Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. 337-TA-1123

U.S. International Trade Commission
Publication 5080 	June 2020
Washington, DC 20436
In the Matter of
337-TA-1123
CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND
PRODUCTS CONTAINING SUCH
CARBURETORS

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 5080 	June 2020
In the Matter of
337-TA-1123
CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND
PRODUCTS CONTAINING SUCH
CARBURETORS

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND 	Investigation N0. 337-TA-1123
PRODUCTS CONTAINING SUCH
CARBURETORS
NOTICE OF COMMISSION DECISION TO REVIEW IN PART
AN INITIAL DETERMINATION FINDING COMPLAINANT
FAILED TO SATISFY THE ECONOMIC PRONG OF
THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRYREQUIREMENT;
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
determined to review in part the administrative law judge’s (“ALI”) initial determination (“ID”),
which grants respondents’ motion for summary determination that the complainant failed to
satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as to U.S. Patent Nos.
6,394,424 (“the ’424 patent”); 6,439,547 (“the ’547 patent”); 6,533,254 (“the ’254 patent”); and
7,070,173 (“the ‘I73 patent). On review, the Commission affirms with modification the ID’s
finding that respondents are entitled to summary determination that the complainant failed to
satisfy the domestic industry requirement. The investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International 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 Internet server at httgs://www.usilc.gov.
The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Con1mission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at hztgs://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.
1

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on July
20, 2018, based on a complaint filed by Walbro, LLC (“Walbro”) of Tucson, Arizona. 83 Fed
Reg. 34614-615 (July 20, 2018). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”) based upon the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain carburetors and products containing such carburetors by reason of
infringement of one or more claims of the ’424 patent; the ’547 patent; the ’254 patent; the
’173 patent, and U.S. Patent No. 6,540,212 (“the ’212 patent). Id. The complaint also alleges
that an industry in the United States exists as required by 19 U.S.C. l337(a)(2). 83 Fed Reg.
34614-615. The notice of investigation names thirty-five (35) respondents. Id. The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation. Id.
The Commission previously terminated the ’2l2 patent from the investigation. Order
No. 72 (Aug. 5, 2019), not reviewed, Notice (Aug. 22, 2019).
On June 25, 2019, respondents Amazon.com, Inc.; LoWe’s Companies, Inc.; Menard,
Inc.; Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd.; The Home Depot, Inc.; Tractor Supply Company; Walmart,
Inc.; and Zhejiang Ruixing Carburetor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”), as
Wellas Cabela’s LLC and Thunderbay Products, filed a motion for summary determination that
Walbro failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. ID at 1. On
July 12, 2019, Walbro opposed the motion. Id. OUII did not submit a response to the motion.
Id
On August 7, 2019, the Commission terminated Cabela’s LLC from the investigation due
to settlement. Order No. 75 (Aug. 7, 2019), not reviewed, Notice (Aug. 22, 2019). On July
10, 2019, the Commission also terminated Thunderbay Products from the investigation based on
a stipulated consent order and entry of a consent order. Order No. 65 (July 10, 2019), not
reviewed, Notice (July 23, 2019).
On August 12, 2019, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting Respondents’ motion for
summary determination that Walbro failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement. See ID.
O11August 22, 2019, Walbro filed a petition for review of the ID.
On August 29, 2019, Respondents and OUII both filed responses to Walbro’s petition for
review.
The Commission has detennined to review the subject ID in part. First, the Commission
notes that Walbro’s petition states that it no longer asserts the ’547 patent in this investigation;
and Walbro has abandoned its claim of a domestic industry with respect to the ’547 patent by
failing to seek Commission review. See Walbro petition at 1; see also 19 C.F.R. 2lO.43(b)(2).
Second, the Commission affinns the ID’s finding that respondents are entitled to summary
determination that Walbro failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. However, the
Commission declines to adopt certain statements on pages 4, 5, and 6 in the ID that could be
2

misinterpreted as applying a minimum threshold and as inconsistentwith the flexible approach to
domestic industry analysis. The investigation is terminated.
The authority for the Comrnission’s detennination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the C0mmission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: October 11, 2019
3

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS 	Inv. N0. 337-TA-1123
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Vu Bui, Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on October 11, 2019.
On Behalf of Complainants Walbro. LLC:
Richard W. Hoffmann, Esq.
REISING ETHINGTON, PC
755 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 1850
Troy, MI 48084
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
U Via Hand Delivery
Via Express Delivery
1:!Via First Class Mail
1:] Other:
On Behalf of Respondent L0we’s Companies. Inc.:
Joshua B. Pond, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
U Via Hand Delivery
Via Express Delivery
C! Via First Class Mail
III Other:
On Behalf of Respondents Techtronic Industries Co.. Ltd. of
Hong Kong d/b/a Techtronic Industries Power Equipment,
Home Depot Product LLC and The Home Depot. U.S.A.. Inc.:
Sea.n C. Curmingham, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
U Via Hand Delivery
[XiVia Express Delivery
El Via First Class Mail
III Other:

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service —Page 2
On Behalf of Respondent Amazon.eom.’Inc.:
Stefani E. Shanberg, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
On Behalf of Respondents Kmart Corporation and Sears,
Roebuck and Company:
Eric S. Namrow, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
On Behalf of Respondents Ruixing Carburetor
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.. Zheiiangi
P. Andrew Riley, Esq.
MEI & MARK LLP
818 18"‘ Street NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
On Behalf of Respondent Tractor Supp_lyCompany;
Daniel E. Yonan, Esq.
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
On Behalf of Respondents MAT Industries. LLC:
Paul M. Baitkowski, Esq.
ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, LLP
1133 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 12*“Floor
Washington, DC 20036
On Behalf of Respondent Walmart Inc.:
Rett Snotherly, Esq.
LEVI & SNOTHERLY, PLLC
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
Inv. No. 337-TA-1123
E Via Hand Delivery
Via Express Delivery
E Via First Class Mail
E Other:
E Via Hand Delivery
Via Express Delivery
E Via First Class Mail
E Other:
E Via Hand Delivery
Via Express Delivery
E Via First Class Mail
E Other:
E Via Hand Delivery
E Via Express Delivery
E Via First Class Mail
E Other:
E Via Hand Delivery
E Via Express Delivery
E Via First Class Mail
E Other:
E Via Hand Delivery
E Via Express Delivery
E Via First Class Mail
E Other:

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service —Page 3
On Behalf of Respondent Menard. Inc.:
Jeffrey L. Eichen, Esq. ‘
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1410
Wilmington, DE 19801
Respondents:
Fuding Youyi Trade C0., Ltd.
No. 176, Yuhu Community, Taimushan Town, Fuding, Ningde,
Fujian, 355203
China
Feldmann Eng. & Mfg. C0., Inc.
520 Forest A venue
Sheboygan Falls, WI 53085
Inv. N0. 337-TA-1123
III Via Hand Delivery
E Via Express Delivery
I1 Via First Class Mail
II Other:
III Via Hand Delivery
III Via Express Delivery
Via First Class Mail
CI Other:
U Via Hand Delivery
III Via Express Delivery
Via First Class Mail
Cl Other:

PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND
PRODUCTS CONTAINING SUCH
CARBURETORS
Investigation No.337-TA-1123
COMMISSION OPINION
On August 12, 2019, the presiding administrative law judge("AU")issued an initial
determination ("ID")(Order No. 77)granting respondents' motion for summary determination
that complainant Walbro, LLC ("Walbro")failed to satisfy the economic prong ofthe domestic
industry requirement under section 337(a)(3) ofthe Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(a)(3)("section 337").
Having considered the ID and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined
to review the ID in part. On review, the Commission affirms with modified reasoning the ID's
conclusion that respondents are entitled to summary determination that Walbro's activities and
investments are not significant or substantial as a matter oflaw. Thus, Walbro cannot satisfy the
domestic industry requirement with respect to articles protected by U.S. Patent Nos. 6,394,424
("the '424 patent"); 6,533,254("the '254 patent"); and 7,070,173 ("the '173 patent")
(collectively, the "Asserted Patents").' As discussed below,the Commission declines to adopt
We note that Walbro filed a petition for review that states Walbro no longer asserts the
'547 patent. See Complainant Walbro's Petition for Review (Aug. 22,2019)("WPet.") at 1. In
addition, Walbro's petition does not include any evidence related to the '547 patent and
addresses only the '424 patent,'254 patent, and '173 patent. See, e.g., id. at 5-7, 11-12, 14-19.
Under Commission Rule 210.43(b)"[a]ny issue not raised in a petition for review will be
deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioning party and may be disregarded by the
Commission...." 19 C.F.R. § 210.43(b). Therefore, Walbro has abandoned the asserted claims
ofthe '547 patent by failing to seek Commission review, and this Opinion does not summarize
1

PUBLIC VERSION
certain statements in the ID's analysis ofthe domestic industry arguments that may be
interpreted as requiring a minimum investment threshold or suggesting a focus on facts other
than the patented articles. Because respondents are entitled to summary determination that
Walbro failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement, the Commission finds that
respondents have not violated section 337 with respect to the Asserted Patents.
I. BACKGROUND
The Commission instituted this investigation on July 20,2018, based on a complaint filed
by Walbro of Tucson, Arizona. 83 Fed Reg. 34614-615 (July 20, 2018). The complaint, as
supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United
States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain
carburetors and products containing such carburetors by reason of infringement of one or more
claims of the '424 patent, the '254 patent, the '173 patent, and U.S. Patent Nos. 6,439,547("the
'547 patent") and 6,540,212.2Id The complaint also alleges that an industry related to articles
protected by the Asserted Patents exists in the United States. Id The notice ofinvestigation
names thirty-five(35)respondents. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations("OUII")is
also a party to the investigation. Id.
On June 25, 2019, respondents Amazon.com,Inc. of Seattle, Washington; Cabela's LLC3
of Sidney, Nebraska; Lowe's Companies, Inc. of Mooresville, North Carolina; Menard, Inc. of
or review the ID's findings with respect to the '547 patent. See WPet. at 1; 19 C.F.R. §
210.43(b)(2); see also Broadcom Corp. v. US. Int1 Trade Comm 'n, 542 F.3d 894,901 (Fed. Cir.
2008)(finding that an appellant had waived an argument not presented in a petition for review to
the Commission).
2 The Commission terminated U.S. Patent No. 6,540,212 from the investigation on
August 5, 2019. Order No. 72(Aug. 5, 2019), not reviewed, Notice(Aug. 22,2019).
3 The Commission later terminated Cabela's LLC from the investigation due to
settlement. Order No. 75(Aug. 7, 2019), not reviewed, Notice(Aug. 22, 2019).
2

PUBLIC VERSION
Eau Claire, Wisconsin; Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. of Kwai Chung, Hong Kong; The Home
Depot, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia; Thunderbay Products4 of Clayton, Wisconsin; Tractor Supply
Company of Brentwood, Tennessee; Walmart, Inc. of Bentonville, Arkansas; and Zhejiang
Ruixing Carburetor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang, China (collectively,"Respondents")
filed a motion seeking summary determination that Walbro failed to satisfy the economic prong
of the domestic industry requirements ID at 1. On July 12, 2019, Walbro opposed the motion.6
Id. OUII did not submit a response to the motion. Id.
On August 12, 2019, the All issued the subject ID granting Respondents' motion. See
ID. For purposes ofsummary determination, the ID assumes that Walbro's calculations of its
investments are correct. Id at 2. The ID analyzes the available evidence for each ofthe
Asserted Patents and calculates the percentages of Walbro's domestic industry investments
compared to Walbro's U.S. sales and worldwide sales ofthe domestic industry products. Id at
5-6. The ID finds that Walbro's investments, when considered in context, are not significant or
substantial. Id. at 5-7.
On August 22, 2019, Walbro filed a petition for review ofthe ID. See WPet. As noted
above, Walbro abandoned the asserted claims ofthe '547 patent. Id. at 1; 19 C.F.R.
4 The Commission later terminated Thunderbay Products from the investigation based on
a stipulated consent order and entry of a consent order. Order No.65 (July 10, 2019), not
reviewed, Notice (July 23, 2019).
5 Respondents' Motion for Summary Determination That Walbro Fails to Satisfy the
Domestic Industry Economic Prong and Memorandum of Points and Authorities Supporting the
Motion (June 25, 2019)("Resp. Mem.").
6 Complainant Walbro's Opposition to Respondents' Motion for Summary
Determination That Walbro Fails to Satisfy the Domestic Industry Prong (July 12, 2019)
("WOpp."); Walbro's Responses to Respondents' Statement of Undisputed Facts(July 12,2019)
("Walbro's Responses to SUF").
7The ID notes that discovery is closed and, therefore, Walbro cannot provide additional
evidence. ID at 5.
3

PUBLIC VERSION
§ 210.43(b)(2). On August 29, 2019, Respondents and OUII both filed responses to Walbro's
petition for review.8
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard of Review of the ID
The Commission may review an ID either upon petition by one ofthe parties or on its
own motion. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.43, 210.44. The Commission will grant a petition for review,
in whole or in part, where it appears:
(i) that a finding or conclusion of material fact is clearly erroneous;
(ii) that a legal conclusion is erroneous, without governing precedent, rule or law, or
constitutes an abuse of discretion; or
(iii) that the determination is one affecting Commission policy.
19 C.F.R. § 210.43(b)(1), 210.43(d)(2).
The Commission's review will encompass those issues for which at least one
participating Commissioner has voted for review. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.43(d)(3). Any issue that
is not raised in a petition for review is deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioning party
and may be disregarded by the Commission, unless the Commission chooses to review the issue
on its own initiative. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.43(b)(2).
Once the Commission determines to review an initial determination, its review is
conducted de novo. Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Yarn and Prods. Containing Same,Inv.
No. 337-TA-457, Comm'n Op. at 9(June 18, 2002). Upon review, the "Commission has 'all the
powers which it would have in making the initial determination,' except where the issues are
8 Respondents' Opposition to Complainant's Petition for Review(August 29,2019)
("Resp. Opp."); Response ofthe Office of Unfair Import Investigations to Complainant Walbro,
LLC's Petition for Review (August 29,2019)("IAResponse").
4

PUBLIC VERSION
limited on notice or by rule." Certain Flash Memory Circuits and Prods. Containing Same, Inv.
No. 337-TA-382, USITC Pub. 3046, Comm'n Op. at 9-10(July 1997)(quoting Certain Acid-
Washed Denim Garments and Accessories, Inv. No. 337-TA-324, Comm'n Op. at 5(Nov.
1992)). Commission practice in this regard is consistent with the Administrative Procedure
Act. Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, and Flash Microcontroller Semiconductor
Devices and Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-395, Comm'n Op. at 6(Dec. 11, 2000)
("EPROM);see also 5 U.S.C. § 557(b).
With respect to the issues under review,"the Commission may affirm, reverse, modify,
set aside or remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part, the initial determination ofthe
administrative law judge." 19 C.F.R. § 210.45(c). Further, the Commission "may take no
position on specific issues or portions ofthe initial determination," and "may make any findings
or conclusions that in its judgment are proper based on the record in the proceeding." Id. This
rule reflects the fact that the Commission is not an appellate court, but is the body responsible for
making the final agency decision. On appeal, only the Commission's final decision is at
issue. See Spansion, Inc. v. Intl Trade Comm'n,629 F.3d 1331, 1349(Fed. Cir. 2010); EPROM
at 6(citing Fischer & Porter Co. v. US. Intl Trade Comm 'n, 831 F.2d 1574, 1576-77(Fed. Cir.
1987)).
B. Standards for Summary Determination
Under Commission Rule 210.18, 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 a summary determination as a matter of law." 19 C.F.R. § 210.18(b); see also
DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1322(Fed. Cir. 2001); Wenger Mfg, Inc. v.
Coating Machinery Systems, Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2001)."[In deciding a motion
5

PUBLIC VERSION
for summary judgment,'the evidence ofthe nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371,
1377(Fed. Cir. 2007)(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,255 (1986)).
A party moving for summary determination "has the initial responsibility ofidentifying
the legal basis of its motion, and of pointing to those portions ofthe record that it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." See Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue
Labs., Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046(Fed. Cir. 2001)(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323(1986)). A respondent seeking summary determination that a complainant cannot establish
that its investments and activities are sufficient to satisfy the domestic industry requirement may
meet its initial burden "either by providing evidence that would preclude a finding" that the
complainant's investments are significant or substantial "or by showing that the evidence on file
fails to establish a material issue of fact essential to" the complainant's case. Cf Novartis, 271
F.3d at 1046(discussing the legal standards for summary judgment); see also 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(a)(3)(requiring "significant" or "substantial" investments or employment). Once the
respondent "has made this showing, the burden shifts to the nonmovant [(i.e., the complainant)]
to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. (citing Celotex, 477
U.S. at 324).
The trier of fact should "assure itself that there is no reasonable version of the facts, on
the summary judgment record, whereby the nonmovant could prevail, recognizing that the
purpose of summary judgment is not to deprive a litigant of a fair hearing, but to avoid an
unnecessary trial." EMI Group North America, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 157 F.3d 887, 891 (Fed. Cir.
1998)."In other words, [s]ummary judgment is authorized when it is quite clear what the truth
is,' [citations omitted], and the law requires judgment in favor ofthe movant based upon facts
6

