017) (“Arrowheads”)). 	3
As discussed below, in this investigation, the evidence supports the issuance of cease and
desist orders against two of the three foreign defaulting respondents.
74

/PUBLIC VERSION
Angkua Environmental and Calux
Complainants argue: “Based on the record evidence, foreign defaulting respondents
Calux and Angkua Enviromnental maintain commercially significant inventories of the accused
products and engage in significant commercial activity in the United States.” Mem. at 116. The
Staff agrees. See Staff Resp. at 44-46. .
The evidence supports a CDO against Respondent Angkua Environmental. The evidence
demonstrates domestic Amazon inventories containing large quantities of Angkua 	_
Environmental’s accused water filter products. See Nguyen Dec1., 1111	5-6. Additionally, the
evidence shows that Angkua Environmental has previously imported commercial quantities of
hundreds of the accused “Tier l” filters for Tier 1 in Zumbrota, Minnesota for sale in the U.S.
See Compl., Ex. 11 (Arvig Decl.), 1[118-13 (describing importation and sales of infringing water
filters by Water Filters Direct LLC d/b/a/ Tier 1); Comp1., Ex. 11 (Arvig Decl.) at Ex. A
(invoices and shipping documents).
The evidence also shows that Angkua Environmental has previously imported
commercial quantities of thousands of the accused “Eternawater” filters for Brixton Holdings,
LLC in Suwanee, Georgia for Brixton for sale in the U.S. See Compl., Ex. 12 (Sebree Decl.), 111]
ll-17, 21, 26; Compl., Ex. 12 (Sebree Decl.) at Exs.1-2. hi each case, the infringing products ,
that were imported by Angkua Environmental were specially branded for the U.S. retailer or.
reseller. See C0mpl., Ex. 11 (Arvig Decl.), 1]7 (describing sales of “Tier I” and other brand
name filters); Compl., Ex. 12 (Sebree Decl.), 1]5 (describing sales of filters under the brand name
“Etemawater” and other brand names); see also Skin Care Devices, Comrn’n Op. at 32
(“relabeling or rebadging versions of infringing products” is evidence of involvement in U.S.
business operations). Thus, the evidence shows that it is reasonable to infer that Angkua
75

a
t
PUBLIC VERSION
Environmental has commercially significant domestic inventory and significant U.S. business
operations. 	/
The evidence also supports a CDO against respondent Calux. The evidence shows that
Calux has previously imported commercial quantities of thousands of the accused “Mist by
Clearwater” filters for AGA Imports, LLC (“AGA”) to sell in the U.S. See Compl., Ex. 10
(Grazi Decl.), 1H]22-23 (describing sales of filters manufactured by Calux and Pureza, imported
by AGA, and advertised by AGA on Amazon.com, Jet.com, Walmart.com and Ebay.com). The
infringing products that were imported by Calux were specially branded for this U.S. retailer or
reseller. See Compl., Ex. l0 (Grazi Decl.), 1]6. 	.
The evidence demonstrates that in April 2018, Calux advertised on Alibaba its ability to
supply commercial quantities of 20,000 pieces a month of replacements for the ULTRAWF and
WFBCBfilters under either Calux’s or an OEM brand name of the purchaser’s choosing. See
Compl., Ex. 25 (advertising replacement water filters with “Supply Ability: 20000 Piece/Pieces
per Month ULTRAWF Refrigerator Water Filter” from the “Port: Shenzhen”). The evidence
shows four sales on Alibaba in July and August 2018 by Calux of commercial quantities of water
filters all for delivery to addresses in the U.S. See Mem. Ex. B. (Ramos Decl.) at Ex. E (Alibaba
LLC 004) (see sales by “caluxwell” for “refrigerator air filter” sales to both an “MRX STORE”
and to a Zip code in Texas). 	‘ - 0
The evidence shows that, at least from 2017 through November 2018, Pureza has
supplied generic (unlabeled) accused water filters to Calux. See Mem. Ex. G (Respondent
Ningbo Pureza Limited’s Responses and Objections to Complainants’ First Set of
lnterrogatories) at Response to Interrogatory No. l5. For example, in 2017, Pureza provided
Calux with 62,000 units of these (unlabeled) accused water filters intendedfor the U.S. market.
76

i
i
J
!
I
l
PUBLIC VERSION
1
See id. at Response to Interrogatory No. 6. However, the Electrolux refrigerators that use the
ULTRAWF and WF3CB filters are only sold in the U.S. and Canada. See Nguyen Decl., 1]9.
The _relevantconsumer market for the infringing replacement filters that Calux is advertising on
Alibaba exists‘only in the U.S. and Canada. Id., 1H]9-10. (describing the market for ULTRAWF
and WF3CB water filters as 99.6% of the U.S. market and 0.40% of the Canadian market for _
side-by-side refrigerator models sold by Electrolux). Accordingly, the evidence strongly
suggests that Calux sources the filters from Pureza for the U.S. market. Id.
The evidence shows that complainants’ counsel, Mr. Todd Bayne, sought to purchase
water filters directly from Calux over the Alibaba platform in April 2018. Calux’s
representative, Ms. Cao, asked why Mr. Bayne did not instead purchase the water filters directly
from Amazon. See Am. Compl., Ex. 37 (Bayne Decl.) at Ex. A (asking “[]Why don’t you
directly buy from amazon but buy from the china factory? if just because price reason, I can see
many seller in amazon with good price”). Ms. Cao sent Mr. Bayne an Amazon link for his
future product purchases. See Am. Compl., Ex. 37 (Bayne Decl.), fll6, Thus, the evidence shows
that it is reasonable to infer that Calux has significant|U.S. business operations and either
currently has commercially significant domestic inventory and/or could stockpile such
inventories to circumvent an exclusion order.
Dakon
Complainants argue:
Based on the record evidence, foreign defaulting respondents Dakon sells /
the Accused Products on the online retailer Alibaba under the seller name “Dakon
I Ma”. This evidence shows that Dakon has participated in marketing and sales
efforts on the intemet directed towards consumers in the United States. As with
Calux and Angkua Environmental, these same facts also support an inference that
the Defaulting Respondents engage in significant commercial activity in the
t United States. 	.
77