PUBLIC VERSION
not in genuine dispute." Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Laboratories, Inc., 984 F.2d
1182, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
C. The Domestic Industry Requirement
Under Commission precedent, the domestic industry requirement of section 337 consists
of an "economic prong" and a "technical prong." See, e.g., Alloc, Inc. v. Intl Trade Comm 'n, 342
F.3d 1361, 1375(Fed. Cir. 2003). To satisfy the technical prong, a complainant must show that
its products practice the asserted patents. See Crocs, Inc. v. Intl Trade Comm 'n, 598 F.3d 1294,
1307(Fed. Cir. 2010)(discussing 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)).
The economic prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied when it is
determined that sufficient economic activities and investments set forth in subparagraphs
(A),(B), or(C)of section 337(a)(3) have taken place or are taking place with respect to the
articles protected by the asserted patent. Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines & Components
Thereof Inv. No. 337-TA-376, Comm'n Op. at 21 (Nov. 1996)("Wind Turbines").
Section 337(a)(3) provides that:
[A]n 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, or licensing.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3). Satisfaction of any one subparagraph is sufficient to meet the domestic
industry requirement. Wind Turbines, Comm'n Op. at 15.
The Federal Circuit has clarified that "qualitative factors alone are insufficient to show
'significant investment in plant and equipment' and 'significant employment of labor or capital'
under prongs(A)and(B)of the § 337 domestic industry requirement." Lebo Inc. v. Intl Trade
7

PUBLIC VERSION
Comm'n,786 F.3d 879, 885(Fed. Cir. 2015). There is no threshold monetary amount that a
complainant must meet. See Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components Thereof
Inv. No. 337-TA-586, Comm'n Op. at 25-26(May 16, 2008)("Stringed Musical Instruments")
("We emphasize that 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."); Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-546, Comm'n Op. at 39
(Aug. 1, 2007)("Male Prophylactics")("[T]here is no mathematical threshold test."). Rather,
the inquiry depends on "the facts in each investigation, the article of commerce, and the realities
ofthe marketplace." Certain Printing & Imaging Devices & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-
TA-690, Comm'n Op. at 27(Feb. 17, 2011)("Printing Devices")."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. Thus, evidence to "substantiate the significance of[a
complainant's] activities with respect to the [domestic industry articles protected by the asserted
patent]" is required. Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Elecs. Components, & Prods.
Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1097, Comm'n Op. at 33(June 29, 2018).
As the Federal Circuit noted in Lelo, the Commission "[has] found that the word
'significant' denote[s]'an assessment ofthe relative importance ofthe domestic activities.'
Lelo, 786 F.3d at 883-84(emphasis added)(quoting Certain Concealed Cabinet Hinges and
Mounting Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-289, 1990 WL 10608981, Comm'n Op. at 11 (Jan. 8, 1990)
("Cabinet Hinges")). In Certain Optoelectronic Devices, the Commission stated the following
regarding the context of a complainant's domestic expenditures:
As we held in Certain Printing and Imaging Devices, whether investment
activities are significant or substantial "is not evaluated according to any rigid
mathematical formula," but rather,"entails 'an examination ofthe facts in each
investigation, the article of commerce, and the realities of the marketplace."
8

PUBLIC VERSION
Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof Inv. No. 337-
TA-690, Comm'n Op. at 27(Feb. 17, 2011)("Printing Devices")(quoting
Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-546, Comm'n Op. at 39
(Aug. 1, 2007)). There are a number offactors and approaches taken by the
Commission in making this determination. For example, comparing
complainant's domestic expenditures to its foreign expenditures is one of the
possible factors that the Commission could but, contrary to Respondents'
argument, is not required to consider. Id. at 27-28. Accord, Certain Encapsulated
Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same,Inv. No. 337-TA-501,
Comm'n Op. at 33(Apr. 4, 2014).
Certain Optoelectronic Devicesfor Fiber Optic Communications, Inv. No 337-TA-860, Comm'n
Op. at 18-19(May 9, 2014). Beyond using sales for allocating the absolute amount of
investments, the Commission has also compared those investments to sales of protected articles
in order to consider the context of a complainant's domestic industry investments among other
evidence. See, e.g., Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof
and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-972, Final ID at 190-91 (Feb. 1, 2017)(public
version)("Automated Teller Machines"), unreviewed on '010 patentfindings, Notice at 3(Jan.
30, 2017)(finding low quantitative proportion of field service labor investments compared to
sales revenues and manufacturing costs, and that qualitative evidence weighs against the
significance ofthe investments in view of discontinuation of the module that practices the
'010 patent product, decline in the number of in-service ATMs using the module, and that the
service performed doesn't relate to the '010 patent); Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active
Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof Inv. No. 337-TA-965, Order No. 10, ID
at 17(Apr. 27, 2016)(public version)(finding quantitative significance of labor costs based on
the fact that these costs account for 11 percent to 19 percent of complainant's gross sales, and
that nearly half of all labor costs supported R&D,in addition to qualitative significance ofthe
claimed labor to continued development, improvement, production and sales of DI products), not
reviewed, Notice (Apr. 21, 2016).
9

PUBLIC VERSION
In Lelo, the Federal Circuit noted that the Commission found the complainant's
investments were quantitatively "modest," which the court took to mean "insignificant." Lelo,
786 F.3d at 885. The court agreed with the Commission's finding that investment and
employment under subparagraphs(A)and(B)were modest and insignificant, but said the
Commission erred when it "disregarded the quantitative data to reach its domestic industry
finding based on qualitative data." Id. "Qualitative factors cannot compensate for quantitative
data that indicate insignificant investment and employment." Id. It then reversed the
Commission's determination and held that the complainant did not satisfy the domestic industry
requirement of section 337. Id.
III. WALBRO'S DOMESTIC INDUSTRY EVIDENCE
For each of the Asserted Patents, Walbro claims the existence of a domestic industry
under section 337(a)(3), subparagraphs(A),(B), and (C). WPet. at 18-20; see also WOpp. at 13-
19. As the ID notes, for purposes ofsummary determination, it assumes that Walbro's
calculations of its investments are correct. ID at 2; see also Liebel-Flarsheim,481 F.3d at 1377.
Further, for purposes of their Motion for Summary Determination, Respondents do not take issue
with the ID's assumption that Walbro's domestic industry investments are correct and properly
allocated. Resp. Opp. at 16.
Walbro claims 193 carburetors are part of its domestic industry("DI carburetors"), and
Walbro further alleges that each of the DI carburetors practices only one patent. Resp. Mem. at
2; WOpp. Ex. B; Walbro's Responses to SUF at ¶ 9; see also Resp. Mem. at 3(citing Resp.
Mem. Ex. E at 1008:16-20).9
9 A carburetor is a component that mixes air and fuel in a small gasoline engine. See
Compl. at 18. Carburetors are used in a wide variety of products, such as chainsaws, leaf
10

PUBLIC VERSION
Walbro's domestic industry allegations rely on both quantitative and qualitative factors.
WOpp. at 9-19; WPet. at 18-20. Walbro calculates its domestic industry investments using a
sales-based allocation for each Asserted Patent. WPet. at 12-20; Resp. Mem. at 3-7; see also ID
at 4-7. Walbro's sales-based allocations are calculated "by determining the percentage of
revenue attributed to the domestic industry products from FY2010 to FY2018 compared to
Walbro's total revenue over that same period."10 Walbro's Responses to SUF¶15; WOpp. Ex.
A (Van Allen Declaration) at 3-4; WPet. at 12-20. Walbro then multiplied these percentages by
Walbro's aggregated expenses to calculate an allocated investment amount for each patent. Id.
Walbro's investments include employee salaries, equipment expenses, and facility
expenses. WPet. at 12-20; Resp. Mem. at 3-7; see also ID at 4-7. While Respondents do not
take issue with the ID's assumption that Walbro's calculations of its investments are correct,
they "submit that Walbro's domestic industry allegations are actually far less significant than
those already found insignificant" in the ID. Resp. Opp. at 16. Respondents' motion argues that
Walbro's investments are too attenuated from the DI carburetors and improperly include
unrelated investments. Resp. Mot. at 11-16. For example, Respondents argue that for Walbro's
equipment expenses, Walbro includes purchases made in 1968 and through the intervening
decades, but Walbro allegedly does not take into account any depreciation of the equipment. Id.
at 5; see also WOpp. Ex. A. However,for purposes of reviewing the ID's grant ofsummary
determination in this investigation, the Commission will accept, arguendo, that all of Walbro's
blowers, law trimmers, electricity generators, and dirt bikes. Id.; see also Notice of Institution of
Investigation.
1° In other words, Walbro divided the total sales revenue for articles allegedly protected
by the Asserted Patents by Walbro's total revenue for all products in order to obtain an allocation
percentage for each Asserted Patent. Walbro's Responses to SUF 1115; WOpp. Ex. A(Van
Allen Declaration) at 3-4; WPet. at 12-20.
11

PUBLIC VERSION
claimed expenses are cognizable investments pursuant to Federal Circuit precedent. See Liebel-
Flarsheim, 481 F.3d at 1377.
Walbro also includes expenditures relating to its calibration activities in both its
quantitative factors, including investment dollar amounts under subparagraphs(A),(B), and (C),
and its qualitative factors. WOpp. at 12, 13, 17, 19; see also id. at 9-12; Walbro's Responses to
SUF ¶¶ 52-70." For example, in Walbro's petition, several headings in the section regarding
Walbro's quantitative investments include calibration activities, such as the following:
• Walbro's Calibration Activities Require Significant Investment in Plant
and Equipment Under Section 337(a)(3)(A)
• Walbro's Calibration Activities Require Significant Investment in Labor
Under Section 337(a)(3)(B)
• Walbro's Calibration Activities Require Significant Investments in
Exploitation of Engineering, Research & Development Under Section
337(a)(3)(C)
WPet. at 11-17(emphasis added). As further described below, Walbro's investments in
subparagraphs(A),(B), and(C)as stated in Chart A(WOpp. at 18; ID at 4)include amounts of
quantitative investments in calibration activities. See WOpp. at 13, 16-17, 19; WPet. at 12-17,
19("a significant portion of Walbro's domestic investments and activities relate to the carburetor
calibration work").
11 Walbro contends that "[c]alibration is the iterative process by which Walbro's
engineers develop and adjust the prototypes for a carburetor are adjusted (sic), often dozens of
times, until they are able to meet specific criteria of emissions compliance and satisfactory
engine performance over a wide range of engine speeds, temperatures, and differing altitudes at
which the engines operate." WPet. at 9. Walbro further argues that "calibration is vital to the
development and manufacturing of carburetors" and is allegedly necessary to produce a saleable
product. Id. at 9-11.
12

PUBLIC VERSION
Chart A'2(shown below)summarizes Walbro's domestic industry investments for each
Asserted Patent according to subparagraphs(A),(B), and (C):
Chart A: Walbro's Domestic Industry Investments
Sections 337(a)(3)(A),(B),
and(C) '424 Patent '173 Patent '254 Patent
Plant & Equipment
Labor & Capital
Engineering, Research and
Development
TOTAL
WPet. at 5, 18; ID at 4. Walbro's opposition argues the allegedly relevant domestic expenditures
"are significant in absolute terms." Id. Yet, other than the sales-based allocation of its
investments, Walbro fails to provide any other context for its domestic industry investments.
WPet. at 18-20; Resp. Mem. at 3-7; see also ID at 4-7.
Walbro also relies on qualitative factors, such as the declining carburetor industry and the
"essentiality" of its calibration activities. WPet. at 19-20, 26-31; WOpp. at 19-20; ID at 7.
However, Walbro did not provide any comparisons or explanations of added value for its alleged
qualitative factors. Id.
Walbro's opposition also provides Walbro's U.S. sales of DI carburetors and worldwide
sales of DI carburetors. WOpp. at 16, 19-20; Walbro's Responses to SUF at ¶ 37(citing WOpp.
Ex. A, VanAllen Decl. at TR 7-10). From 2010 to 2018, Walbro's global sales of all products
was . Id In that same time period, Walbro's global sales of DI carburetors was
12 This opinion uses the charts in Walbro's petition for consistency. See WPet. at 5-7, 18;
see also ID at 4-6. In addition, as noted in Walbro's petition, the financial data for the '547
patent, which appears in the corresponding tables in the ID, has been deleted in the tables in
Walbro's petition. WPet. at 5, n.1.
13

PUBLIC VERSION
in the original equipment manufacturer market and in the aftermarket.
Id. Walbro allocated its global sales of DI carburetors for that time period as follows:
Chart D: Global Sales of DI Carburetors
'424 Patent '173 Patent '254 Patent
WPet. at 6; WOpp. Ex. A (VanAllen Decl.) at ¶ 8;see also ID at 6. From 2010 to 2018,
Walbro's total U.S. sales of DI carburetors was
Patent as follows:
,which it allocated to each Asserted
Chart B: U.S. Sales of DI Carburetors
'424 Patent '173 Patent '254 Patent
WPet. at 5; WOpp. Ex. A (VanAllen Decl.) at If 8; see also ID at 5. However, Walbro does not
use the DI sales information, or any other information, to provide further context for its domestic
industry investments. Id.
IV. ANALYSIS
The Commission affirms the ID's conclusion that respondents are entitled to summary
determination as a matter oflaw that Walbro's alleged investments13 in the articles protected by
the Asserted Patents are insignificant and insubstantial. However, because the ID includes
certain statements that could be misinterpreted as implementing new legal standards, the
Commission declines to adopt certain statements in the ID's analysis, as discussed below.
13 For purposes ofsummary determination, the ID assumes that Walbro's calculations of
its investments are correct. ID at 2. As noted above, Respondents do not take issue with the
ID's assumption for purposes ofsummary determination. Resp. Opp. at 16.
14

PUBLIC VERSION
A. Walbro's Alleged Investments are Insignificant and Insubstantial
The ID recognizes that "it is inappropriate to rely on the numbers [in Chart A]in their
absolute terms" and correctly finds that Walbro's investments must be viewed in their proper
context. Id. at 4. The AUJ evaluated the available evidence and found two pieces ofrelevant
data to provide context as to whether Walbro's domestic industry investments are "significant"
or "substantial":(1) Walbro's U.S. sales ofthe DI carburetors; and (2) Walbro's worldwide
sales ofthe DI carburetors. Id at 5-6.
The ID first analyzes the quantitative factors. Id. at 3-7. For each ofthe asserted patents,
the ID calculates:(1)the percentage of Walbro's domestic industry investments compared to its
U.S. sales of DI carburetors(Chart C); and (2)the percentage of Walbro's domestic industry
investments compared to its worldwide sales of DI carburetors(Chart E). Id. at 3-7.
Chart C: Percentage of U.S. Investments Compared to U.S. Sales
'424 Patent '173 Patent '254 Patent
Plant & Equipment
Labor & Capital
Engineering,
Research and
Development
Chart E: Percentage of U.S. Investments Compared to [Worldwidel SalesI4
'424 Patent '173 Patent '254 Patent
Plant & Equipment
Labor & Capital
Engineering,
Research and
Development
14 There is a typo in the ID's title of Chart E. ID at 6. The title in the ID is,"Chart E:
Percentage of U.S. Investments Compared to U.S. Sales." Id. However,from the context ofthe
analysis, it is clear that Chart E actually shows a comparison to worldwide sales of DI
carburetors. Id.
15

PUBLIC VERSION
See ID at 5-6; WPet. at 6-7. The ID uses sales of DI carburetors to provide context to the
absolute values of Walbro's investments. Id. at 4-6 (citing WOpp. at 18-19; Walbro's Responses
to SUF ¶ 37). The ID notes that Walbro does not provide, or appear to possess, evidence of its
foreign-related investments for the Asserted Patents. Id. at 3,5 n.5.
Regarding Chart C (percentage of U.S. investments compared to U.S. sales), the ID finds
that the majority of Walbro's investments are of its U.S sales of DI carburetors. ID
at 5. The ID finds that "such investments1151 are not significant or substantial." Id. at 6. The ID
further notes that only Walbro's investments in labor and capital (for subparagraph(B))are
as compared to U.S. sales of DI carburetors. ID at 6. The ID finds these investments
in labor and capital are not significant, however, when viewed in light of Walbro's worldwide
sales of DI carburetors. Id.
Chart E lists the calculated percentages of Walbro's domestic investments compared to
the worldwide sales of DI carburetors. ID at 6-7. The ID finds that the labor and capital
percentages for products protected by the '424 patent,'173 patent, and '254 patent are
111 of worldwide sales of DI carburetors. Id. at 7.
Based on the information outlined above, the ID finds that Walbro's investments are
neither "significant" nor "substantial." Id. at 6-7. The ID declines to address the qualitative
factors Walbro raised because it had already concluded that Walbro's investments were
quantitatively insignificant. Id. at 7.
15 The ID appears to be referring to Walbro's investments in "Plant & Equipment" and
"Engineering, Research and Development," because those investments comprise of
U.S. sales and the next paragraph specifically states,"[o]nly Walbro's investments in labor and
capital are ." ID at 5-6.
16

PUBLIC VERSION
As discussed below, we agree with the ID's conclusion that Walbro's domestic
investments with respect to the Asserted Patents are not significant or substantial when
considered in light of the only contextual information in the record, i.e., Walbro's U.S. sales and
worldwide sales of DI carburetors.
1. Walbro's Reliance on Absolute Values of Investments Without
Context is Insufficient
Walbro's reliance on the numerical amounts, which the ID refers to as "absolute values,"
of its domestic investments fails to evaluate significance based on any context of Walbro's
operations, the marketplace, or the industry in question. See ID at 3-5. The Commission must
assess the relative importance ofthe domestic activities. Lelo, 786 F.3d at 883; Cabinet Hinges,
Comm'n Op. at 32. Here, the ID's comparison of Walbro's U.S. and global sales ofthe DI
carburetors provides some context to analyze whether Walbro's investments are significant or
substantial. Id.; see also ID at 3-7.
Walbro used a sales-based allocation to determine its domestic industry investments as to
each patent. WOpp. at 13-17. The use of a sales-based allocation is one acceptable way to
determine the numerical value of domestic industry investments for each Asserted Patent. See
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3); Certain Mobile Device Holders and Components Thereof Inv. No. 337-
TA-1028, Comm'n Op. at 18-19(Mar. 22, 2018). However, Walbro has cited no case in which
the Commission determined the quantitative significance of a complainant's domestic industry
investments based solely on the absolute value of those investments. See WPet.;see also
Certain Collapsible Socketsfor Mobile Electronic Devices and Components Thereof Comm'n
Op. at 20, n.13 (July 9,2018)("Collapsible Sockets")(noting that OUII pointed to no instances
in which the Commission has determined the quantitative significance of each ofthe asserted
17

PUBLIC VERSION
investments based solely on the absolute values of investments determined using a sales-based
allocation).
As noted above, the Commission has instead sought to place the value of domestic
investments in the context ofthe relevant marketplace, such as by comparing a complainant's
domestic expenditures to its foreign expenditures or considering the value added to the product
from a complainant's activities in the United States. Here, it was appropriate for the ID to
consider how Walbro's U.S. expenditures are attributable to its protected articles compared to its
U.S. and worldwide sales ofthese products, and to decline to find quantitative significance based
solely on the absolute value ofthe domestic industry investments devoid of any context. See ID
at 3-4.
2. Walbro Failed to Provide Any Evidence Other Than Sales of DI
Carburetors to Use for Context
As prior Commission opinions recognize,"the magnitude of the investment cannot be
assessed without consideration of the nature and importance ofthe complainant's activities to the
patented products in the context ofthe marketplace or industry in question." Printing Devices,
Comm'n Op. at 31. For example, in Printing Devices, the Commission found complainant's
employment of labor devoted to the service and repair of its domestic industry products was
insufficient to support its claim that those expenses were "significant" because it failed to show a
comparison of its domestic industry activities with its foreign activities. Id. at 32. The
Commission found the complainant in that case also failed to submit "evidence to show how its
domestic activities add any value to the completed saleable product, or to demonstrate the nature
and relative importance of its activities to the articles protected by the patent(in view ofthe
relevant industry or marketplace)." Id.
18

PUBLIC VERSION
The Commission has considered, among other things, the value added to the article in the
United States by the domestic activities. See, e.g., Cabinet Hinges, Comm'n Op. at 32
("'significance' as used in the statute denotes an assessment ofthe relative importance ofthe
domestic activities"). The Commission has also assessed the relative domestic contribution to
the protected article by comparing complainant's product-related domestic activities to its
product-related foreign activities. See, e.g., Male Prophylactics, Comm'n Op. at 43(finding that
complainant's undertakings, measured on a comparative basis, created meaningful value added
to the unfinished imported product). Depending upon the particular company,industry, and
marketplace in question, other contextual facts could be relevant in assessing whether the
domestic industry investments and activities with respect to the protected articles are
quantitatively significant or substantial.
In this case, Walbro failed to submit evidence or arguments to substantiate the nature and
significance of its domestic activities with respect to the DI carburetors. See generally WOpp.;
WPet. Walbro failed to provide context of the company's operations, the marketplace, or the
industry in question necessary to understand whether the value of its domestic activities is
significant or substantial. Id. Nor does Walbro demonstrate whether and to what extent its
domestic activities add value to its imported products. Id. Walbro further failed to provide any
evidence related to its foreign activities. ID at 3.
Walbro's failure to submit such evidence and arguments means the Commission's
assessment of quantitative significance or substantiality is limited to the only available evidence
ofrecord — Walbro's sales of DI carburetors.
19

PUBLIC VERSION
3. Walbro's Sales of the DI Carburetors Provide Context to Assess
Whether Walbro's Domestic Industry Investments are Significantor
Substantial
In its petition, Walbro argues that the "expenditures [in Chart A]are quantitatively
significant" and "[t]he expenditures are also quantitatively significant relative to Walbro's
overall operations." WPet. at 18. Walbro then cites the U.S. sales of DI carburetors to allegedly
"show the relative importance of Walbro's expenditures as they are directly tied to the
development and production of carburetors practicing the asserted patents." Id Thus, Walbro
does not dispute that the U.S. sales of DI carburetors are useful measures by which the "relative
importance" or "significance" of Walbro's investments in the domestic industry can be
evaluated. Id.
The Commission has previously used sales of protected articles in order to consider the
context ofa complainant's domestic industry investments. See, e.g., Automated Teller Machines,
Final ID at 190-91 (public version)(proportion of labor to revenue for domestic industry product
was too low and not quantitatively significant); Certain Table Saws, Inv. No. 337-TA-965, Order
No. 10, ID at 17(public version)(finding quantitative significance oflabor costs amounting to
11 percent to 19 percent of complainant's gross sales). Further, Walbro's petition recognizes
"the word 'significant' denote[s]'an assessment ofthe relative importance ofthe domestic
activities,' yet Walbro failed to provide such an assessment. WPet. at 23(emphasis in original)
(citing Lelo, 786 F.3d at 883). In fact, it was not until the ID that any assessment ofthe domestic
investments was conducted, and such assessment was the result ofthe All's own review ofthe
available evidence.
In the record ofthis investigation, Walbro's U.S. and worldwide sales of DI carburetors
provide the only option with which to analyze the significance of Walbro's domestic
investments. The ID's calculated percentages of Walbro's investments to its sales of DI
20

PUBLIC VERSION
carburetors are found in Charts C and E in the ID. ID at 5-6. As noted above, the ratios of
Walbro's labor and capital investments with respect to the '424,'173, and '254 patents to its
U.S. sales of DI carburetors peak ,and the ratios of its domestic investments to
worldwide sales of DI carburetors peak .16Id.
Walbro also attempts to rely on the "TOTAL" amount of investments for each Asserted
Patent by adding together the three investment values for subparagraphs(A),(B), and (C).
WPet. at 18. However,the total of the amounts in the three subparagraphs represents double-
and triple-counting of investments included in multiple subparagraph categories. WOpp. at 13-
17; WPet. at 12-19. For example, Walbro includes certain capital investments(see WOpp. at 13,
first chart) as part of its investments under each of subparagraphs(A),(B), and (C). Id. at 13-17;
WPet. at 12-19. Thus, Walbro's reliance on the total amounts is improper.
4. The ID Did Not Ignore Walbro's Calibration Activities in Considering
its Quantitative Factors
Walbro claims the ID fails to properly consider its calibration activities in its quantitative
analysis. WPet. at 23-24. However, Walbro's investments as stated in Chart A(WOpp. at 18;
ID at 4)include amounts of quantitative investments in calibration activities. See WOpp. at 13,
16-17, 19; WPet. at 12-17, 19("a significant portion of Walbro's domestic investments and
activities relate to the carburetor calibration work").17
For instance, Walbro's investments in "facilities and equipment" include investments for
"engineering, R&D,and calibration activities." Id. at 17(emphasis added). Walbro's estimate
16 As stated above, Walbro's petition for review states that it no longer asserts the '547
patent in this investigation.
17 Walbro relies on its domestic industry investments related to calibration as both a
quantitative and qualitative factor under subparagraphs(A),(B), and (C). WOpp. at 12, 13, 17,
19; see also id. at 9-12; Walbro's Responses to SUF752-70; WPet. at 11-17(headings describe
inclusion of"Calibration Activities").
21

PUBLIC VERSION
of square footage in its Cass City, Michigan facility includes areas of the facility used for
"engineering, research, development and calibration" of DI carburetors. Id. (emphasis added).
Walbro's total capital investment in equipment at the Cass City facility includes equipment for
"engineering, R&D,and calibration." Id.(emphasis added). Walbro asserts that it "has a group
of about at the Cass City, Michigan facility, who are responsible for the calibration
work for those customers having a primary place of business in North America and parts of
Europe." WOpp. Ex. A, VanAllen Decl. at 1156. Walbro includes costs associated with the
in its labor and capital investments(subparagraph B)and engineering, research, and
development investments(subparagraph C). WOpp. at 11, 14-19. Walbro's argument, therefore,
is inconsistent with the record evidence.
B. The ID Did Not Err in Declining to Consider Walbro's Qualitative Factors
Walbro argues that the ID failed to give proper weight to the qualitative evidence cited by
Walbro in support of its arguments that its economic activities in the United States are
"significant." WPet. at 2-3, 26-28. Walbro asserts that Lelo does not stand for the proposition
that the qualitative analysis is unnecessary unless a complaint's domestic investments are
quantitatively significant. Id. at 2-3. Walbro contends that Lelo simply requires "quantitative
analysis to determine whether an investment is significant, and prohibit[s] the sole reliance on
qualitative evidence in the absence of quantitative data." WPet. at 26(emphasis in original).
Walbro argues that the ID's approach would mean that qualitative factors regarding the
significance of domestic industry activities would never factor into the analysis, since if
investments are determined to be insignificant based on quantitative factors, qualitative factors
will not be considered. Id. at 27. Similarly, Walbro further argues that if investments are
determined to be quantitatively significant, there would be no point in going on to consider
qualitative factors. Id. at 27-28.
22

PUBLIC VERSION
We disagree that the ID errs in declining to evaluate Walbro's qualitative factors, given
the ID's quantitative assessment and conclusion that Walbro's investments are insignificant. The
Federal Circuit's decision in Lelo found that once the Commission had concluded based on a
quantitative assessment that a complainant's investments were "insignificant," the Commission
could not then disregard that conclusion and use qualitative factors to compensate for the
quantitative data that indicated that the investments were not significant. Lelo, 786 F.3d at 885.
As such, the ID correctly concludes that due to its finding that Walbro's investments are
insignificant based on a quantitative assessment, there is no need to evaluate Walbro's cited
qualitative factors.
With regard to Walbro's argument that the ID's approach would essentially render
qualitative factors useless in assessing whether investments are significant, we disagree that the
situation is binary, as Walbro asserts. There may be facts and circumstances where, based on an
assessment of quantitative information, it remains unclear whether a complainant's investments
are significant or not. In such cases, resorting to qualitative factors that may indicate
significance could be relevant to the evaluation. We do not view the Federal Circuit in Lelo as
precluding the Commission from considering qualitative factors; rather it precludes the
Commission from relying on qualitative factors alone to support a finding that investments are
significant when quantitative factors show that the complainant's investments are insignificant.
In other words,"qualitative factors cannot compensate for quantitative factors that indicate
insignificant investment." Lelo, 786 F.3d at 885.
The Commission disagrees with Walbro's interpretation of Lelo 's holding that "Lelo
states only that a complainant cannot rely on qualitative evidence alone to satisfy the economic
prong, in the absence of quantitative evidence." WPet. at 3(emphasis in original); see Lelo, 786
23

PUBLIC VERSION
F.3d at 885; see also Resp. Opp. at 10-11; IAResponse at 8-10. There was no absence of
quantitative evidence in Lelo. Lelo, 786 F.3d at 885. Rather, the Federal Circuit noted the
Commission's observation that the complainant's investments and employment under
subparagraphs(A)and(B)were "quantitatively 'modest," which it took to mean "insignificant."
Id. The Federal Circuit also specifically held that "qualitative factors alone are insufficient." Id.
Indeed, the Commission and the Federal Circuit considered evidence as to both
quantitative and qualitative factors in arriving at their decisions. The Federal Circuit, however,
found under the facts presented in Lelo that qualitative factors alone could not demonstrate
significance where the quantitative data showed that the complainant's investments were
insignificant under section 337(a)(3)(A) or(B). Similarly, in this case, the ID finds that the
evidence of record leads to the conclusion that Walbro's investments are insignificant under the
statute. Qualitative evidence could not alter this conclusion, and thus need not be considered.
This is not to say that qualitative evidence would be irrelevant or bear no weight in all cases, as
Walbro contends.
In its petition, Walbro cites several Commission opinions and an order that allegedly
support its interpretation of Lelo. WPet. at 26-27. As discussed below, each ofthe cited cases
turn on the individual facts presented therein and none supports the conclusion that consideration
of qualitative factors are required when quantitative factors show that the investments are
undoubtedly insignificant. See id.; see also Resp. Opp. at 14-15.
For example, Walbro claims that in Collapsible Sockets the Commission allegedly
determined that, even after Lelo, qualitative evidence may still be relied upon to support a
finding that a complainant's investments are significant. WPet. at 26(citing Collapsible Sockets,
Comm'n Op. at 20). In Collapsible Sockets, the Commission considered both qualitative and
24

PUBLIC VERSION
quantitative evidence of record. The Commission first found that "[Noth the absolute and
percentage amounts are quantitatively significant" before confirming that the complainant's
"qualitative evidence, while not sufficient on its own,supports a finding of significant
employment of labor and capital." Collapsible Sockets, Comm'n Op. at 20(emphasis added).
The qualitative evidence supported finding the same conclusion as the quantitative analysis, and
the Commission specifically noted that the qualitative evidence would not be sufficient on its
own. Id.
Walbro's reliance on LED Lighting is similarly misplaced. WPet. at 26(citing Certain
LED Lighting Devices, LED Power Supplies, and Components Thereof Inv. No. 337-TA-1081,
Order No. 54(July 24, 2018)("LED Lighting"). In LED Lighting, the complainant was a large
multi-national corporation that produced detailed quantitative evidence that was allocated
according to patent and specific activity. LED Lighting, Order No. 54 at 7. The evidence
provided enough context such that summary determination of no domestic industry was denied.
Id. Further, in its final opinion in LED Lighting, the Commission took no position on whether
the complainants satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement because the
Commission found that the complainants failed to show that respondents infringed the asserted
patents. LED Lighting, Comm'n Op. at 32.
Here, the ID appropriately declines to address Walbro's qualitative factors because
Walbro's quantitative investments are insignificant. ID at 4-7; Lelo, 786 F.3d at 885.
Qualitative factors may be relevant in particular cases but "cannot compensate for quantitative
data that indicate insignificant investment and employment." Lelo, 786 F.3d at 885.
Walbro's argument that the "declining carburetor industry" should have been considered
as a qualitative factor is unconvincing. WPet. at 7. If Walbro makes fewer sales due to a
25

PUBLIC VERSION
declining industry but still incurs the same investment costs, then the percentages of its domestic
industry investments compared to its sales would increase over time. Walbro did not provide
year-by-year information for its investments and never explains how the allegedly "declining
carburetor industry" supports its argument that it has made significant or substantial investments
in its DI carburetors in the U.S. See WPet. at 26-31.
Accordingly, because Walbro's quantitative investments are insignificant and
insubstantial, the qualitative factors need not be addressed. See ID at 7.
C. The Commission Declines to Adopt a Minimum Threshold Amount or
Percentage in Determining the Significance of DI Investments
The ID states,"[Ole[AU]was unable to locate any opinion in the past four years in
which the Commission has held that an investment amounting to less than 5% ofsales qualified
as 'significant' or 'substantial." ID at 5-6. We believe that the ID uses that percentage not as a
threshold, but as confirmation that its conclusion that Walbro's low percentages are insignificant
comports with Commission precedent. Id.; see also Resp. Opp. at 8-10; IAResponse at 3-8.
Nonetheless, we find it unnecessary to compare other, unnamed Commission opinions18to the
analysis in this investigation because the domestic industry requirement is analyzed on a case-
by-case basis, including "an examination ofthe facts in each investigation, the article of
commerce, and the realities ofthe marketplace." See Male Prophylactic Devices, Comm'n Op.
at 39.
18 The ID states that "[Necause the investment amounts and corresponding percentages
are deemed confidential in these opinions, the undersigned cannot cite to any specific opinion to
support this statement." ID at 6, n.6.
26