PUBLIC VERSION
level of a reasonable royalty rate could be ascertained. See Certain Integrated Circuit
TelecommunicationChips and Products Containing Same, Including Dialing Apparatus, Inv.
No. 337-TA-337, Comm’n Op. at 41 (1995). A 100 percent bond has been required when no
effective alternative existed. See Certain Flash MemorjyCircuits and Products Containing
Same, Inv. No. 3397-TA-382,USITC Pub. No. 3046, Comm’n Op..at 26-27 (July 1997) (a 100%
bond imposed when price comparison was not practical because the parties sold products at _
different levels of commerce, and the proposed royalty rate appeared to be de minimis and
without adequate support in the record).
Complainants argue:
None of the Respondents participated in this Investigation and, therefore,
provided no discovery relating to pricing or royalty information. Further, the
infringing imported products are sold at various prices and likely differ depending
on customer and volume purchased. Therefore, inasmuch as no reliable price
differentiation can be determined, the Commission should set a bond rate at 100%
of the entered value of the infringing products. Complainants further submits,
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ l337(e), (j)(3) and 19 C.F.R. § 210.50(a)(3), the
proposed bond is necessary and sufficient to protect it from further injury.
Mem. at 121.
The Staff agrees. See Staff Resp. at 47. 	_
A bond of 100% is appropriate in this investigation. Inasmuch as the evidence shows that
the sales were made online at various price points and quantities, calculating an average price
would be difficult. Given this state of the evidentiary record, and the fact that all of the affected
respondents have defaulted rather than provide discovery, a bond value of 100% is appropriate.‘
Under these circumstances, the administrative law judge recommends that the defaulting
respondents be required to post a bond of 100% of entered value during the 60-day Presidential
.\
79.

PUBLIC VERSION
review period. This amount should be sufficient to prevent any harm to complainants during the
Presidential review period. 	I
VI. Initial Determination and Order
It is the initial determination of the administrative law judge that complainants’ Motion
No. 1126-18 for summary determination of violation of section 337 by the defaulting
respondents is granted. 	I
Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(h), this initial determination shall become the
detennination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the initial
determination pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to19 C.F.R. §
210.44, orders on its own motion a review of the initial detennination or certain issues contained
herein.
Further, it is recommended that the Commission issue a GEO, issue certain CDOs
discussed above, and that a 100 percent bond be established for importation during the p
Presidential review period. 	I
All issues delegated to the administrative law judge, pursuant to the notice of
investigation, have been decided, with dispositions as to all respondents. Accordingly, this
investigation is concluded in its entirety.
To expedite service of the public version, each party is hereby ordered to file with the
Commission Secretary no later than July 19, 2019, a copy of this initial and recommended
determination with brackets to show any portion considered by the party (or its suppliers of
information) to be confidential, accompanied by a list indicating each page on which such a
bracket is to be found. At least one copy of such a filing shall be served upon the office of the
undersigned, and the brackets shall be marked in red. If a party (and its suppliers of infonnation)
I 	so

PUBLIC VERSION
considers nothing in the initial detennination to be confidential, and thus makes no request that
any portion be redacted from the public version, then a statement to that effect shall be filed.”
So ordered.
‘ID vidP. haw 	.
Administrative Law Judge
Issued: July ll, 2019
2°Confidential business information (“CB1”) is defined in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 20l.6(a)
and § 2l0.5(a). When redacting CBI or bracketing portions of documents to indicate CBI, a high
level of care must be exercised in order to ensure that non-CBI portions are not redacted or
indicated. Other than in extremely rare circumstances, block-redaction and block bracketing are
prohibited. In most cases, redaction or bracketing of only discrete CBI words and phrases will
be permitted. 	"
81

CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
-' 	' 	INV. NO. 337-TA-1126
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached Order N0. 17 (Initial Determination) has
been served by hand upon the Commission Investiiltive Attorneé, Claire Comfort, Esq., and	the following parties as indicated, on 	U7 	.
I
t
3';If --T‘ \_ "' _____ .. _~~‘
_ Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
' U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street SW, Room 112A
Washington, DC 20436
FOR COMPLAINANT ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.:
Andrew F. Pratt, Esq. 	( ) Via Hand Delivery
Venable LLP 	' (-/)' Express Delivery
600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 	( ) Via First Class Mail
Washington, DC 20001 	( ) Other:
FOR COMPLAINANT KX TECILNOLOGIES, LLC:
Robert Curcio, Esq. 	( ) Via Hand Delivery
Delio, Peterson & Curcio LLC 	- (\/)' Express Delivery
700 State Street, Suite 402 	( ) Via First Class Mail
New Haven, CT 06511 	( ) Other: ~
\