PUBLIC VERSION
The ID also states in footnote 4 that, "[i]n order for the word 'significant' to have any
meaning at all, cannot qualify." ID at 4, n.4.'9 However,to the
extent that this statement could be construed as implementing a minimum threshold amount of
investment, the Commission does not adopt it. There is no requirement that proof of the
economic prong is dependent on a "minimum monetary expenditure." See Certain Video
Displays, Components Thereofand Products Containing the Same,Inv. No. 337-TA-687, Order
No. 20 at 5(May 20, 2010)(quoting Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm'n Op. at 25-26).
Accordingly, the Commission declines to adopt the following statements in the ID:
• "The undersigned was unable to locate any opinion in the past four years in which
the Commission has held that an investment amounting to less than 5% ofsales
qualified as 'significant' or 'substantial."(ID at 5-6); and
• "In order for the word 'significant' to have any meaning at all,
cannot qualify."(ID at 4, n.4).
However,the determination to decline adopting these statements does not change the ultimate
result.
D. Analysis of the Economic Prong Uses a Flexible Approach
The ID correctly observes that "context is particularly important" in a domestic industry
analysis. ID at 4. However,the ID goes on to state,"ifiust as the Commission does not penalize
a small business for making only small investments(in terms of dollar amounts), large
multinational companies should be expected to invest larger dollar amounts in order for their
investments to be deemed 'significant' or 'substantial." Id. We decline to adopt this statement
19 We note that the statement in footnote 4 relates to Walbro's plant and equipment
investments for articles protected by the '547 patent, which Walbro has abandoned in this
investigation. ID at 4, n.4; WPet. at 1; 19 C.F.R. § 210.43(b). Yet, regardless of the
abandonment of the '547 patent, any requirement of a minimum threshold amount of investment
for an asserted patent is improper.
27

PUBLIC VERSION
insofar as it does not reflect the flexible approach that is used in analyzing whether a
complainant has satisfied the domestic industry requirement.
Significance is based on the marketplace conditions regarding the articles protected by
the Asserted Patents. The fact that a complainant may have substantial sales of other products is
not pertinent to this analysis.
Accordingly, we decline to adopt the ID's statement that "large multinational companies
should be expected to invest larger dollar amounts in order for their investments to be deemed
'significant' or 'substantial." ID at 4.
V. CONCLUSION
The Commission has determined to affirm, with the modified reasoning detailed above,
the ID's conclusion that respondents are entitled to summary determination that Walbro's
activities and investments are not significant or substantial to establish the statutory domestic
industry requirement with respect to the articles protected by the Asserted Patents. Accordingly,
the investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation of section 337.
By order ofthe Commission.
Issued: October 28, 2019
00
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
28

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS Inv. No.337-TA-1123
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached Order,Commission has been served
by hand upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Vu Bui,Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on October 28,2019.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW,Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Walbro,LLC:
Richard W.Hoffmann, Esq.
REISING ETHINGTON,PC
755 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 1850
Troy, MI 48084
On Behalf of Respondent Lowe's Companies,Inc.:
Joshua B. Pond, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOVVNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
On Behalf of Respondents Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. of
Holm Kon2 d/b/a Techtronic Industries Power Equipmentl
Home Depot Product LLC and The Home Depot, U.S.A.,Inc.:
Sean C. Cunningham, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
El Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
CI Via First Class Mail
O Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
El Via First Class Mail
CI Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
CE Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service — Page 2
On Behalf of Respondent Amazon.com,Inc.:
Stefani E. Shanberg, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
On Behalf of Respondents Kmart Corporation and Sears,
Roebuck and Company:
Eric S. Namrow,Esq.
MORGAN,LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW
Washington, DC 20004
On Behalf of Respondents Ruixing Carburetor
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,Zhejiang:
P. Andrew Riley, Esq.
MEI & MARK LLP
818 18th Street NW,Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
On Behalf of Respondent Tractor Supply Company:
Daniel E. Yonan, Esq.
STERNE,ICESSLER,GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
On Behalf of Respondents MAT Industries, LLC:
Paul M.Bartkowski, Esq.
ADDUCI,MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG,LLP
1133 Connecticut Avenue,NW,12th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
On Behalf of Respondent Walmart Inc.:
Rett Snotherly, Esq.
LEVI & SNOTHERLY,PLLC
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW,Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
Inv. No.337-TA-1123
1=1 Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
0 Via First Class Mail
O Other:
0 Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service — Page 3
On Behalf of Respondent Menard,Inc.:
Jeffrey L. Eichen, Esq.
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1410
Wilmington, DE 19801
Respondents:
Fuding Youyi Trade Co., Ltd.
No. 176, Yuhu Community, Taimushan Town, Fuding, Ningde,
Fujian, 355203
China
Feldmann Eng. & Mfg. Co., Inc.
520 Forest A venue
Sheboygan Falls, WI 53085
Inv. No.337-TA-1123
O Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:
0 Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:

PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMNIISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1123
PRODUCTS CONTAINING SUCH '
CARBURETORS
ORDER NO. 77: INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING RESPONDENTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION THAT WALBRO
FAILS TO SATIS_FYTHE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ECONOMIC
PRONGANDSTAYINGTHE PROCEDURALscunnuuz
(August 12,2019)
On June 25, 2019, Respondents Amazon.com, Inc., Cabela’s LLC,‘ Lowe’s Companies,
Inc., Menard, Inc., Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., The Home Depot, Inc., Thunderbay Products,2
Tractor Supply Company, Walmart, Inc., and Zhejiang Ruixing Carburetor Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”) moved (1123-053) for summary determination that
Complainant Walbro, LLC (“Walbro”) has failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. § l337(a)(3). On July 12, 2019, Walbro opposed the motion.
The Commission Investigative Staff did not submit a response.
Summary detennination is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and the moving party is entitled to a determination as a matter of law. See 19 C.F.R. §
210.18(b). In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, “the evidence must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion with doubts resolved in favor
of the non-movant.” Crown Operations Int ’l,Ltd. v. Solutia, Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
' Walbro and Cabela’s LLC jointly moved to terminate the Investigation based on a settlement agreement on July
29, 2019. (Mot No. 1123-065.) The undersigned granted this motion. (Order No. 75 (Aug. 7, 2019).)
2Thunderbay Products moved to terminate this Investigation based on a consent order, which the undersigned granted.
(Order No. 65 (July 10, 2019).) On July 23, 2019, the Commission determined not to review this decision. (Notice of
Comm’n Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation as to Respondent
Thunderbay Products Based on a Consent Order Stipulation (July 23, 2019).)

2002) (citations omitted); see-also Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v.KLMLabs, Inc., 984 F.2d 182,
ll85 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“ln other words, ‘[s]ummary judgement is authorized when it is quite clear
what the truth is, and the law requires judgment in favor of the movant based upon facts not in
genuine dispute.”) (citations omitted).
Respondents argue that there are several defects in Walbro’s domestic industry analysis.’
For purposes of summary determination, the undersigned will assmne that Walbro’s calculations
of its investments are correct. This decision therefore addresses only the question of whether
Walbro established that its domestic industry investments are “significant” or “substantial.”
I. Legal Background 	g
Section 337(a)(3) sets forth the following economic criteria fordetermining the existence
of a domestic industry in such investigations:
(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,
1 research and development, or licensing.
19 U.S.C. § l337(a)(3). Thus, section 337(a)(3) requires that investments be either “significant”
or “substantial.” The Federal Circuit has clarified that a quantitative analysis must be performed
in order to make this determination. Lelo Inc. v. Int’! Trade Comm 'n, 786 F.3d 879, 883 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“The plain text of § 337 requires a quantitative analysis in determining whether a
[complainant] has demonstrated a ‘significant investment in plant and equipment’ or ‘significant
3 Respondents argue that: (1) Walbro’s sales-based allocation does not accurately reflect the investment in the
domestic industry products; (2) Walbro lacks evidence of investment in employees directly working on domestic
industry carburetors; (3) Walbro lacks evidence that equipment, such as Watercoolers and landscaping costs, relates
to the domestic industry products; (4) Walbro’s facility investments improperly count areas used for other products;
and (5) Walbro has no evidence of a nexus to the asserted patents under sub—prong(C). (Mem. at 12-16.)
-2

employment of labor or capital.’”). There is no threshold amount that a complainant must meet:
See Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and Components Thereof, lnv. No. 337-TA-586,
Comm’n Op. at 25-26 (May 16, 2008) (“Stringed Musical Instruments”) (“We emphasize that
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.”’); Certain Male
Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-546, Comm’n Op. at 39 (Aug. 1, 2007) (“[T]here is no
mathematical threshold test.”). Rather, the inquiry depends on “the facts in each investigation, the
article of commerce, and the realities of the marketplace.” Certain Printing & Imaging Devices &
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-690, Comm’n Op. at 27 (Feb. l7, 2011). As such, “[t]he
determination takes into account the nature of the investment and/or employment activities, the
industry in question, and the complainant’s relative size.” Id.
H. Quantitative Analysis
Respondents argue that Walbro has “failed to demonstrate that its investments are
quantitatively significant or substantial.” (Mem. at 19.) According to Respondents, “Walbro
[provided] limited information that can act as a benchmark.” (Id.) Specifically, Walbro failed to
provide any evidence of its foreign-related investments and employment activities. (Id. at 20.)
Respondents also assert that Walbro’s investments are quantitatively insignificant when
compared to its Worldwide revenue for its domestic industry products. Respondents note that
f‘Walbro’salleged plant and equipment investment represents less than 2 of its worldwide
carburetorrevenueand less that- of its worldwiderevenuefor all products.”(Id. at 21-22.)
Walbro argues that its expenditures “are significant in absolute terms.” (Opp. at 18.)
Walbro contends that its"‘expenditures are also quantitatively significant relative to Walbro’s
overall operations.” (Id.).-Walbro notes, for example, that for the ’546 patent, its expenses
associatedwith processingthe carburetorsin the United States amountto] of sales. (Id)
. -3

Walbro’s domestic industry investments are as follows:
Chart A: Walbro’s DomesticIndustry Investments
Sections 	‘424 Patent ‘S47Patent 	‘I73 Patent 	‘254 Patent
337(a)(3)(A) and 	~
B
Plant & Equipment
Labor & Capital
Engineering, 	T
Research and
Development
TOTAL
(Opp.at18.)AsshowninChartA,Walbro’s	investments	rangefrom—.
The undersigned first finds that it is inappropriate to rely on the numbers in their absolute
terms. Walbro’s investments include dollar amounts which may appear large,“ but these numbers
must be viewed in their proper context. As the Commission has explained, “[t]he requirement for
showing the existence of a domestic industry will depend on the industry in question, and the
complainant’s relative size.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 25-26. Thus, evidence
to “substantiate the significance of [a complainant’s] activities with respect to the [domestic
industry products]” is required. Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Elecs. Components,
& Prods. Containing Same, lnv. No. 337-TA-1097, Comm’n Op. at 33 (June 29, 2018).
Here, context is particularly important. Walbro is a large, multinational company with
worldwiderevenuetotaling— 	for the relevanttimeframe.(Walbro’sResponsesto
Respondents’ Statement of Undisputed Facts at 1]3.) Just as the Commission does not penalize a
small business for making only small investments (in terms of dollar amounts), large multinational
companies should be expected to invest larger dollar amounts in order for their investments to be
deemed “significant” or “substantial.”
/
4 As shown in Chart A, however, Walbro relies on an investment of - for plant and equipment for the ’547
patent. In order for the word “significant” to have any meaning at all, this investment cannot qualify.
-4
\

Here, there are two pieces of data to provide context for Walbro’s investments and Walbro
will not have a further opportunity to provide additional evidences Discovery is closed and
exhibits, including witness statements, have been submitted. (Order No. 36.)
The first piece of data is U.S. sales of the domestic industry products. Such sales amount
to- 	andareallocated	bypatentasfollows:
. 	Chart B: U.S. Sales 	‘
‘424 Patent ‘ ‘ ‘S47 Patent 	‘I73 Patent 	‘254 Patent
(Opp. at 19; see also (Walbro’s Responses to Respondents’ Statement of Undisputed Facts at 1]
37).) Dividing Walbro’s U.S. investments in Chart A by Walbro’s U.S. sales in Chart B results in
the following percentages:
Chart C: Percentage of U.S. Investments Compared to U.S. Sales
’424 Patent ' ’547 Patent ’173 Patent I 5254Patent
Plaqt& 	,... 	ni 	} g on”	Equipment 	V
Lab0r&	‘ 	I 	- 	l 	- 	II 	- 	I 	I	Capital _
Engineering,
Research and
Development
As seen in Chart C, the majority of Walbro’s investments are less than-of its U.S. sales of the
products that practice each patent. The undersigned was unable to locate any opinion in the past
four years in which the Commission has held that an investment amounting to less than 5% of
5 Walbro does not introduce evidence of its foreign-related investments for the atcnts-in-suit and does not a ear to
have	thisinformation.	Durin	hisdeosition	Walbro’s	30b(6)witness
(Mot. Ex. A at 601;?-60s;s; EX.E at 112613-1132114.)	In its Responses to Respon ents’ Statement of Undispute Facts, Walbro admitted that it “did not take into account
monetary investments outside of the United States," including engineering activity, plant and facility expenses,
equipment investments, and labor expenses. (Walbro’s Responses to Respondents’ Statement of Undisputed Facts at
111139-57.)
. 	— 5

sales qualified as “significant” or “substantial.” Accordingly, the undersigned finds that such
investments are not significant or substantial.
Only Walbro’s investments in labor and capital are above I when compared to its U.S.
sales and only one category —the I 	labor and capital investment for the ’547 patent
amounting to - of U.S. sales —constitutes a percentage that the Commission has deemed
significant in the past.6 The undersigned finds, however, that comparing Walbro’s domestic
investmentsto its U.S. salesis misleading.Whenviewedin its propercontext,Walbro’sI
investment does not qualify as “significant.”
Thecontextofthe- 	investmentis understoodby reviewingthe secondpieceof data
in the record — Walbro’s worldwide sales of the domestic industry products. Such sales amount
to— 	andareallocated	bypatentasfollows:
V ' ' 	Chart D: Worldwide Sales
‘424 Patent 	‘547 Patent 	‘173 Patent 	‘254 Patent
WValbro’sResponses to Respondents’ Statement of Undisputed Facts at 1]37.) Dividing Walbro’s
U.S. investments in Chart A by Walbro’s worldwide sales in Chart D results in the following
percentages:
Chart E: Percentage of U.S.Investments Compared to U.S. Sales
’424.£’.atent ’54!lBatent ’l7,.3J_!atent ’251LBatent
PM 	—Equipment
Labor	& 	I 	‘ 	I	Ca 0ital
Engineering, 	- 	- 	I
Research and
Development
_ 6 _
6Because the investment amounts and corresponding percentages are deemed confidential in these opinions, the
undersigned cannot cite to any specific opinion to support this statement.

As shownin ChartE, Walbroinvestmentof- 	for labor and capitalfor productspracticing
the ’547patent is clearlyminimal,as it amountsto only! 	of Walbro’sworldwidesales for
these products. Walbro’s labor and capital investments for its other patents are also all below.
The undersigned finds that Walbro’s labor and capital investments therefore do not qualify as
either “significant” or “substantial.”
2. Qualitative Analysis 	V ~
Walbro argues that the undersigned should consider other factors, such as the declining
carburetor industry and the fact that Walbro’s investments “are critical to the [sic] Walbro’s
Domestic Industry Products and represent significant added value indeed.” (Opp; at 18-19.)
Likewise, Walbro asserts that the activity it performs in the United States —calibration —is
necessary for a sellable carburetor. (Id. at 24-25.) The Federal Circuit has held, however that
“[q]ualitative factors cannot compensate for quantitative data that indicate insignificant
investment and employment.” Lelo, 786 F.3d at 885. Because the undersigned has concluded that
Walbro’s investments are quantitatively insignificant, the qualitative factors need not be
addressed. 	~
For the reasons stated above, Respondents’ motion (1123-053) is hereby granted. In light
of this finding, the procedural schedule in this Investigation is hereby stayed, pending review of
this Initial Determination.
Pursuant to l9 C.F.R. § 2lO.42(h), this Initial Determination shall be the determinationof
the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the Initial Determination pursuant to
19 C.F.R., § 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.44, orders, on its own
motion, a review of the Initial Determination or certain issues herein. 	_
Within seven days of the date of this document, the parties shall submit to the Office of
the Administrative Law Judges ajoint statement as to whether or not they seek to have any portion
. _'7_

of this document deleted from the public version. If the parties do seek to have portions of this
document deleted from the public version, they must submit to this office a copy of this document
with red brackets indicating the portion or portions asserted to contain confidential business
information. The submission may be made by email andfor hard copy by the aforementioned date
. 	5
and need not be filed with the Commission Secretary.
so ORDERED. 	t '
Charles E. Bulloclc
_ 	Chief Administrative Law Judge
\
K
-3

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1123
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service —Page 1
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached PUBLIC VERSION ORDER NO. 77
has been served by hand upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Vu Bui, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on September 12, 2019.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. Intemational Trade Connnission
500 E Street SW, Room 112
l 	Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Walbro. LLC:
Richard W. Hoffrnann, Esq. 	l:l V' Iland Delivery
REISING ETHINGTON, PC 	ra Express Delivery
755 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite‘ 	D via First Class Mail
Troy, MI 48084 l 	D Other:
RESPONDENTS:
On Behalf of Lowe’s Companies, Inc.: /
JoshuaB. Pond,Esq. 	ya HandDelivery	KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 	Via Express Delivery
607 I4-THStreet, NW, SLIIIC900 	U Via First Class
Washington, DC 20005 	U Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Amazon.com, Inc.:
StefaniE. Shanberg,Esq. 	Hwd 	Delivery	MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 	Via Express Delivery
425 Mark‘? Street 	l:] Via First Class Mail
San Francisco, CA 94105 	U other
On Behalf of Respondents Techtronic Industries Co.
Ltd. of Hung Kong d/b/a Techtronic Industries Power
Equipment and Home Depot Product. Inc. and Home
Depot U.S.A.. Inc.: /
Sean C. Cunningham, Esq; 	Cl ia Hand Delivery
D]-IAPIPER LLP (US) 	ia Express Delivery
401 B S“‘=°‘>Suite 170° 	I1 Via First Class Mail,
San Diego, CA 92101 	El other

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1123
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service —Page 2
On Behalf of Respondents Kmart Corporation and
Sears, Roebuck and Company;
Eric S. Namrow, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
III Via Hand Delivery
E4/ia ExpressDelivery
III Via First Class Mail
III Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Zheiiang Ruixing Carburetor
Manufacturing Co., Ltd..
P. Andrew Riley, Esq.
MEI & MARK LLP
818 18"‘ Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
1:1Via Hand Delivery
Q/Via Express Delivery
1] Via First Class Mail
CI Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Walmart Inc.:
Rett Snotherly, Esq.
LEVI & SNOTHERLY, PLLC
1101 Cormecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
U V'a Hand Delivery
[U/Via Express Delivery
El Via First Class Mail
III Other: '
On Behalf of Respondent Tractor Suglly Companv_:
Daniel E. Yonan, Esq.
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
El Via Hand Delivery
[lIl’ViaExpress Delivery
El Via First Class Mail
1:1 Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Menards. Inc.:
Jeffrey L. Eiehen, Esq.
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP ,
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1410
Wilmington, DE 19801
[:1V' Hand Delivery
E’Via Express Delivery
1:1Via First Class Mail
Cl Other:

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service —Page 3
Inv. N0. 337-TA 1123
On Behalf of Respondent MAT Industries, LLC:
Paul M. Bartkowski, Esq.
ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, LLP
1133 Connecticut Ave., NW, 12“‘Floor 100
Washington, DC 20036
|:l ia Hand Delivery
%ia ExpressDelivery
El Via First Class Mail
U Other:
Fuding Youyi Trade C0., Ltd.
No. 176,'Yuhu Community, Taimushan Town,
Fuding, Ningde, Fujian, 355203
China
III Via Hand Delivery
IQ/Via Express Delivery
II] Via First Class Mail
Feldmann Eng. & Mfg. Co., Inc.
520 Forest Avenue
Sheboygan Falls, WI 53085
II] Other:
II ia Hand Delivery
%a ExpressDelivery
III Via First Class Mail
III Other:
,
‘\

‘ UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of 	'
CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND
PRODUCTS CONTAINING SUCH 	1”“ N°- 337'TA"1123
CARBURETORS
ORDER 51: CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF
THE PATENTS AT ISSUE
(May 13, 2019)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ ..- 1
IN GENERAL ............................................................................................................... ..- 3
RELEVANT LAW .................................................................................................. 3
LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... .. 	6
THE ASSERTED PATENTS ..................................... .. 	7
The ’424 Patent ............................................. .. 	7
The ’547 Patent ........................ .. 	8
The ’l73 Patent ................. 	l0 —
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................. 	11
Constructionof the Agreed-UponClaimTerms 	11
Construction of the Disputed Claim Tern1s............ 	............... ..- 12
“gap” ........................................................................................... ........................- 12
“angularly phase shifi said fast idle lever relative to said choke lever” ............... ..- 16
“slightly open” ...................................................................................................... ..- 19
, “it reaching full closed position” .......................................................................... ..- 23
. “specialized tool” .................................................................................................. ..- 26
. “air passage” ......................................................................................................... ..- 30
. “in operation, the pressure pulse source causes air from the air passage to flow
through the pressure pulse chamber to at least reduce the amount of liquid fuel
therein”.................................................................................................................. ..- 32
i

\
I. INTRODUCTION
This Investigation was instituted by the Commission on July 17, 2018 to determine whether
the importation, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain
carburetors and products containing such carburetors violates section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, due to infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,394,424 (“the ’424 patent”), 6,439,547
(“the ’547 patent”), 6,533,254 (“the ’254 Patent”) 6,540,212 (“the ’212 patent”) and 7,070,173
(“the ’173 patent”). See 83 Fed. Reg. 34,614 (July 20, 2018). Walbro, LLC (“Wa1bro”)‘ is the
Complainant. The named Respondents are. Ruixing Carburetor, Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Huayi
Mechanical and Electrical Co., Ltd.;2 Tillotson; Fujian Hualong Carburetor Co., Ltd.; Fuding
Guangda General, Machinery Co., Ltd.; Wuyi Henghai Tools Co., Ltd.; Fuding Youyi Trade Co.,
Ltd.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Amerisun Inc.; Ardisam, Inc.; Buffalo Corporation; Cabela’s LLC;3
Champion Power Equipment, Inc.; Feldmann Eng. & Mfg. Co., Ltd.; FNA Group, Inc.;
Frictionless World, LLC; Gcnerac Power Systems, Inc.; Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc.;
Imperial Industry Supply Co. d/b/a DuroMax Power Equipment; Kmart Corporation; Lowe’s
Companies, Inc.; MAT Industries, LLC; Menards, Inc.; MTD Products Inc.;‘ North American Tool
Industries; Northern Tool & Equipment Co., Inc.; QV Tools LLC; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Target
Corporation; Techtronic Industries (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.;5 The Home Depot, Inc.;6 Thunderbay
‘ Walbro is the owner by assignment to the five patents at issue in this Investigation. (Compl. at ‘[11]5.3, 5.10, 5.17,
5.24, and 5.31; Compl. Exs. 6-10.) '
2 The undersigned granted Walbro’s motion to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to substitute this
Respondent for the previously-named Huayi Carburetor Factory. (Order No. 50 (Apr. 25, 2019).)
3 The undersigned granted Walbro’s motion to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to correct the
corporate name fi'om Cabela’s Incorporated. (1d.)
“ MTD Products Inc. recently moved to terminate the Investigation as to MTD based on a consent order. (Motion
No. 1123-041 (filed May 1, 2019).)
5 The undersigned granted Walbro’s motion to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to substitute this
Respondent for the previously-named Techtronics Industries Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong d/b/a Techtronic Industries
Power Equipment. (Order No. 50 (Apr. 25, 2019).)
6 Walbro recently moved to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to substitute “Home Depot Product
Authority LLC” and “Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.” for this Respondent. (Motion N0. 1123-042 (filed May 8, 2019).)

Products; Tool Tuff Direct LLC; Tractor Supply Company; and Walmart Inc. (collectively,
“Respondents”).7 The Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) is also a party to the Investigation.
The parties did not submit any claim terms from the ’254 patent or the ’2l2 patent for
construction. (JC at 1.) Accordingly, only the ’424 patent, the ’547 patent, and the ’l73 patent
(collectively, “the Asserted Patents”) are discussed in this Order. Pursuant to Ground Rule 6, a
Markman hearing was held on November 28, 2018. After the hearing and pursuant to Order No.
ll, the parties submitted an updated Joint Claim ConstructionVChart.8
7Since the institution of this Investigation, a number of respondents have been found in default and others have been
terminated based on a consent order stipulation or settlement agreements. (See Order No. 49 (Apr. 25, 2019) (finding
Respondents Wuyi I-Ienghai Tools Co., Ltd., Tool Tuff Direct LLC, North American Tool Industries, Imperial
Industrial Supply Co. d/b/a Duromax Power Equipment, and Fuding Guangda General Machinery Co., Ltd. in
default)); Order No. 18 (Sept. 12, 2018); Notice of Comm’n Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation as to Fujian Hualong Carburetor Co. Ltd. Based on a Consent Order (Oct. 3, 2018);
Order No. 2l (Sept. 24, 2018); Notice of Comm’n Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Terminating
the Investigation as to Respondent QV Tools Limited Liability Company LLC Based on a Consent Order Stipulation,
a Proposed Consent Order, and Settlement Agreement (Oct. 15, 2018); Order Nos. 22 & 23 (Oct. 2, 2018); Notice of
Comm’n Determination Not to Review Initial Determinations Terminating the Investigation as to Respondents
Ardisam, Inc. and Champion Power Equip. Inc. Based on Consent Order Stipulations (Oct. 26, 2018); Order No. 29
(Nov. 5, 2018); Notice of Comm’n Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Tenninating the
Investigation as to Respondent Northern Tool & Equip. Co., Inc. Based on a Consent Order Stipulation (Nov. 28,
2018); Order No. 30 (Nov. 6, 2018); Notice of Comm’n Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation as to Respondent Amerisun, Inc. Based on a Consent Order Stipulation (Nov. 28, 2018);
Order No. 31 (Nov. 13, 2018); Notice of Comm’n Detennination Not to Review an Initial Determination Terminating
the Investigation as to Respondent FNA Group, Inc. (Dec. 4, 2018); Order No. 33 (Dec. I8, 2018); Notice of Comm’n
Determination to Extend the Date for Determining to Review an Initial Detennination Terminating the Investigation
as to Respondent MAT Industries, LLC Based on a Consent Order Stipulation and a Determination Not to Review the
Initial Determination (Feb. 8, 2019); Order No. 34 (Jan. 29, 2019); Notice of Comm’n Determination Not to Review
an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation as to Respondents Buffalo Corp. and Target Corp. Based on a
Settlement Agreement (Feb. 13, 2019); Order No. 37 (Feb. 11, 2019); Notice of Comm’n Determination Not to Review
an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation as to Frictionless World LLC Based on a Settlement Agreement
(Mar. 5, 2019); Order No. 43 (Feb. 28, 2019); Notice of Comm’n Determination Not to Review an Initial
Detennination Terminating the Investigation as to Respondent Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc. Based on a
Consent Order Stipulation (Mar. 25, 2019); Order No. 45 (Mar. 26, 2019); Notice of Comm’n Determination Not to
Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation as to Tillotson Based on a Settlement Agreement (Apr.
I I, 2019).
l‘For convenience, the briefs and chart submitted by the parties are referred to hereafier as:
CMIB | Walbro’s Initial Markman Brief 	I
CMRB | Walbro’s Reply Markman Brief
RMIB | Respondents’ InitialMarkman Brief
RMRB | Respondents’ Reply Markman Brief ,
SMIB | Staffs Initial Markman Brief
JC | Updated Joint Proposed Claim Construction Chart
-2

ll. IN GENERAL
The claim terms construed in this Order are done so for the purposes of this section 337
Investigation. Those terms not in dispute need not be construed. See Vanderlande Indus.
Nederland BV v. Int’! Trade Comm ’n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that the
administrative law judge need only construe disputed claim tenns).
III. RELEVANT LAW
“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning and
scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly
construed claims to the device accused of infringing.” Markman v. WeslviewInstruments, Inc., 52
F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (intemalcitations omitted), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
Claim construction is a “matter of law exclusively for the court.” Id. at 970-71. “The construction
of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim language in order to understand
and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng ’g C0rp., 216
F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Claim construction focuses on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d
1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. As the Federal Circuit
in Phillips explained, courts must analyze each of these components to detennine the “ordinary
and customary meaning of a claim tenn” as tmderstood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention. 415 F.3d at 1313. “Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source
of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v.
Covad C0mmc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
_ 3 _

“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.”’ Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
2004)). “Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims
themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claims tenns.” Ia’.at 1314;
see also Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(“In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the
claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to ‘particularly point[ ] out
an
and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention. ). The
context in which a term is used in an asserted claim can be’“high1yinstructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1314. Additionally, other claims in the same patent, asserted or unasserted, may also provide
guidance as to the meaning of a claim tenn. Id.
The specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it
is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed tenn.” Id. at 1315 (quoting
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “[T]he specification
may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning
it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. “In
other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope
by the inventor.” Id. As a general rule, however, the particular examples or embodiments discussed
in the specification are not to be read into the claims as limitations. Id. at 1323. In the end, “[t]he
construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s
description of the invention will be . . . the correct construction.” Id. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw
PLC v. Marposs S0cieta' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
-4

In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history should be examined,
if in evidence. Id. at 1317; see also Liebel-Flarsheim C0. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). The prosecution history can “often inform the meaning of the claim language by
demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the
invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise
be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see also Chimie v. PPG Indus. Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is to ‘exclude
any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution/”).
When the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
evidence (i.e., all evidence extemal to the patent and the prosecution history, including
dictionaries, inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed as less reliable than the patent
itself and its prosecution history in determining how to define claim terms. Id. at 1317. “The court
may receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant technology,
but the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is clearly at odds
with the construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Elkay 11/Ijg.C0. v. Ebco Mfg. C0., 192
F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
If, afier a review of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, a claim temr remains ambiguous,
the claim should be construed so as to maintain its validity. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Claims,
however, cannot be judicially rewritten in order to fulfill the axiom of preserving their validity.
See Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, “if the only claim
construction that is consistent with the claim’s language and the written description renders the
claim invalid, then the axiom does not apply and the claim is simply invalid.” Id.
-5

A claim must also be definite. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph: “The
specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 1l2,1l 2. In
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), the Supreme Court held that §
112, 1]2 requires “that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history
infonn those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” (Id. at
2129.) A claim is required to “provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art,” and a
claim term is indefinite if it “might mean several different things and no informed and confident
choice is among the contending definitions.” Interval Licensing LLC v.AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364,
1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A patent claim that is indefinite is invalid. 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(3)(A).
IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
Walbro did not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in its briefs. Its expert, Dr.
William T. Cobb, Jr., did, however, opine on the issue in his expert report, submitted as an exhibit.
Dr. Cobb submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the Asserted Patents
“would either have a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering or its equivalent and/or at least
two years of practical experience designing carburetors for small engines.” (CMIB Ex. D at 1]20.)
Respondents submit that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the Asserted
Patents has “at least (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or another related technical
field and at least two (2) years of experience in the design of mechanical systems, mechanisms and
devices; or (ii) a master’s degree (or higher) in mechanical engineering or another related technical
field.” (RMIB at 8.) Respondents explain that “[t]hese requirements are not rigid, and superior
qualifications with respect to either education or experience may compensate for a deficit in the
other.” (Id.)
_ 6 _

Staff notes that “the difference in [the private parties’] proposals does not appear . . . to be
significant enough to change or materially affect their positions.” (SMIB at 7, 20, 29.) Staff
submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the Asserted Patents has “at least
a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or another related technical field and at least two
years of experience in the design of carburetors for small engines; and (ii) that superior
qualifications with respect to either education or experience may compensate for a deficit in the
other.” (Id.)
The undersigned finds Respondents’ proposal to best reflect the level of skill in the art at
the time of the Asserted Patents. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have at least “at least (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or another
related technical field and at least two (2) years of experience in the design of mechanical systems,
mechanisms and devices; or (ii) a master’s degree (or higher) in mechanical engineering or another
related technical field.” The tmdersigned further finds that that superior qualifications with respect
to either education or experience may compensate for a deficit in the other.
V. THE ASSERTED PATENTS
A. The ’424 Patent
The ’424 patent, entitled “Carburetor with Diaphragm Type Fuel Pump,” issued on May
28, 2002 to George M. Pattullo and Thomas L. Schmidt. The 7424 patent is assigned to Walbro
Corporation. The ’424 patent generally relates to “carburetors and more particularly to carburetors
having a diaphragm type fuel pump.” (’424 patent at 1:5-6.)
The ’424 patent has 32 ‘claims. Claims l, 2, l6, 18, and 19 have been asserted in this
Investigation. The asserted claims read as follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upon terms
in italics and the first instance of the disputed terms highlighted in bold):
_7_

1. A carburetor comprising: a body; a fuel pump diaphragm carried by the body and defining
in part a fuel chamber on one side of the fuel pump diaphragm and a pressure pulse chamber
on the other side of the fuel pump diaphragm, the pressure pulse chamber communicating
with a pressure pulse source to provide pressure pulses in the pressure pulse chamber to
actuate the fuel pump diaphragm; an air passage communicating at one end with a fresh
air supply and at its other end with the pressure pulse chamber to provide a supply of air to
the pressure pulse chamber;and in operation, the pressure pulse source causes air from
the air passage to flow through the pressure pulse chamber to at least reduce the
amount of liquid fuel therein.
2. The carburetor of claim 1 wherein the air passage communicates at said other end with the
lowest portion of the pressure pulse chamber relative to the standard operating position of
the carburetor. 	'
16. The carburetor of claim l which also comprises a fuel and air mixing passage formed
through the body in communication with a low pressure source at one end and an air supply
at its other end, and a pressure pulse passage communicating at one end with the pressure
pulse chamber and at its other end with the pressure pulse source.
18. C The carburetor of claim 1 which also comprises a pressure pulse passage communicating
the pressure pulse chamber with the pressure pulse source and the ratio of the minimum
diameter of the air passage to the minimum diameter of the pressure pulse passage is
between 0.05:1 and 1.511. 	.
19. The carburetor of claim l which also comprises a pressure pulse passage communicating
the pressure pulse chamber with the pressure pulse source and the ratio of the minimum
diameter of the air passage to the minimum diameter of the pressure pulse passage is
between 0.25:1 and 1:1.
B. The ’547 Patent
The ’547 patent, entitled “Carburetor Throttle and Choke Control Mechanism,” issued on
August 27, 2002 to Eric L. King and George M. Pattullo. The ’547 patent is assigned to Walbro
Corporation. The ’547 patent generally relates to “throttle and choke control mechanisms of
carburetors for intemal combustion engines, and more particularly to such a mechanism
incorporating a choke-throttle, cold-start-setting latch mechanism that automatically positions the
throttle valve slightly open when the choke valve is fiilly closed.” (’547 at 1:5-10.)
_ 3 _

The ’547 patent has 21 claims. Claims l and 18 are at issue in this Investigation. The
asserted claims read as follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upon terms in italics and the
first instance of the disputed tenns highlighted in bold):
In a carburetor throttle and choke control mechanism incorporating a choke-throttle cold
start setting latch mechanism that automatically positions a throttle valve slightly open at
a fast idle position when the choke valve is swung from open to fully closed position, and
comprising a rotatable choke shaft carrying a choke plate valve, a rotatable throttle shaft
carrying a throttle plate valve, a choke lever fixed on said choke shafi for rotating said
choke valve from open to closed, a throttle lever fixed on said throttle shaft for rotating
said throttle valve from idle to open against the bias of a throttle return spring, and a fast
idle latch lever journaled on said coke shaft biased by a fast idle return spring, which in
turn biases said choke valve (via said choke lever and choke shaft) from fully closed to
fully open and having a free end swingable in a travel path generally co-planar with and
intersection the travel path of a free end of said throttle lever, a releasable latch on said free
ends interengageable as a toggle that is held latched by said return springs in the choke
closed position of said choke valve and the fast idle position of said throttle valve, and
wherein one of said choke and fast idle levers has a tang operable to push couple via said
tang the other one of said choke and fast idle levers such that choke closing rotation of said
choke lever imparts co-rotation of said fast idle lever toward latched condition, the
improvement in combination therewith wherein said releasable latch is constructed and
arranged such that during said interengagement aiding torque is created to thereby
angularly phase shift said fast idle lever relative to said choke lever and thereby open
a gap in said push coupling at least after further rotation of said choke valve has been
blocked by it reaching full closed position and that remains as a gap in the latched position
of said valves.
In a carburetor throttle and choke control mechanism incorporating a choke-throttle cold
start setting latch mechanism that automatically positions a throttle valve slightly open at
a fast idle position when the choke valve is swing from open to fully closed position, and
comprising a rotatable choke shaft can-ying a choke plate valve, a rotatable throttle shaft
carrying a throttle plate valve, a choke lever fixed on said choke shaft for rotating said
choke valve from open to closed, a throttle lever fixed on said throttle shaft for rotating
said throttle valve from closed to open against the bias of a throttle return spring, and a fast
idle latch lever journalled on said choke shaft biased by a fast idle return spring, which in
tum biases said choke valve (via said choke lever and choke shaft) from fully closed to
fully open and having a free end swingable in a travel path generally co-planar with and
intersecting the travel path of a free end of said throttle lever, a releasable latch on said free
ends interengageable as a toggle that is held latched by said retum springs in the choke
closed position of said choke valve and the -fastidle position of said fast idle valve, and
wherein one of said choke and fast idle levers has a tang operable to push couple via said
tang the other one of said choke and throttle levers such that choke closing rotation of said
choke lever imparts co-rotation of said fast idle lever toward latched condition, the
improvement in combination therewith wherein said releasable latch is constructed and
_9_

arranged such that during said interengagement aiding torque is created to thereby
angularly phase shift said fast idle lever relative to said choke lever and thereby open a gap
in said push coupling and thereafter maintain such a push de-coupling that remains in the
latched position of said valves.
C. The ’173 Patent
The ’l73 patent, entitled “Carburetor Air-Fuel Mixture Adjustment Assembly,” issued on
July 4, 2006 to Paul J. Dow, Hiroki Ogasawara, Tetsuya Takahashi, Toshimasa Takahashi, and
Giovanni Vimercati. The ’l73 patent is assigned to Walbro Engine Management, L.L.C. The ’173
patent generally relates to “a carburetor fuel mixture adjustment assembly for adjusting the air
fuel ration of a fuel mixture to be supplied toan engine.” (’173 patent at 1:15-17.) '
The ’173 patent has 65 claims. Claims 54-57, 60, and 62-65 are at issue in this
Investigation. The asserted claims read as follows (with the first instance of the agreed-upon terms
in italics and the first instance of the disputed terms highlighted in bold):
54. A rotary throttle valve carburetor, comprising:
a body defining a fuel and air mixing passage, a throttle valve chamber communicating
with the fuel and air mixing passage and a fuel flow path communicating a supply of fuel
with the fuel and air mixing passage; a throttle valve rotatably and axially movably
received in the throttle valve chamber for movement between an idle position and wide
open position to control filel and air flow in the fuel and air mixing passage; and
a valve threadedly carried by the carburetor in comrntmication with the fuel flow path to
restrict fuel flow through at least a portion of the fuel flow path in at least on position of
the throttle valve to control the flow rate of filelfrom the carburetor when the throttle valve
' is in said at least one position, the valve including tool engaging portion by which the valve
‘ may be rotated and axially moved by way of its threads and the tool engaging portion is
non-circular and adapted for use with a specialized tool.
55. The rotary throttle valve carburetor of claim 54 wherein the valve is carried by the throttle
valve for movement with the throttle valve.
56. The rotary throttle valve carburetor of claim 55 wherein the-fluid flow path includes a fuel
nozzle with an orifice through which fuel is discharged from the nozzle to the fuel and air
mixing passage and said valve at least partially restricts the orifice when the throttle valve
is in its idle position. 	‘
57. The rotary throttle valve carburetor of claim 54 wherein the valve is carried by the
carburetor body and restricts the maximum fluid flow through at least a portion of the fuel
flow path.
-10

The rotary throttle valve carburetor of claim 54 wherein the valve is adjustably carried by
the throttle valve for movement with the throttle valve, and wherein the carburetor also
comprises a second valve that is adjustably carried by the carburetor body to restrict the
maximum fluid flow through at least a portion of the fuel flow path and both the valve
carried by the throttle valve and the second valve include non-circular tool engaging
portions by which the positions of each valve with respect to the fuel flow path may be
adjusted. L
The rotary throttle valve carburetor of claim 55 wherein the throttle valve includes a recess
in which the tool engaging portion is disposed to limit access to the tool engaging portion.
The rotary throttle valve carburetor of claim 62 wherein the throttle valve surrounds the
tool engaging portion. 	.
The rotary throttle valve carburetor of claim 57 wherein the carburetor body includes a
recess in which the tool engaging portion is disposed to limit access to the tool engaging
portion.
The rotary throttle valve carburetor of claim 64 wherein the carburetor body surrounds the
tool engaging portion.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 	‘
,_
A. Construction of the Agreed-Upon Claim Terms
The parties have agreed to the following constructions: 	.
CLAIM TERM RELEVANT CLAIMS PARTIES’ AGREED
CONSTRUCTION
“tang operable to push coupling ’547 Patent: Claims l “portion of a recited lever that is
via said tang” 	and 18 	operable to apply a force via such
portion” .
“push coupling” 	’547 Patent: Claims l “the contact between the choke
and l8 	and fast idle levers that applies a
force”
(JC at 1.) The undersigned hereby adopts the parties’ proposed constructions and shall construe
the temis set forth above according to their agreed-to definitions.
--11

B. Construction of the Disputed Claim Terms
1. “gap” _
The term “gap” appears in claims l and 18 of the ’547 patent. The parties disagree on the
claim construction of this term and have proposed the following constructions:
WALBRO RESPONDENTS STAFF
break 	intentional space 	The Staff is of the view that
this claim term does not
require construction. »
If construction is required,
however, then the Staff
proposes that this claim term
should be construed consistent
with its plain and‘ ordinary
meaning, which is “space.”
(JC at 2.)
Walbro asserts that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘gap’ in the claims is ‘break.’”
(CMIB at 9.) Walbro notes, for example, that the term “gap” “first appears in the claims in
connection with opening a gap in the push coupling.” (1d.) Walbro explains that “[t]he key to the
‘gap’ in the push coupling is not necessarily a visible space or offset,” but rather “the functional
importance is that the ‘push couple’ force between the choke lever and the fast idle lever is
broken.” (Id) Thus, “there is no pushing force between the choke lever and the fast idle lever” and
“[t]he ‘gap’ only needs to be a break in the normal force between the two levers.” (Id.) According
to Walbro, “[m]ultiple locations in the ’547 written description support [this] understanding,” and
“[t]he prosecution history of the ’547 patent . . . is consistent.” (Id. at 9-10.)
Walbro argues that “Respondents’ construction adds a limitation to the claim that is not
present and is not supported by the intrinsic record.” (CMIB at 11.) According to Walbro,
Respondents’ proposed construction “seeks to introduce subjective intent,” and is therefore
- 12 _

,1
improper. (Id) Finally, Walbro contends that Respondents’ construction would render the claim
indefinite as it would “depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular
individual purported to be practicing the invention.” (Id)
Respondents argue that “[t]he gap that is disclosed by the claims must be created between
the choke lever and the fast idle lever.” (RMIB at 10.) Respondents assert that the language of the
claims reveals that the space between them must be deliberate such that “there is no ‘push’ contact
between the levers.” (Id) Respondents explain that “[t]he specification further details that the gap,
or intentional space, is created in response to a specific problem well known in the prior art; that
is, stack up of manufacturing tolerances.” (Id) According to Respondents, “the plain and ordinary
meaning of ‘gap’ would not capture the intent that is the focus of the invention, i.e., the intentional
creation of the space.” (Id. at 14.) Respondents further contend that Walbro’s proposed
construction “is fundamentally incorrect because it could be impermissibly read to cover two
touching surfaces despite a lack of a gap.” (Id.)
Staff explains that “[t]he dispute over the claim term ‘gap’ appears . . . to center on how
the ‘gap’ should be construed with respect to the ‘push coupling.” (SMIB at 10.) “In the Staff”s
view, the plain language of the claims and the disclosures in the specification require a ‘gap’ in
the ‘contact’ between the choke and fast idle levers.”’ (Id.) Staff explains that this understanding
is supported by the parties’ agreed-upon definition of “push coupling,” as well as the specification.
(Id. at 10-12.) Staff disagrees with the word “intentional” in Respondents’ proposal, however, as
this word is “unnecessary” and “introduce[s] ambiguity.” (Id. at 12.)
The undersigned agrees that “gap” pertains to the gap in contact between the choke and
fast idle levers, rather than a gap in the force. First, using the parties’ agreed-upon construction of
“push coupling” the phrasereads: “thereby open a gap in . . . the contact between the choke and
_13

fast idle levers that applies a force.” This understanding indicates that “gap” is a gap in the contact.
An understanding of “gap” as a “break in force,” would not be consistent with this agreed-upon
definition of push coupling. (See RMRB Ex. B (explaining that “calling the ‘gap’ a ‘break’ makes
little sense” in the context of the parties’ agreed-upon construction of push coupling and noting
that “[t]he gap must prevent the contact between the choke and fast idle levers in the push
couple”).)
The specification provides further support for this position. Both Figures 5 and 6 refer to
“gap.” Figure 5 notes: “GAP, LEVERS NOT IN CONTACT,” while Figure 6 states “GAP STILL
PRESENT.” (’547 patent at Figs. 5, 6.) These figures therefore indicate that_the gap is a physical
space observable in a diagram. If “gap” instead referred to a gap in force, these figures would be
incongruous. (See RMRB Ex. B (explaining that the figures “clearly show[] the gap is a physical
space, between specific components (two levers), that is intentionally created through operation of
the purported inventi0n”).)
The description of Figures 5 and 6 confinns this understanding. With respect to Figure 5,
the specification teaches:
Due to the strength of throttle lever biasing spring being much greater than that of
the fast idle lever biasing spring, this reversal in applied torque forces from throttle
lever 38 causes tang 74 to be forced down cam ram 66, to thereby accelerate rotation
of fast idle lever 50 relative to choke lever 46. This in turn causes tang 52 to separate
from push foot 54 to thereby open up a “leading gap ” therebetween as shown in
FIG. 5, as tang edge 76 reaches nested and lock-up position in “V-notch” 68.
(’547 patent at 9:37-46) (emphasis added). Similarly, with respect to Figure 6, the specification
states: “Note in FIG. 6 that there is still a gap present between the choke lever pusher foot 54 and
fast idle lever tang 52, even though this gap has narrowed from that of the momentary wide open
_ 14 _

gap of FIG. 5.” (Id. at 9:61-65 (emphasis added).) These teachings are logical only if a person of
ordinary skill in the applies the understanding of “gap” as a space, rather than a break in force.9
The undersigned also agrees with Staff that the claim language requires an understanding
of “gap” as a physical space. The claim language recites, in part: “interengagement aiding torque
is created to thereby . . . open the gap in said push coupling...” (’547 patent, cl. 1, 18.) As Staff
notes: “Considering the plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘open’ . . . a correct claim
construction requires a physical space that is opened in the contact between the choke and fast idle
levers, not a break that is opened in the force.” (Tr. at 54:18-22.).
The undersigned agrees with Walbro and Staff, however, that Respondents’ proposal is
problematic. The inclusion of the word “intentional” injects ambiguity into the claim, as it would
require an examination as to the accused infringer’s subjective intent. Moreover, there is no
support in the specification for the requirement that the gap must be intentional.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby construes the tenn “gap” as “space.”
9 The undersigned is not persuaded by Walbro’s arguments that the specification provides support for its position.
Walbro asserts that ‘The written description states that ‘[t]his cramming interengagement accelerates fast idle lever
rotation relative to choke lever rotation and thereby opens up a leading gap so that there no longer is push contact
between the choke lever finger and fast idle tang.”’ (CMIB at 10 (quoting ’547 patent at 6:35-3 8).) Walbro also cites
the portion of the written description which states: “Hence fast idle tang 52 is not in a position to block slight
counterclockwise rotation of choke lever 46 and hence, choke lever 44, much less to exert a push-back force
therebetween.” (Id (citing ’547 patent at 9:65-10:1).) Although these portions of the specification indicate that the
gap may lead to a break in force, they do not mandate an understanding of “gap” as a break in force.
-15

2. “angularly phase shift said fast idle lever relative to said choke lever”
The term “angularly phase shift said fast idle lever relative to said choke lever” appears in
claims 1 and 18 of the ’547 patent. The parties disagree on the claim construction of this temi and
have proposed the following constructions:
WALBRO RESPONDENTS STAFF
angularly change position of
at least one of the fast idle and
choke levers relative to the
change the angular position of
the fast idle lever with respect
to the choke lever
The Staff is of the view that
this claim term does not
require construction.
other of the fast idle and choke
levers 	If construction is required
however, then the Staff "
proposes that this claim term
should be construed consistent
with its plain and ordinary
meaning, which is “change the
angular position of the fast
idle lever with respect to the
choke lever.’.’
(JC at 2.) p
Walbro argues: “In view of the written description and claims, one of ordinary skill in the
art would readily understand that this phase means to ‘angularly change position of at least one of
the fast idle and choke levers relative to the other of the fast idle and choke levers.” (CMIB at 12.)
Walbro explains: “In other words, the claim allows for an angular change of position of either one
or both of the fast idle and choke levers relative to the other, creates a gap in the push coupling at
least" after the choke valve is fully or completely closed.” (Id.) Walbro asserts that this
understanding is supported by the specification, which “teaches that there are two sources for the
claimed relative rotation: rotation of the fast idle lever and rotation of the choke valve.” (Id. at 14.)
Respondents assert that “[b]ased on the language of the claims, a [person of ordinary skill
in the art] would understand the aiding torque must shifi or move the fast idle lever such that the
-16

angle between it and the choke lever changes.” (RMIB at l6.) Respondents explain that “[t]he fast
idle lever and choke lever are, together, the ‘push couple’ disclosed in the claims, and each of the
levers in the push couple is mounted on the choke shaft, and must be close enough such that one
can exert a force on the other.” (Id.) Thus, one of skill in the art “would understand that the
appropriate angle addressed in this phrase is the angle between the fast idle lever and the choke
lever” and that “only the movement of the fast idle lever can satisfy this claim element.” (Id)
Staff agrees with Respondents that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
the claim phrase at issue requires an angular change of position of the fast idle lever with respect
to the choke lever.” (SMIB at 13.) Staff explains that “there are two parts to the claim phrase at
issue: (1) ‘angularly phase shift said fast idle lever’ and (ii) relative to said choke lever.’” (Id. at
14 (quoting Dubowsky Decl. 1]51).)'Staff notes: “Further, ‘the first part recites which lever has to
move’ and “the second part indicates that it is not sufficient to simply move, but that the fast idle
|
lever must move relative to the choke lever to create a gap.” (Id.) “Thus, ‘if just the choke lever
moves, the first part of the plain claim language cannot be met.” (Id.)
The undersigned agrees with Respondents and Staff. As Phillips teaches, “[q]uite apart
from’the written description and the prosecution history, the claims themselves provide substantial
guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” 415 F.3d at 1314. Here, claim 1 explicitly
requires that the fast idle lever move “relative to said choke lever.” (’547 patent, cls. l, 18.) A
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “if just the choke lever moves,” the claim
cannot be met. (Dubowsky Decl. at 1]51 (attached to RMIB).) 	i
Walbro disputes this view and instead argues that the specification “teaches that both the
choke valve and the fast idle lever may rotate in a manner relevant to this ‘angular phase shift’
- 17 _

claim term.” (CMIB at 12.) In support of this assertion, Walbro cites to four portions of the
specification. First, Walbro cites the following: 	_
In one preferred but exemplary embodiment utilizing the aforementioned Pattullo
flexible shaft feature, the choke shaft is made from a torsionally flexible material,
such as Delrin® acetal plastic, that can be torsionally stressed to enable continued
rotation of the shaft position carrying the fast idle lever after the choke valve
reaches fall [sic] closure. This then produces further pivotal motion of the fast idle
lever before it reaches latch-up engagement with the throttle lever.
(’547 patent at 5:64-6:4.) This portion of the specification does not, as Walbro contends,
demonstrate that the “choke shaft may LlI1Wll'1d	and thereby move the choke lever clockwise relative
to the fast idle lever to provide the gap in the push coupling.” (CMIB at 12). Instead, it merely
suggests that the choke shaft is flexible, such that the fast idle lever can fmther pivot after the
choke valve is closed. The specification does not teach that the choke valve can move the fast idle
lever. 	i
Next, Walbro cites the following:
As also indicated previously, FIGS. 19, 20 and 21 are simplified diagrammatic
views of a fourth embodiment “split linkage” carburetor equipped with a second
embodiment type flexible choke shaft 242 and also a two-part choke lever made up
of a choke arm 246 mounted on one axially extreme end of choke shaft 242 on one
side of the carburetor. An associated choke lever pusher foot and hook part 254 is
mounted on the other axially opposite end of choke shaft 242. These components
thus function in the manner and in the mode of operation of the second embodiment
system of FIGS. 9-l 1, and will provide reliable consistent full closure of the choke
valve even though the flexible choke shafi 242 is rigidified by the insertion of valve
plate 44 therethrough.
(Id. at 13:39-51.) Once again, this cited portion does not indicate that the choke lever moves to
open a gap in the push coupling, but instead confirms only that the choke shaft is flexible.
Finally, Walbro states: “[I]n the Objects of the Invention, the written description states
among other things that the invention may have a ‘torsionally resilient choke shaft and choke valve
plate subassembly” and “may be readily adaptable for use ‘with a plastic choke shaft that is
-13

torsionally resilient and twistable in its mode of operation.” (CMIB at 12 (quoting ’547 patent at
5:6-7, 5:23-24).) The fact that the choke shaft is flexible and twistable does not suggest that a
person of ordinary skill in the art should disregard the clear language of the claim which requires
that the fast idle lever move relative to the choke lever. 	_
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby construes the term “angularly phase shift said fast
idle lever relative to said choke lever” as “change the angular position of thefast idle lever with
respect to the choke lever.”
3. “slightly open” 	_
The term “slightly open” appears in claims 1 and 18 of the ’547 patent. The parties disagree
on the claim construction of this term and have proposed the following constructions:
WALBRO 	Rnsrounnms 	STAFF
open from idle at a fast idle Indefinite ‘ 	Absent any opini0n(s)
position 	provided by one of ordinary
skill in the art on the meaning
of this claim term, ' and
therefore the scope of the
invention, the Staff is of the
view that this claim term is
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
112.
(JC at 3.) _
Walbro argues that the term “slightly open” is “easily understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art” when it is used in the context of the longer phrase “positions a throttle valve slightly
open at a fast idle“) position.” (CMIB at 14.) Specifically, Walbro argues that “‘slightly open at a
‘° Walbro asserts that “idle” and “fast idle” are common terms used by persons of ordinary skill in the art. (CMIB at
15.) Walbro explains that “[t]he idle engine speed is the slowest reliable running speed of the engine, which varies
depending on application and the actual manufacturer’s preference” and that “[a]t idle, the throttle would be referred
to as ‘cracked,’ or barely open.” (Id. at I6 (citing CMIB Ex. D at 1]39).) “Fast idle” is “above the idle speed but well
below the normal operational speed of the unit.” (Id.)
-19- i

fast idle position’ is a well-known construct to those skilled in the art.” (CMRB at 7.) Walbro
explains that one of skill would have understood that “the throttle position needed to attain a
desired fast idle speed” and that this requires “that the throttle valve is opened a small amount
relative to its idle position, typically 5 to 10 degrees, more or less, depending on the specific engine
design.” (CMIB at 16 (citing CMIB Ex. D at 1140).) Walbro further explains: “Due to such engine
and application variances, it would not be possible to place a precise numerical value on how far
to open the throttle valve from the idle position to the fast idle position.” (Id. at 16-17 (citing CMIB
at 1]43).) Walbro asserts, rather, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
there are methods of “determining a range for fast idle speed” and the corresponding throttle
position, such as “operation of a centrifugal clutch used with many engine driven tools.” (Id. at
16.) Finally, Walbro notes that other patent specifications include terms such as “slightly open or
open a minor angle (i.e. slightly) in a fast idle position” and that the term “slightly open” is “one
of common everyday parlance in the field.” (Id at 17.)
Respondents argue that “slightly open” is indefinite. (RMIB at 18.) Respondents explain
that “slightly” “is a term of degree, which means that the patent must provide ‘some standard for
measuring that degree/” (Id.) According to Respondents, “[t]he specification never discloses an
angle or even an approximate angle that could be used as a standard of measure.” (Id) Respondents
further contend that the specification does not provide any guidance in the figures nor does it
provide a single example, instead requiring only that the throttle valve be at “the most beneficial
angle" for starting the engine. (Id at 19-20.)
Staff agrees with Respondents that the claim term is indefinite. (SMIB at 14.) Staff asserts
that Walbro and its expert, Dr. Cobb, offer different meanings of the tenn and that “there remains
a lack of clarity as to the precise meaning.” (Id at 16.) Staff notes, however, that, given that the
_ 29 _

claims are Jepson claims and that the term is used in the preamble, the proper meaning of ‘slightly
open’ need not be precise as apparently required by Respondents.” (Id at 17.)
“Slightly open” is a term of degree. Tenns of degree are not inherently indefinite. Biosig
Instruments, Inc., 783 F.3d at 1378. Rather, “[c]laim language employing terms of degree has long
been found definite where it provided enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the
context of the invention.” (Id. (intemal quotations and citations 0mitted).) Additionally, “[a] patent
need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.” Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, if a person of ordinary skill
in the art would tmderstand how to determine the degree to which the valve is “slightly open,” it
need not be explained in the patent itself.
Respondents and Staff have not shown that “slightly open” in the context of the claims,
“read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail[s] to
inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”
Nautilus, 134 S.Ct. at 2124. First, the undersigned finds that the tenn “slightly open” cannot be
viewed in isolation. The tenn is part of the broader phrase “positions a throttle valve slightly open
at a fast idle position.” (‘547 patent, cls. l, 18.) The patent therefore infonns one of ordinary skill
in the art that the throttle is “slightly open” and is at ~a“fast idle position.” Thus, the term “slightly
open” is not untethered to any standard, but instead corresponds to the “fast idle position,” such
that the throttle valve must be open to the degree at which the fast idle position is maintained. If a
person of ordinary skill in the art can determine the fast idle position, he/she can also determine
the degree at which the throttle valve is “slightly open.”
The intrinsic evidence confirms this. The specification equates “slightly open” with the
“fast idle position,” indicating that, when the throttle valve is “slightly open,” it is in the fast idle
_ 21 _

position. (Id at 10:9-11 (“Note further in FIG. 6 that throttle valve 34 is at the preferred slightly
open angle (fast idle) for starting the engine.”) (emphasis added).) Additionally, Dr. Cobb’s
testimony confirms this understanding. He explains that “[t]he fast idle position is the position of
the throttle valve that is open a few degrees from idle to aid in cold starting the engine.” (CMIB
Ex. D at 1]43 (citing ’547 patent at 1:30-35, 1:41-46).) Dr. Cobb notes that “[e]ach manufacturer
sets its fast idle position of the throttle valve and in such position, the throttle valve is open a small
amount from the idle position.”" (Id.) According to Dr. Cobb, “[t]he throttle position to attain”
the fast idle speed would have been “understood by one working in the field at most any level.”
(Id. at fl40.) Thus, the undersigned finds that if a person of ordinary skill in the art knows the “fast
idle position,” he will also know the degree to which the throttle valve is slightly open.”
When the full phrase is considered in the context of the claims, the undersigned finds that
the tenn does not need further construction. Thus, the term “slightly open” should be given its
plain and ordinary meaning. 	'
U This statement explains why the patent does not provide a degree for “slightly open.” (See CMIB at 1143 (“As is
well known, the actual position of the throttle valve at fast idle varies from engine to engine so it would not be possible
to place a numerical value on how far to open a throttle.”).) .
'2 Although Respondents’ expert, Dr. Dubowsky submitted both an Initial Expert Report on Claim Construction Issues
and a rebuttal expert declaration, he did not opine on the meaning of “slightly open.” Presumably, if Dr. Dubowsky
believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to detennine the fast idle position or the meaning of
“slightly open” in the context of the patent, he would have so stated.
' 	-22

4. “it reaching full closed position”
_ The term “it reaching full closed position” appears in claim 1 of the ’547 patent. The parties
disagree on the claim construction of this ICl'l'1'1	and have proposed the following constructions:
WALBRO RESPONDENTS STAFF
choke valve reaching full Indefinite 	The Staff is of the view that
closed position 	this claim term does not
require construction.
If construction is required
however, then the Staff
proposes that this claim term
should be construed consistent
with its plain and ordinary
meaning, which is “choke
valve reaching full closed
position.”
(JC at 3.) 	'
Walbro explains that the “it” in the phrase “it reaching full closed position” refers to the
choke valve. (CMIB at 20.) Walbro notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that
“in carburetors with a choke valve having a valve plate, the valve plate is usually movable between
a fully or wide open position and a full or completely closed position.” (Id.) Walbro asserts that
“the phrase choke valve ‘reaching full closed position’ is clear, definite, and readily known to and
understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art.” (Id. at 21.)
4 Respondents assert that the word ‘it’ in the phrase could refer to any of the following:
releasable latch, fast idle lever, choke lever, push coupling, or choke valve. (RMIB at 22.)
Respondents assert that because “it” “can be subject to multiple meanings, it is impermissibly
ambiguous and a [person of ordinary skill.in the art] would not be reasonably certain as to the
claim scope.” (Id. at 23.) Respondents further contend that if “it” refers to the choke valve “the
_ 23 _

entire phrase at issue is redundant” and the immediately following phrase “makes little sense.” (Id
at 22-23.)
Staff agrees with Walbro. (SMIB at I7.) Staff explains that “[a] plain reading . . . of the []
claim phrase would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the word ‘it’ refers back
innnediately to the word ‘choke valve.’” (Id. at 18.) Staff asserts that this reading is consistent with
the specification. (Id. at 18-19.)
The undersigned agrees with Walbro and Staff. The claim is clear that whatever “it” is must
reach a “full closed position.” (’547 Patent, cl. 1.) Claim 1 repeatedly discloses that “it” is the
choke valve which rotates between an open position and a closed position: “Whenthe choke valve
is swung from open to fully closed position,” “a choke lever fixed on said choke shaft for rotating
said choke valve from open to closed,” “which in turn biases said choke valve (via said choke lever
and choke shaft) from fully closed to fully open,” and “a toggle that is held latched by said retmn
springs in the choke-closed position of said choke valve.” (Id.) Claim 1 does not indicate that any
other component has a closed position.
Likewise, the specification consistently refers to the choke valve as having a closed
position. (See id. at 6:5-7 (“Additionally or alternatively, the choke lever carries a resiliently
flexible latch hook that is operable to resiliently pull the choke valve fiilly closed”); id. at 8:2-5
(“The control linkage can be operated to swing, via choke lever 46, choke valve 44 from its wide
open position of FIG. 1 to its fully closed position of FIG. 6.”), id. at 8: 55-60 (“Referring to FIGS.
1 and 2, the operator rotates choke valve 44, via the operation of the choke linkage coupled to the
choke lever 46, to thereby rotate the choke valve 44 from its wide open position of FIG. 1 toward
the full closed choke position, a first increment of such movement being shown in FIG. 2.”); id. at
10:1-4 (“Note also that once the system condition of FIG. 6 has been established, choke valve 44
-24

has been able to reach completely closed condition under the control of the choke control
linkage”), id. at l 1:59-63 (“During push coupling of foot 54 with tang 52 as choke lever 46 swings
choke valve 44 towards closed position, the angular orientation of choke lever 46 relative to fast
idle lever 50 may be considered to be zero degrees.”).) As Walbro noted at the hearing: “The
specification refers to the terms ‘full closed’ or ‘fully closed’ within the specification and claims
31 times. 31 times it refers to . . . the choke valve.” (Tr. at 126:23-127:2.) In contrast, the
specification never describes either the releasable latch,” fast idle lever, choke lever, or push
coupling as having a full closed position. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the claim, in
view of the specification, would therefore understand that “it” refers to “choke valve.”
The undersigned does not agree with Respondents’ arguments that this understanding
cannot be correct. First, Respondents argue that “there is no need to explain that the choke valve
has reached full close position, since the claim already requires that the choke valve be blocked.”
(RMIB at 22.) The phrase “it reaching full closed position” explains how the choke valve becomes
blocked. It is not redundant and merely provides further details. 	A
Second, Respondents argue that the phrase following “it” (“that remains as a gap in the
latched position of said valves”) has to modify the same noun as in the claimed phrase and that
this phrase “makes little sense” if “it” refers to “choke valve.” (RMIB at 22-23). Respondents
provide no support for their position, however. Indeed, the claim itself specifies that the gap is “in
said push coupling” (’547 patent, cl. 1 (“... and thereby open a gap in said push coupling”) and
not in whatever the “it” refers to. Respondents’ argument is therefore based on an incorrect
premise. 	'
'3 The specification instead refers to the “fully latched position” when discussing the fast idle lever. (See, e.g., ’547
patent at Abstract (The U-shaped hook portion is resiliently flexible to act as a spring to develop a torque on the choke
by pulling the choke valve full closed when said fast idle lever is moved to fully latched condition while flexing.so
that the gap remains between the pusher leg portion and the tang.”).)
-25

Accordingly, the undersigned hereby construes the term “it reaching full closed position”
as “choke valvereaching full closedposition.”
5. “specialized tool”
The term “specialized tool” appears in claim 54 of the ’l73 patent. The parties disagree on
the claim construction of this term and have proposed the following constructions:
WALBRO RESPONDENTS STAFF
a tool not normally available Indefinite 	The Staff is of the view that
to end users of the carburetor 	this claim term does not
require construction.
If construction is required
however, then the Staff
proposes that this claim term
should be construed consistent
with its plain and ordinary
meaning, which is “tool not
normally available to end
users of the carburetor.” v
(JC at 4.) _
Walbro asserts that the term “specialized tool” “is well-known within the industry,” and
“means a tool not normally available to end users of the carburetor.” (CMIB at 24.) Walbro
explains that such an tmderstanding is confirmed by the written description. (Id.) Walbro argues
that other patents in the field use the same terminology. (Id. at 24-25.)
Respondents assert that the term is indefinite. (RMIB at 23.) Respondents note that the
specification discloses a meaning for this term, but argue that “[e]ven if a claim terrn’s definition
can be reduced to words, the claim is still indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot
translate the definition into meaningfully precise claim scope.” (Id. at 24 (quoting Halliburton
Energy Servs. v. M-ILLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2008).)
-25

Staff asserts that this term does not require construction, but that, if it does, Walbro’s
proposal is the correct one. (SMIB at 22.) Staff explains that “[t]his construction is consistent with
the disclosures and the definition provided in the patent specification.” (Id. at 23.) Staff notes that
Complainant’s expert, Dr. Cobb, agrees that “specialized tool” “would have been understood by
those skill in the art.” (Id. at 25 (citing CMIB Ex. D at 1[59).)
The evidence shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope
of “specialized tool.” First, the ’l73 patent specifically defines a specialized tool: “The non
circular head 28 requires an unconventional tool 60 (not normally available to end users ofthe
carburetor), as shown in FIGS. 7 and 8 to engage the head 28 and rotatably adjust the needle valve
body 18 within the receptacle 12.” (’173 patent at 5:2-6 (emphasis added).) The patent also
explains the rationale for requiring a specialized tool.
The need for an unconventional specialized tool helps to ensure that the needle valve
body 18will not be adjusted by an end user from a factory setting required to comply
with environmental standards and restrictions as may begovernmentally mandated
and/or to avoid adverse or deleterious engine operation.
(Id. at 5:6-11.) The patent further explains
The recess 270 has an internal diameter and an axial depth sized to prevent readily
available tools (such as a [sic] needle nose pliers) from engaging the head 260 of
the high speed needle valve 250. In this manner, the head 260 is relatively closely
surrounded by the carburetor body 202 which makes it difficult for anyone not
having the specialized tool adapted for use with the high needle valve 250 to tamper
with or change its factory set position.
(Id. at 12:23-30.)
The extrinsic evidence confirms that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
this term in the manner the patent defines it. Walbro submitted testimony from its expert, Dr. Cobb,
in which he explained:
To one of ordinary skill in the art, the use of specialty tools for adjusting the air
fuel mixture control valves is cornmon practice now and was at the time the
-2']_

\
application for the ’173 patent was filed. Adjustment of the valves is required‘as
the engines and carburetors fitted to the engines are not repeatable enough in
production to have acceptable running and emissions perfonnance without
individual adjustment of the units.
(CMIB Ex. D at fll55.) Dr. Cobb fmther explained:
The specialty tools and the positions of the fuel control valves or needle valves are
specifically designed to make adjustment difficult without the specific tool. The
specialty tools are designed in conceit with the carburetor components and were/are
typically supplied from the carburetor manufacturer. These tools were not
commonly available to the end user or public and were typically supplied by the
carburetor producer to the engine producer for their use. There were also other
limited sources for the tools such as needed for service of the units by service
' persomiel and other people trained and aware of the emissions requirements.
(Id. at fil57.) Thus, Dr. Cobb concluded that “specialized tool” “would have been understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’173 patent was filed as meaning
‘a tool not normally available to end users of the carburetor.” (Id. at 1]59.)“
The tmdersigned is not persuaded by Respondents’ arguments to the contraly. First,
Respondents argue that the patent identifies only a single example of a specialized tool. (RMIB at
25.) Respondents’ argument presumes, however, that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not
otherwise understand the scope of the term and would instead need additional examples for a more
complete view. Here, the evidence shows that one of skill would be informed of the scope and so
additional examples are mmecessary. (CMIB Ex. D at 1i59.)
Respondents also assert that “[t]he specification . . . provides no guidance on how one of
ordinary skill in the art can determine whether a tool is normally available or not.” (RMIB at 25.)
The patent specifically explains, however, that a “specialized tool” is different than “standard tools
available to retail customers” and “readily available tools (such as [] needle nose pliers).” (’173
patent at 5:24, 12:51-52).) The patent need not provide additional guidance because a person of
'4 Respondents do not introduce their own expert testimony to rebut this. Although their expert submitted two
declarations and an expert report, he did not opine on the meaning of this term.
-23

ordinary skill in the art would not require it. See Hybritech, 802 F.2d at 1384 (“A patent need not
teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art”). For example, Dr. Cobb explained
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
[w]hile access to these tools has become more wide spread, principally due to the
very open distribution and sales of the internet in the present, the specialty tools
would not be commonly available, in the sense that the specific adjustment tool
would not be a connnonly held general tool. But is instead a specific tool that is
only reasonably used for the one purpose of adjusting the fuel control valve of a
specific design of carburetor, and would have to be specifically sought out for that
purpose.
(CMIB Ex. D at '1]58.) Thus, whether or not something is “readily available” is not “subject to ‘the
unpredictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion,”’ (see RMIB at 26), but instead is subject to
the shared understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art.'.5
Finally, Respondents complain that “the meaning of a specialized tool is a moving target
that changes with time.” (Id. at 26.) Respondents fail to note, however, that patent terms are to be
construed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent
application.“ Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2130 (explaining that “the definiteness inquiry trains on the
understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the patent application”). Thus, whether a tool is
“readily available” today is irrelevant. The correct perspective is whether a person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that the tool was readily available at the time the patent application
was filed. .
'5 In their reply brief, Respondents suggest that the understanding of “specialized tool” “depends on who the end user
is (e.g., a layperson or trained mechanic)?’ (RMRB at 13-14.) As explained supra, claims must be viewed from the
perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
'5 The cases cited by Respondents do not support its position. The first case, Icon Health & F izness, Inc. v. Polar
Electra Oy, 656 Fed. App’x 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2016), stands for the proposition that a term that “could vary ti-om day
to-day and from person-to-person” was a moving target and rendered the term indefinite. Id. at 1016. This is not the
situation presented here. ln Versata Software, Inc. v. Zoho C£trp., 213 F. Supp. 3d 829 (W.D. Tex. 2016), the court
specifically noted that a term’s meaning cannot be viewed over time —as Respondents suggest —but instead must be
interpreted as of the patent’s effective filing date. Id. at 838. .
-29

Accordingly, the undersigned hereby construes the term “specialized tool” as “a tool not
normally available to end users of the carburetor.”
6. “air passage”
The term “air passage” appears in claims 1, 18, and 19 of the ’424 patent. The parties
disagree on the claim construction of this tenn and have proposed the following constructions:
WALBRO RESPONDENTS STAFF
a passage through which air A passage that allows air to The Staff is of the view that
may flow 	flow 	this claim term does not
require construction.
If construction is required
however, then the Staff
proposes that this claim term
should be construed consistent
with its plain and ordinary
meaning, which is “passage
through which air may flow.”
(JC at 5.)
Walbro asserts that “‘[a]ir passage’ should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of a
passage through which air may flow.” (CMIB at 29.) Walbro notes that “[n]othing in the
specification is inconsistent” with this meaning and the specification “consistently uses the term
air passage as a passage that provides an air flow to the pressure pulse chamber.” (Id.) l
Respondents originally proposed that this phrase be construed as “an opening that allows
air to flow in or out.” (RMIB at 27.) In the Joint Claim Construction Chart, however, Respondents
stated: “In an attempt to narrow the issues between the parties on this term,” Respondents adopted
the compromise position of “a passage that allows air'to flow.” (JC at 5 n.l.) During the claim
construction hearing, Respondents explained that “the quibble we have with Complainants’ [sic]
construction is that they have the word ‘may’ in” their proposal. (Tr. at 167:4-6.)
-30

Staff agrees with Walbro. (SMIB at 31.) Staff asserts that “the plain language of the claims
and the disclosures of the specification do not support limiting the meaning of ‘passage’ to the
3
‘opening’ [initially] proposed by Respondents. ’ (Id. at 32.)
The parties’ constructions differ in that Walbro and Staff propose “a passage through
which air may flow” and Respondents propose “a passage that allows air to flow.” The
undersigned finds that Walbro and Staff”s proposal is the correct one.
Respondents state that their main point of disagreement with Walbro’s construction is with
the word “may.” Respondents explain:
[T]he claim specifically says that the pressure pulse source causes air from the air
passage to flow through the pressure pulse chamber. So it’s causing that air in the
air passage to come into the pressure pulse chamber. It’s not a ‘may.’ It’s that it’s
going to cause that to happen.
(Tr. at 167:7-12.)‘The undersigned disagrees with Respondents’ position. Although the claim
language requires that the air passage provides a supply of air to the pressure pulse chamber, the
term “air passage” — standing in isolation —‘does not include this limitation. Moreover,
Respondents do not point to anything in the specification indicating that the claim should be
limited in this way.
Accordingly, the undersigned hereby construes the tenn “air passage” as “a passage
through which air mayflow.”
_31

7. “in operation, the pressure pulse source causes air from the air passage
to flow through the pressure pulse chamber to at least reduce the
amount of liquid fuel therein”
The tenn “in operation, the pressure pulse source causes air from the air passage to flow
through the pressure chamber to at least reduce the amount of liquid fuel therein” appears in claim
1 of the ’424 patent. The parties disagree on the claim construction of this term and have proposed
the following constructions: 	'
WALBRO 	Rnsrononmrs 	STAFF
The Staff is of the view that
this claim term does not
in operation of the carburetor, Indefinite
the pressures [sic] pulse
source causes air from the air
passage to flow through the
pressure chamber to at least
reduce the amount of liquid
require construction.
If construction is required
however, then the Staff
fuel therein 	proposes that this claim term
should be construed consistent
with its plain and ordinary
meaning, which is the claim
language itself.
(JC at 6.)
Respondents assert that “[t]he asserted claims of the ’424 patent are invalid as indefinite
because claim l covers both an apparatus and a method use of that apparatus.” (RMIB at 31.)
According to Respondents, “[c]laim 1 does not specify whether infringement occurs when the
carburetor is created or when the carburetor is put into use, i.e., ‘in operation.’” (Id. at 32.)
Walbro explains that “the ‘in operation’ claim language is permissible functional language
that merely recites a capability of the claimed structure to ‘reduce the amount of liquid fuel
contained [in the pressure pulse chamber]” when “the pressure pulse source causes air from the air
passage to flow through the pressure pulse chamber.” (CMRB at 22.)
-32

Staff agrees with Walbro that this term is not indefinite. (SMIB at 34.) Staff notes:
“Contrary to Respondents’ contention, the word ‘in operation’ appearing at the beginning of the
claim phrase at issue does not inject ‘ambiguity as to when this [claim] limitation is met: when the
carburetor is actually in operation or when the carburetor is merely capable of operating.” (Id.
(quoting RMIB at 32).) Staff further explains that “the words ‘in operation’ do not appear to the
Staff to mix the claimed carburetor with a method of use of the claimed carburetor.” (Id. at 36.)
The undersigned agrees with Walbro and Staff. The use of functional language tied to the
structure of the claimed apparatus does not necessarily render a claim indefinite. MasterMine
Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp, 874 F.3d .1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Apparatus claims are not
necessarily indefinite for using functional language”). Here, the “in operation” claim language is
permissible functional language that describes capabilities of the apparatus, as opposed to activities
or actions of a user. See id. at 1316 (“The limitations at issue here focus . . . on the capabilities of
the system, whereas the claims in [prior Federal Circuit decisions] focus on the specific actions
performed by the user”) 	'
The undersigned declines to adopt Walbro’s proposal, however. Walbro adds the phrase
“of the carburetor” afier the words “in operation,” but otherwise simply parrots the claim phrase.
Given that the undersigned rejects Respondents’ indefiniteness argument, the undersigned finds
that the inclusion of the phrase “of the carburetor” is unnecessary. Instead, the undersigned agrees
with Staff that this claim term does not require further construction and should be construed
according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
-33

Thus, the term “in operation, the pressure pulse source causes air from the air passage to
flow through the pressure pulse chamber to at least reduce the amount of liquid fuel therein” should
be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
S0 ORDERED. 	.
Charle's'E. Bullock
Chief Administrative Law Judge
_34_

t
CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1123
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service —Page 1
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER NO. 51 has been served by
hand upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Vu Bui, Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on May 13, 2019.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Walbro, LLC:
Richard W. Hoffmann, Esq_ 	El Via Hand Delivery
REISING ETHINGTON, PC 	lj ‘aExpress Delivery
755 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 	$2, First Class Mail
Troy, MI 48084 	D Other:
RESPONDENTS:
On Behalf of Lowe’s Companies, Inc.:
Joshua B. Pond, Esq. 	II] Via Hand Delivery
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 	|:| Va Express Delivery
607 14-THSt1'€8l,NW, Suite 900 	Ma First Class Mail
Washington, DC 20005 	- 	U Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Amazon.com, Inc.:
Stefani E. Shanberg, Esq. 	- Cl Via Hand Delivery
MORRISON& FOERSTERLLP 	a 	ExpressDelivery	425 Market street 	' 	V ia First Class Mail
E1 Other:	San Francisco, CA 94105
On Behalf of Respondent MTD Products, Inc.:
Kathryn L. Clune, Esq. 	C] Via Hand Delivery
CROWELL & MORING LLP 	[1 e Express Dellvely
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 	ia First Class Mail
Cl Other: '	Washington, DC 20004-2595

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service APage 2
Inv. No. 337-TA-1123
On Behalf of Respondents Techtronic Industries Co.
Ltd. d/b/a Techtronic Industries Power Equipment and
The Home Depot Inc.:
Sean C. Cunningham, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, California 92101
Cl Via Hand Delivery
E)/ia ExpressDelivery	Via First Class Mail
El Other:
On Behalf of Respondents Kmart Corporation and
Sears, Roebuck and Company_:
Eric S. Namrow, Esq.
MORGAN, LEVVIS& BOCKIUS LLP
l 111 Pemsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
I1 Via Hand Delivery
ya ExpressDelivery	Via First Class Mail
El Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Zheiiang Ruixing Carburetor
Manufacturing Co..,Ltd. and Thunderbav Products:
P. Andrew Riley, Esq.
MEI & MARK LLP
818 18*“Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
1:1Via Hand Delivery
ya ExpressDelivery	Via First Class Mail
U Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Generac Power Systems, Inc.:
Steven M. Auvil, Esq.
SQUARE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
U Via Hand Delivery
gflia ExpressDelivery	Via First Class Mail
El Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Walmart Inc.:
Rett Snotherly, Esq.
LEVI & SNOTHERLY, PLLC
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 450
Washington, DC 20036
III Via Hand Delivery
E/zia ExpressDelivery	ia First Class Mail
III Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Cabela’s Inc.:
Kecia J. Reynolds, Esq.
PHILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
1200 Seventeenth St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
1:1Via Hand Delivery
1:] a Express Delivery
Q/zia First Class Mail
III Other:
On Behalf of Respondent Tractor Supp_lyCompany/_:
Daniel E. Yonan, Esq.
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
V1aFirst Class Mail
El ia Hand Delivery
U ia Express Delivery
El Other:

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service —Page 3
Inv. No. 337-TA 1123
On Behalf of Respondent Menards. Inc.:
Jeffrey L. Eichen, Esq.
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1410
Wilmington, DE 19801
E] Via Hand Delivery
g)<7ia Express Delivery	Via First Class Mail
El Other:
On Behalf of Respondent MAT Industries, LLC:
Paul M. Bartkowski, Esq.
ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, LLP
1133 Connecticut Ave., NW, 12"‘Floor 100
Washington, DC 20036 	’
1:1Via Hand Delivery
1:1 ia Express Delivery
%ia FirstClassMail
III Other:
Huayi Carburetor Factory
B210-5, Wuhuan Building, Yuan Jigang,
Chongqinq China 	_
1:1Via Hand Delivery
IIIV'a Express Delivery
I31/£21First Class Mail
El Other:
Fuding Guangda General Machinery Co., Ltd.
Tietang Industrial District,
Fuding City, Fujian Province, 355200
China
El Vi Hand Delivery
% 	ExpressDelivery	Via First Class Mail
El Other:
Wuyi Henghai Tools Co., Ltd.
Baihuashan Industrial Zone
Wuyi 321200, Jinhua, Zhejiang
China
El Via Hand Delivery
5)/ia ExpressDelivery	Via First Class Mail
Cl Other:
Fuding Youyi Trade Co., Ltd.
No. 176, Yuhu Community, Taimushan Town,
Fuding, Ningde, Fujian, 355203
China
II] V' Hand Delivery
E-1/Xi:Express Delivery	Via First Class Mail
III Other:
Feldmarm Eng. & Mfg. Co., Inc.
520 Forest Avenue ,
Sheboygan Falls, WI 53085
El V'a Hand Delivery
Ma ExpressDelivery	Via First Class Mail
U Other:
Imperial Industrial Supply Co. d/b/a Durornax Power
Equipment
5800 Ontario Mills Parkway 	I
Ontario, CA 91764
Via First Class Mail
U V'a Hand Delivery
Ma ExpressDelivery
El Other:
North American Tool Industries
78 Cormnercial Road
Huntington, IN 48750 ~
1:1V' Hand Delivery
1:1 ia Express Delivery
ia First Class Mail
Cl Other: A

CERTAIN CARBURETORS AND PRODUCTS 	Inv. N0. 337-TA-1123
CONTAINING SUCH CARBURETORS
Certificate of Service —Page 4
T001 Tuff Difiect LLC 	[1 Via Hand Denvery15000 W. 44 A
Suite B_ Venue 	Q)/ia E?<pressDehvery
Golden’ CO 80403 V13 F1I‘S1IC1385 Mall
[:1 Other: