Certain Luxury Vinyl Tile and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1155

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

In the Matter of

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF

Investigation No. 337-TA-1155

Publication 5288 March 2022

U.S. International Trade Commission

=
————

Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Jason E. Kearns, Chair
Randolph J. Stayin, Vice Chair
David S. Johanson, Commissioner
Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, 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
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
Publication 5288 March2022

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
ISSUANCE OF A GENERAL EXCLUSION ORDER AND CEASE AND DESIST
ORDERS; TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AGENCY: 	U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: 	Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has affirmed
a summary determination of violation of section 337 with respect to certain defaulting
respondents and has determined to issue a general exclusion order (“GEO”) denying entry of
certain infringing luxury vinyl tile and components thereof as well as cease and desist orders
(“CDOs”) against certain of the defaulting respondents. The investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone (202) 205-3228. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at
https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 2019, the Commission instituted this
investigation based on a complaint filed by Mohawk Industries, Inc. of Calhoun, Georgia;
Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl of Bertrange, Luxembourg; and IVC US Inc. of Dalton, Georgia
(collectively, “Complainants”). 84 FR 22161 (May 16, 2019). The complaint, as supplemented,
alleges a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337
(“section 337”) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale
within the United States after importation of certain luxury vinyl tiles by reason of infringement
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,200,460 (“the ’460 patent”); 10,208,490 (“the
’490 patent”); and 10,233,655 (“the ’655 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). Id. The
complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. The Commission’s notice of
investigation names forty-five respondents, including: ABK Trading Corp. of Katy, Texas

2
(“ABK”); Aurora Flooring LLC of Kennesaw, Georgia (“Aurora”); Changzhou Runchang Wood
Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Runchang”); Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu,
China (“Go-Higher”); Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd. Jiangsu,
China (“Divine”); Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Lejia”); JiangSu Licheer
Wood Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Licheer”); Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC of Houston,
Texas (“Maxwell Flooring”); Mr. Hardwood Inc. of Acworth, Georgia (“Mr. Hardwood”); and
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. of Houston, Texas (“Sam Houston”) (collectively, “Defaulting
Respondents”). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also participating in
the investigation. Id.
The Commission previously terminated the investigation as to thirty-five respondents
based on settlement, consent order, or partial withdrawal of the complaint. See Order No. 14
(Sept. 26, 2019), unreviewed by, Notice (Oct. 17, 2019); Order Nos. 15-21 (Sept. 27, 2019 for
all), unreviewed by, Notice (Oct. 17, 2019); Order Nos. 23-25 (Oct. 2, 2019 for all), unreviewed
by, Notice (Oct. 23, 2019); Order No. 27 (Oct. 9, 2019), unreviewed by, Notice (Nov. 6, 2019);
Order No. 26 (Oct. 9, 2019)), unreviewed by, Notice (Nov. 8, 2019); Order No. 30 (Oct. 25,
2019), unreviewed by, Notice (Nov. 21, 2019); Order No. 34 (Nov. 7, 2019), unreviewed by,
Notice (Dec. 11, 2019); Order No. 35 (Jan. 24, 2020), unreviewed by, Notice (Feb. 25, 2020).
On November 21, 2019, the Commission found respondent Go-Higher in default. See
Order No. 31 (Oct. 25, 2019), unreviewed by, Notice (Nov. 21, 2019). On November 22, 2019,
the Commission found an additional eight respondents in default: ABK; Aurora; Divine; Lejia;
Licheer; Maxwell Flooring; Mr. Hardwood; and Sam Houston. See Order No. 32 (Oct. 30,
2019), unreviewed by, Notice (Nov. 22, 2019). On November 25, 2019, the Commission found
respondent Runchang in default. See Order No. 33 (Oct. 30, 2019), unreviewed by, Notice (Nov.
25, 2019).
On January 15, 2020, Complainants filed a motion for summary determination that
Complainants have satisfied the domestic industry requirement and of a violation of section 337
by the Defaulting Respondents. Complainants filed supplements to their summary determination
motion on January 23, 2020, February 11, 2020, and February 19, 2020. On February 12, 2020,
OUII filed a response to Complainants’ motion. On May 14, 2020, OUII filed a supplemental
response.
On May 15, 2020, the ALJ issued Order No. 36 granting the motion for summary
determination and finding a violation of section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents. The ALJ
recommended that the Commission issue a GEO prohibiting entry of luxury vinyl tiles that
infringe the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents and CDOs against the five domestic
Defaulting Respondents: ABK, Aurora, Maxwell Flooring, Mr. Hardwood, and Sam Houston.
The ALJ also recommended setting a bond of $0.08 per square foot of luxury vinyl tile product
and components thereof imported during the period of Presidential review. Id. No party
petitioned for review of the ID.

3
On June 30, 2020, the Commission determined to review the ID in part. 85 FR 40683
(July 7, 2020). On review, the Commission affirmed the finding of violation of section 337 by
the Defaulting Respondents’ importation of luxury vinyl tile and components thereof that
infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. Id. Further, the Commission determined to
review and, on review, to take no position on the ID’s findings regarding the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement under subsection 337(a)(3)(B) (19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)) with
respect to the ’460 patent. Id. The Commission also determined to review the ID’s findings
regarding a domestic industry for the ’490 and ’655 patents, and on review, to clarify that the
Commission did not intend to imply that the investments already made with respect to those
patents are not significant or could not be used to show the existence of a domestic industry
under section 337(a)(3). Id. The Commission further determined to review the ID’s findings as
to two products from non-parties, i.e., the Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products. Id. The Notice
also requested written submissions on remedy, public interest, and bonding. See id.
On July 15, 2020, Complainants and OUII submitted briefs on remedy, public interest,
and bonding supporting the ALJ’s recommendations. On July 22, 2020, OUII submitted a reply
to Complainants’ response. No other submissions were filed in response to the Notice.
As noted above, the Commission affirms the ID’s finding that there is a violation of
section 337 with respect to Defaulting Respondents. Moreover, the Commission finds that the
statutory requirements for issuance of a GEO under section 337(d)(2) are met with respect to the
Defaulting Respondents. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(2). The Commission also finds that issuance of
CDOs against the five domestic Defaulting Respondents is appropriate under 337(f)(1). See 19
U.S.C. 1337(f)(1). In addition, the Commission finds that the public interest factors do not
preclude issuance of the requested relief. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1).
The Commission therefore has determined that the appropriate remedy in this
investigation is: (1) a GEO prohibiting the unlicensed entry of certain luxury vinyl tile and
components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 7-8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the
’460 patent, claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18 of the ’490 patent, and claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and
20-26 of the ’655 patent; and (2) CDOs against ABK, Aurora, Maxwell Flooring, Mr.
Hardwood, and Sam Houston. The Commission has also determined that the bond during the
period of Presidential review shall be in the amount of $0.08 per square foot of imported luxury
vinyl tile and components thereof that are subject to the GEO and CDOs. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
The Commission has further determined to vacate the findings under review to the extent the ID
adjudicates infringement of the Asserted Patents as to non-respondents.
The Commission’s orders were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade
Representative on the day of their issuance. The investigation is terminated.
While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to COVID-19, the
Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel or otherwise
provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to Commission Rules
201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission orders that the

4
Complainant complete service for any party without a method of electronic service noted on the
attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on the Electronic Document Information
System (EDIS).
The Commission vote for this determination took place on September 16, 2020.
The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: September 16, 2020

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served via EDIS
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on September 16, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
ABK Trading Corp.
925 S. Mason Road, Suite 168
Katy, TX 77450
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Aurora Flooring LLC
1920 Shiloh Road NW, Bldg. 5
Kennesaw, GA 30144
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Changzhou Jinuo Decorative Material Co., Ltd.
No. 4 Cuili Road
Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 2
Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
No. 5-1001 Changfa Commercial Plaza
Xinbei, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
No. 27 CuiRong Road, Shuangrong, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd.
Shuang Rong, Henglin
Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd.
10 Ying Bing Road, Cuibei, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 216
Houston, TX 77043
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Mr. Hardwood Inc.
4260 Industrial Center Ln NW #100
Acworth, GA 30101
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. 	☐ Via Hand Delivery

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 3
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 204
Houston, TX 77043 ☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
GENERAL EXCLUSION ORDER
The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined that
there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), in
the unlawful importation, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation
of certain luxury vinyl tile floor and components thereof (as defined in paragraph 2 below) that
infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,200,460 (“the
’460 patent”); claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,208,490 (“the ’490
Patent”); or claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,233,655 (“the ’655 Patent”)
(collectively, “Asserted Patents”).
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the written submissions of the
parties, the Commission has made its determinations on the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. The Commission has determined that a general exclusion from entry for
consumption is necessary (1) to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products
of named persons and (2) because there is a pattern of violation of section 337 and it is difficult
to identify the source of the infringing products. Accordingly, the Commission has determined
to issue a general exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation of infringing luxury
vinyl tile floor and components thereof.
The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in

2
19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) do not preclude the issuance of the general exclusion order, and that the
bond during the period of Presidential review shall be in the amount of $0.08 per square foot of
the covered articles subject to this Order.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby ORDERS that:
1. 	Certain luxury vinyl tile floor and components thereof (as defined in paragraph 2
below) that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the ’460 patent;
claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of the ’490 Patent; or claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the
’655 Patent are excluded from entry for consumption into the United States, entry for
consumption from a foreign-trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for
the remaining terms of the Asserted Patents, except under license from, or with the permission
of, the patent owner or as provided by law.
2. 	The certain luxury vinyl tile floor and components thereof subject to this
exclusion order (i.e., “covered articles”) are as follows: interlocking luxury vinyl tile floor
panels and components thereof.
3. 	Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Order, covered articles are entitled to entry
into the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a foreign trade zone, or
withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, under bond in the amount of $0.08 per square
foot of the covered articles, pursuant to subsection (j) of section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)) and
the Presidential Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative of July 21, 2005 (70
Fed. Reg. 43,251), from the day after this Order is received by the United States Trade
Representative until such time as the United States Trade Representative notifies the
Commission that this Order is approved or disapproved but, in any event, not later than sixty (60)
days after the receipt of this Order. All entries of covered articles made pursuant to this

3
paragraph are to be reported to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), in advance of the
date of the entry, pursuant to procedures CBP establishes.
4. 	At the discretion of CBP and pursuant to the procedures it establishes, persons
seeking to import covered articles may be required to certify that they are familiar with the terms
of this Order, that they have made appropriate inquiry, and thereupon state that, to the best of
their knowledge and belief, the products being imported are not excluded from entry under
paragraph 1 of this Order. At its discretion, CBP may require persons who have provided the
certification described in this paragraph to furnish such records or analyses as are necessary to
substantiate the certification.
5. 	In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1337(l), the provisions of this Order shall not
apply to covered articles that are imported by and for the use of the United States, or imported
for and to be used for, the United States with the authorization or consent of the Government.
6. 	The Commission may modify this Order in accordance with the procedures
described in Rule 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R.
§ 210.76).
7. 	The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this
investigation that has retained counsel or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic
service and upon CBP. While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to
COVID-19, the Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel
or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to
Commission Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR §§ 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the
Commission orders that the Complainant complete service of this Order for any party without a
method of electronic service noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of

4
service on the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS).
8. 	Notice of this Order shall be published in the Federal Register.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: September 16, 2020

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER, COMMISSION has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on September 16, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
ABK Trading Corp.
925 S. Mason Road, Suite 168
Katy, TX 77450
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Aurora Flooring LLC
1920 Shiloh Road NW, Bldg. 5
Kennesaw, GA 30144
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Changzhou Jinuo Decorative Material Co., Ltd.
No. 4 Cuili Road
Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 2
Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
No. 5-1001 Changfa Commercial Plaza
Xinbei, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
No. 27 CuiRong Road, Shuangrong, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd.
Shuang Rong, Henglin
Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd.
10 Ying Bing Road, Cuibei, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 216
Houston, TX 77043
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Mr. Hardwood Inc.
4260 Industrial Center Ln NW #100
Acworth, GA 30101
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. 	☐ Via Hand Delivery

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 3
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 204
Houston, TX 77043 ☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT Maxwell Flooring Distribution
LLC of Houston, Texas cease and desist from conducting any of the following activities in the
United States: importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing,
transferring (except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or distributors, and aiding or
abetting other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer
(except for exportation), or distribution of certain luxury vinyl tile and components thereof (as
defined in Definition (G) below) that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and
30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,200,460 (“the ’460 patent”); claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of U.S.
Patent No. 10,208,490 (“the ’490 Patent”); or claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of U.S. Patent No.
10,233,655 (“the ’655 Patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”) in violation of section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337).
I.
Definitions
As used in this order:
(A) 	“Commission” shall mean the United States International Trade Commission.
(B) 	“Complainants” shall mean Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring Industries Ltd.
Sarl, and IVC US Inc.

2
(C) 	“Respondent” shall mean Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC of Houston, Texas.
(D) 	“Person” shall mean an individual, or any non-governmental partnership, firm,
association, corporation, or other legal or business entity other than Respondent or
its majority-owned or controlled subsidiaries, successors, or assigns.
(E) 	“United States” shall mean the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
(F) 	The terms “import” and “importation” refer to importation for entry for
consumption under the Customs laws of the United States.
(G) 	The term “covered products” shall mean certain luxury vinyl tile and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the
’460 patent; claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of the ’490 Patent; or claims 1-4,
6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the ’655 Patent. The certain luxury vinyl tile and
components thereof subject to this order are as follows: interlocking luxury vinyl
tile floor panels and components thereof. Covered products shall not include
articles for which a provision of law or license avoids liability for infringement.
II.
Applicability
The provisions of this Cease and Desist Order shall apply to Respondent and to any of its
principals, stockholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, distributors, controlled (whether
by stock ownership or otherwise) and majority-owned business entities, successors, and assigns,
and to each of them, insofar as they are engaging in conduct prohibited by section III, infra, for,
with, or otherwise on behalf of, Respondent.

3
III.
Conduct Prohibited
The following conduct of Respondent in the United States is prohibited by this Order.
For the remaining terms of the Asserted Patents, Respondent shall not:
(A) 	import or sell for importation into the United States covered products;
(B) 	market, distribute, sell, or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) imported
covered products;
(C) 	advertise imported covered products;
(D) 	solicit U.S. agents or distributors for imported covered products; or
(E) 	aid or abet other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after
importation, transfer, or distribution of covered products.
IV.
Conduct Permitted
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, specific conduct otherwise prohibited
by the terms of this Order shall be permitted if:
(A) 	in a written instrument, the owner of the Asserted Patents licenses or authorizes
such specific conduct; or
(B) 	such specific conduct is related to the importation or sale of covered products by
or for the United States.
V.
Reporting
For purposes of this requirement, the reporting periods shall commence on January 1 of
each year and shall end on the subsequent December 31. The first report required under this
section shall cover the period from the date of issuance of this order through December 31, 2020.
This reporting requirement shall continue in force until such time as Respondent has truthfully

4
reported, in two consecutive timely filed reports, that it has no inventory (whether held in
warehouses or at customer sites) of covered products in the United States.
Within thirty (30) days of the last day of the reporting period, Respondent shall report to
the Commission: (a) the quantity in units and the value in dollars of covered products that it has
(i) imported and/or (ii) sold in the United States after importation during the reporting period,
and (b) the quantity in units and value in dollars of reported covered products that remain in
inventory in the United States at the end of the reporting period.
When filing written submissions, Respondent must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to
the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer
to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1155”) in a prominent place on the cover pages
and/or the first page. See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000). If
Respondent desires to submit a document to the Commission in confidence, it must file the
original and a public version of the original with the Office of the Secretary and must serve a
copy of the confidential version on Complainant’s counsel.1
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or
before the deadlines stated above. The Commission’s paper filing requirements in 19 C.F.R.
1 Complainants must file a letter with the Secretary identifying the attorney to receive
reports and bond information associated with this Order. The designated attorney must be on the
protective order entered in the investigation.

5
210.4(f) are currently waived, pending resolution of the COVID-19 crisis. 85 Fed. Reg. 15798
(March 19, 2020).
Any failure to make the required report or the filing of any false or inaccurate report shall
constitute a violation of this Order, and the submission of a false or inaccurate report may be
referred to the U.S. Department of Justice as a possible criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
VI.
Record-Keeping and Inspection
(A) 	For the purpose of securing compliance with this Order, Respondent shall retain
any and all records relating to the sale, marketing, or distribution in the United
States of covered products, made and received in the usual and ordinary course of
business, whether in detail or in summary form, for a period of three (3) years
from the close of the fiscal year to which they pertain.
(B) 	For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Order and for
no other purpose, subject to any privilege recognized by the federal courts of the
United States, and upon reasonable written notice by the Commission or its staff,
duly authorized representatives of the Commission shall be permitted access and
the right to inspect and copy, in Respondent’s principal offices during office
hours, and in the presence of counsel or other representatives if Respondent so
chooses, all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, and other
records and documents, in detail and in summary form, that must be retained
under subparagraph VI(A) of this Order.

6
VII.
Service of Cease and Desist Order
The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this
investigation that has retained counsel or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic
service and upon CBP. While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to
COVID-19, the Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel
or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to
Commission Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission
orders that the Complainant complete service of this Order for any party without a method of
electronic service noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on
the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS).
Respondent is ordered and directed to:
(A) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this Order, a copy of this
Order upon each of its respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents, and
employees who have any responsibility for the importation, marketing,
distribution, or sale of imported covered products in the United States;
(B) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the succession of any persons referred to in
subparagraph VII(A) of this order, a copy of the Order upon each successor; and
(C) 	Maintain such records as will show the name, title, and address of each person
upon whom the Order has been served, as described in subparagraphs VII(A) and
VII(B) of this order, together with the date on which service was made.
The obligations set forth in subparagraphs VII(B) and VII(C) shall remain in effect until
the expiration of the Asserted Patents.

7
VIII.
Confidentiality
Any request for confidential treatment of information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to sections V and VI of this order should be made in accordance with section 201.6 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 201.6). For all reports for which
confidential treatment is sought, Respondent must provide a public version of such report with
confidential information redacted.
IX.
Enforcement
Violation of this order may result in any of the actions specified in section 210.75 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.75), including an action for
civil penalties under section 337(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)), as well as
any other action that the Commission deems appropriate. In determining whether Respondent is
in violation of this order, the Commission may infer facts adverse to Respondent if it fails to
provide adequate or timely information.
X.
Modification
The Commission may amend this order on its own motion or in accordance with the
procedure described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 C.F.R. § 210.76).
XI.
Bonding
The conduct prohibited by section III of this order may be continued during the sixty (60)
day period in which this Order is under review by the United States Trade Representative, as
delegated by the President (70 Fed. Reg. 43,251 (Jul. 21, 2005)), subject to Respondent’s posting

8
of a bond in the amount of $0.08 per square foot of the covered products. This bond provision
does not apply to conduct that is otherwise permitted by section IV of this Order. Covered
products imported on or after the date of issuance of this Order are subject to the entry bond as
set forth in the exclusion order issued by the Commission, and are not subject to this bond
provision.
The bond is to be posted in accordance with the procedures established by the
Commission for the posting of bonds by complainants in connection with the issuance of
temporary exclusion orders. (See 19 C.F.R. § 210.68.) The bond and any accompanying
documentation are to be provided to and approved by the Commission prior to the
commencement of conduct that is otherwise prohibited by section III of this Order. Upon the
Secretary’s acceptance of the bond, (a) the Secretary will serve an acceptance letter on all
parties, and (b) Respondent must serve a copy of the bond and accompanying documentation on
Complainant’s counsel.2
The bond is to be forfeited in the event that the United States Trade Representative
approves this Order (or does not disapprove it within the review period), unless (i) the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final
determination and order as to Respondent on appeal, or (ii) Respondent exports or destroys the
products subject to this bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the
Commission.
This bond is to be released in the event (i) the United States Trade Representative
disapproves this Order and no subsequent order is issued by the Commission and approved (or
not disapproved) by the United States Trade Representative, (ii) the U.S. Court of Appeals for
2 See Footnote 1.

9
the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final determination and order
as to Respondent on appeal, or (iii) Respondent exports or destroys the products subject to this
bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the Commission, upon service
on Respondent of an order issued by the Commission based upon application therefor made by
Respondent to the Commission.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: September 16, 2020

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER, COMMISSION has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on September 16, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
ABK Trading Corp.
925 S. Mason Road, Suite 168
Katy, TX 77450
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Aurora Flooring LLC
1920 Shiloh Road NW, Bldg. 5
Kennesaw, GA 30144
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Changzhou Jinuo Decorative Material Co., Ltd.
No. 4 Cuili Road
Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 2
Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
No. 5-1001 Changfa Commercial Plaza
Xinbei, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
No. 27 CuiRong Road, Shuangrong, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd.
Shuang Rong, Henglin
Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd.
10 Ying Bing Road, Cuibei, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 216
Houston, TX 77043
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Mr. Hardwood Inc.
4260 Industrial Center Ln NW #100
Acworth, GA 30101
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. 	☐ Via Hand Delivery

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 3
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 204
Houston, TX 77043 ☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT Mr. Hardwood Inc. of
Acworth, Georgia cease and desist from conducting any of the following activities in the United
States: importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring
(except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or distributors, and aiding or abetting
other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer (except for
exportation), or distribution of certain luxury vinyl tile and components thereof (as defined in
Definition (G) below) that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of U.S.
Patent No. 9,200,460 (“the ’460 patent”); claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No.
10,208,490 (“the ’490 Patent”); or claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,233,655
(“the ’655 Patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”) in violation of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337).
I.
Definitions
As used in this order:
(A) 	“Commission” shall mean the United States International Trade Commission.
(B) 	“Complainants” shall mean Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring Industries Ltd.
Sarl, and IVC US Inc.

2
(C) 	“Respondent” shall mean Mr. Hardwood Inc. of Acworth, Georgia.
(D) 	“Person” shall mean an individual, or any non-governmental partnership, firm,
association, corporation, or other legal or business entity other than Respondent or
its majority-owned or controlled subsidiaries, successors, or assigns.
(E) 	“United States” shall mean the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
(F) 	The terms “import” and “importation” refer to importation for entry for
consumption under the Customs laws of the United States.
(G) 	The term “covered products” shall mean certain luxury vinyl tile and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the
’460 patent; claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of the ’490 Patent; or claims 1-4,
6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the ’655 Patent. The certain luxury vinyl tile and
components thereof subject to this order are as follows: interlocking luxury vinyl
tile floor panels and components thereof. Covered products shall not include
articles for which a provision of law or license avoids liability for infringement.
II.
Applicability
The provisions of this Cease and Desist Order shall apply to Respondent and to any of its
principals, stockholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, distributors, controlled (whether
by stock ownership or otherwise) and majority-owned business entities, successors, and assigns,
and to each of them, insofar as they are engaging in conduct prohibited by section III, infra, for,
with, or otherwise on behalf of, Respondent.

3
III.
Conduct Prohibited
The following conduct of Respondent in the United States is prohibited by this Order.
For the remaining terms of the Asserted Patents, Respondent shall not:
(A) 	import or sell for importation into the United States covered products;
(B) 	market, distribute, sell, or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) imported
covered products;
(C) 	advertise imported covered products;
(D) 	solicit U.S. agents or distributors for imported covered products; or
(E) 	aid or abet other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after
importation, transfer, or distribution of covered products.
IV.
Conduct Permitted
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, specific conduct otherwise prohibited
by the terms of this Order shall be permitted if:
(A) 	in a written instrument, the owner of the Asserted Patents licenses or authorizes
such specific conduct; or
(B) 	such specific conduct is related to the importation or sale of covered products by
or for the United States.
V.
Reporting
For purposes of this requirement, the reporting periods shall commence on January 1 of
each year and shall end on the subsequent December 31. The first report required under this
section shall cover the period from the date of issuance of this order through December 31, 2020.
This reporting requirement shall continue in force until such time as Respondent has truthfully

4
reported, in two consecutive timely filed reports, that it has no inventory (whether held in
warehouses or at customer sites) of covered products in the United States.
Within thirty (30) days of the last day of the reporting period, Respondent shall report to
the Commission: (a) the quantity in units and the value in dollars of covered products that it has
(i) imported and/or (ii) sold in the United States after importation during the reporting period,
and (b) the quantity in units and value in dollars of reported covered products that remain in
inventory in the United States at the end of the reporting period.
When filing written submissions, Respondent must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to
the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer
to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1155”) in a prominent place on the cover pages
and/or the first page. See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000). If
Respondent desires to submit a document to the Commission in confidence, it must file the
original and a public version of the original with the Office of the Secretary and must serve a
copy of the confidential version on Complainant’s counsel.1
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or
before the deadlines stated above. The Commission’s paper filing requirements in 19 C.F.R.
1 Complainants must file a letter with the Secretary identifying the attorney to receive
reports and bond information associated with this Order. The designated attorney must be on the
protective order entered in the investigation.

5
210.4(f) are currently waived, pending resolution of the COVID-19 crisis. 85 Fed. Reg. 15798
(March 19, 2020).
Any failure to make the required report or the filing of any false or inaccurate report shall
constitute a violation of this Order, and the submission of a false or inaccurate report may be
referred to the U.S. Department of Justice as a possible criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
VI.
Record-Keeping and Inspection
(A) 	For the purpose of securing compliance with this Order, Respondent shall retain
any and all records relating to the sale, marketing, or distribution in the United
States of covered products, made and received in the usual and ordinary course of
business, whether in detail or in summary form, for a period of three (3) years
from the close of the fiscal year to which they pertain.
(B) 	For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Order and for
no other purpose, subject to any privilege recognized by the federal courts of the
United States, and upon reasonable written notice by the Commission or its staff,
duly authorized representatives of the Commission shall be permitted access and
the right to inspect and copy, in Respondent’s principal offices during office
hours, and in the presence of counsel or other representatives if Respondent so
chooses, all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, and other
records and documents, in detail and in summary form, that must be retained
under subparagraph VI(A) of this Order.

6
VII.
Service of Cease and Desist Order
The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this
investigation that has retained counsel or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic
service and upon CBP. While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to
COVID-19, the Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel
or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to
Commission Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission
orders that the Complainant complete service of this Order for any party without a method of
electronic service noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on
the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS).
Respondent is ordered and directed to:
(A) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this Order, a copy of this
Order upon each of its respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents, and
employees who have any responsibility for the importation, marketing,
distribution, or sale of imported covered products in the United States;
(B) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the succession of any persons referred to in
subparagraph VII(A) of this order, a copy of the Order upon each successor; and
(C) 	Maintain such records as will show the name, title, and address of each person
upon whom the Order has been served, as described in subparagraphs VII(A) and
VII(B) of this order, together with the date on which service was made.
The obligations set forth in subparagraphs VII(B) and VII(C) shall remain in effect until
the expiration of the Asserted Patents.

7
VIII.
Confidentiality
Any request for confidential treatment of information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to sections V and VI of this order should be made in accordance with section 201.6 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 201.6). For all reports for which
confidential treatment is sought, Respondent must provide a public version of such report with
confidential information redacted.
IX.
Enforcement
Violation of this order may result in any of the actions specified in section 210.75 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.75), including an action for
civil penalties under section 337(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)), as well as
any other action that the Commission deems appropriate. In determining whether Respondent is
in violation of this order, the Commission may infer facts adverse to Respondent if it fails to
provide adequate or timely information.
X.
Modification
The Commission may amend this order on its own motion or in accordance with the
procedure described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 C.F.R. § 210.76).
XI.
Bonding
The conduct prohibited by section III of this order may be continued during the sixty (60)
day period in which this Order is under review by the United States Trade Representative, as
delegated by the President (70 Fed. Reg. 43,251 (Jul. 21, 2005)), subject to Respondent’s posting

8
of a bond in the amount of $0.08 per square foot of the covered products. This bond provision
does not apply to conduct that is otherwise permitted by section IV of this Order. Covered
products imported on or after the date of issuance of this Order are subject to the entry bond as
set forth in the exclusion order issued by the Commission, and are not subject to this bond
provision.
The bond is to be posted in accordance with the procedures established by the
Commission for the posting of bonds by complainants in connection with the issuance of
temporary exclusion orders. (See 19 C.F.R. § 210.68.) The bond and any accompanying
documentation are to be provided to and approved by the Commission prior to the
commencement of conduct that is otherwise prohibited by section III of this Order. Upon the
Secretary’s acceptance of the bond, (a) the Secretary will serve an acceptance letter on all
parties, and (b) Respondent must serve a copy of the bond and accompanying documentation on
Complainant’s counsel.2
The bond is to be forfeited in the event that the United States Trade Representative
approves this Order (or does not disapprove it within the review period), unless (i) the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final
determination and order as to Respondent on appeal, or (ii) Respondent exports or destroys the
products subject to this bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the
Commission.
This bond is to be released in the event (i) the United States Trade Representative
disapproves this Order and no subsequent order is issued by the Commission and approved (or
not disapproved) by the United States Trade Representative, (ii) the U.S. Court of Appeals for
2 See Footnote 1.

9
the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final determination and order
as to Respondent on appeal, or (iii) Respondent exports or destroys the products subject to this
bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the Commission, upon service
on Respondent of an order issued by the Commission based upon application therefor made by
Respondent to the Commission.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: September 16, 2020

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER, COMMISSION has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on September 16, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
ABK Trading Corp.
925 S. Mason Road, Suite 168
Katy, TX 77450
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Aurora Flooring LLC
1920 Shiloh Road NW, Bldg. 5
Kennesaw, GA 30144
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Changzhou Jinuo Decorative Material Co., Ltd.
No. 4 Cuili Road
Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 2
Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
No. 5-1001 Changfa Commercial Plaza
Xinbei, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
No. 27 CuiRong Road, Shuangrong, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd.
Shuang Rong, Henglin
Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd.
10 Ying Bing Road, Cuibei, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 216
Houston, TX 77043
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Mr. Hardwood Inc.
4260 Industrial Center Ln NW #100
Acworth, GA 30101
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. 	☐ Via Hand Delivery

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 3
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 204
Houston, TX 77043 ☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. of
Houston, Texas cease and desist from conducting any of the following activities in the United
States: importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring
(except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or distributors, and aiding or abetting
other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer (except for
exportation), or distribution of certain luxury vinyl tile and components thereof (as defined in
Definition (G) below) that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of U.S.
Patent No. 9,200,460 (“the ’460 patent”); claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No.
10,208,490 (“the ’490 Patent”); or claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,233,655
(“the ’655 Patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”) in violation of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337).
I.
Definitions
As used in this order:
(A) 	“Commission” shall mean the United States International Trade Commission.
(B) 	“Complainants” shall mean Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring Industries Ltd.
Sarl, and IVC US Inc.

2
(C) 	“Respondent” shall mean Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. of Houston, Texas.
(D) 	“Person” shall mean an individual, or any non-governmental partnership, firm,
association, corporation, or other legal or business entity other than Respondent or
its majority-owned or controlled subsidiaries, successors, or assigns.
(E) 	“United States” shall mean the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
(F) 	The terms “import” and “importation” refer to importation for entry for
consumption under the Customs laws of the United States.
(G) 	The term “covered products” shall mean certain luxury vinyl tile and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the
’460 patent; claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of the ’490 Patent; or claims 1-4,
6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the ’655 Patent. The certain luxury vinyl tile and
components thereof subject to this order are as follows: interlocking luxury vinyl
tile floor panels and components thereof. Covered products shall not include
articles for which a provision of law or license avoids liability for infringement.
II.
Applicability
The provisions of this Cease and Desist Order shall apply to Respondent and to any of its
principals, stockholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, distributors, controlled (whether
by stock ownership or otherwise) and majority-owned business entities, successors, and assigns,
and to each of them, insofar as they are engaging in conduct prohibited by section III, infra, for,
with, or otherwise on behalf of, Respondent.

3
III.
Conduct Prohibited
The following conduct of Respondent in the United States is prohibited by this Order.
For the remaining terms of the Asserted Patents, Respondent shall not:
(A) 	import or sell for importation into the United States covered products;
(B) 	market, distribute, sell, or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) imported
covered products;
(C) 	advertise imported covered products;
(D) 	solicit U.S. agents or distributors for imported covered products; or
(E) 	aid or abet other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after
importation, transfer, or distribution of covered products.
IV.
Conduct Permitted
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, specific conduct otherwise prohibited
by the terms of this Order shall be permitted if:
(A) 	in a written instrument, the owner of the Asserted Patents licenses or authorizes
such specific conduct; or
(B) 	such specific conduct is related to the importation or sale of covered products by
or for the United States.
V.
Reporting
For purposes of this requirement, the reporting periods shall commence on January 1 of
each year and shall end on the subsequent December 31. The first report required under this
section shall cover the period from the date of issuance of this order through December 31, 2020.
This reporting requirement shall continue in force until such time as Respondent has truthfully

4
reported, in two consecutive timely filed reports, that it has no inventory (whether held in
warehouses or at customer sites) of covered products in the United States.
Within thirty (30) days of the last day of the reporting period, Respondent shall report to
the Commission: (a) the quantity in units and the value in dollars of covered products that it has
(i) imported and/or (ii) sold in the United States after importation during the reporting period,
and (b) the quantity in units and value in dollars of reported covered products that remain in
inventory in the United States at the end of the reporting period.
When filing written submissions, Respondent must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to
the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer
to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1155”) in a prominent place on the cover pages
and/or the first page. See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000). If
Respondent desires to submit a document to the Commission in confidence, it must file the
original and a public version of the original with the Office of the Secretary and must serve a
copy of the confidential version on Complainant’s counsel.1
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or
before the deadlines stated above. The Commission’s paper filing requirements in 19 C.F.R.
1 Complainants must file a letter with the Secretary identifying the attorney to receive
reports and bond information associated with this Order. The designated attorney must be on the
protective order entered in the investigation.

5
210.4(f) are currently waived, pending resolution of the COVID-19 crisis. 85 Fed. Reg. 15798
(March 19, 2020).
Any failure to make the required report or the filing of any false or inaccurate report shall
constitute a violation of this Order, and the submission of a false or inaccurate report may be
referred to the U.S. Department of Justice as a possible criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
VI.
Record-Keeping and Inspection
(A) 	For the purpose of securing compliance with this Order, Respondent shall retain
any and all records relating to the sale, marketing, or distribution in the United
States of covered products, made and received in the usual and ordinary course of
business, whether in detail or in summary form, for a period of three (3) years
from the close of the fiscal year to which they pertain.
(B) 	For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Order and for
no other purpose, subject to any privilege recognized by the federal courts of the
United States, and upon reasonable written notice by the Commission or its staff,
duly authorized representatives of the Commission shall be permitted access and
the right to inspect and copy, in Respondent’s principal offices during office
hours, and in the presence of counsel or other representatives if Respondent so
chooses, all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, and other
records and documents, in detail and in summary form, that must be retained
under subparagraph VI(A) of this Order.

6
VII.
Service of Cease and Desist Order
The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this
investigation that has retained counsel or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic
service and upon CBP. While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to
COVID-19, the Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel
or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to
Commission Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission
orders that the Complainant complete service of this Order for any party without a method of
electronic service noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on
the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS).
Respondent is ordered and directed to:
(A) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this Order, a copy of this
Order upon each of its respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents, and
employees who have any responsibility for the importation, marketing,
distribution, or sale of imported covered products in the United States;
(B) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the succession of any persons referred to in
subparagraph VII(A) of this order, a copy of the Order upon each successor; and
(C) 	Maintain such records as will show the name, title, and address of each person
upon whom the Order has been served, as described in subparagraphs VII(A) and
VII(B) of this order, together with the date on which service was made.
The obligations set forth in subparagraphs VII(B) and VII(C) shall remain in effect until
the expiration of the Asserted Patents.

7
VIII.
Confidentiality
Any request for confidential treatment of information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to sections V and VI of this order should be made in accordance with section 201.6 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 201.6). For all reports for which
confidential treatment is sought, Respondent must provide a public version of such report with
confidential information redacted.
IX.
Enforcement
Violation of this order may result in any of the actions specified in section 210.75 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.75), including an action for
civil penalties under section 337(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)), as well as
any other action that the Commission deems appropriate. In determining whether Respondent is
in violation of this order, the Commission may infer facts adverse to Respondent if it fails to
provide adequate or timely information.
X.
Modification
The Commission may amend this order on its own motion or in accordance with the
procedure described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 C.F.R. § 210.76).
XI.
Bonding
The conduct prohibited by section III of this order may be continued during the sixty (60)
day period in which this Order is under review by the United States Trade Representative, as
delegated by the President (70 Fed. Reg. 43,251 (Jul. 21, 2005)), subject to Respondent’s posting

8
of a bond in the amount of $0.08 per square foot of the covered products. This bond provision
does not apply to conduct that is otherwise permitted by section IV of this Order. Covered
products imported on or after the date of issuance of this Order are subject to the entry bond as
set forth in the exclusion order issued by the Commission, and are not subject to this bond
provision.
The bond is to be posted in accordance with the procedures established by the
Commission for the posting of bonds by complainants in connection with the issuance of
temporary exclusion orders. (See 19 C.F.R. § 210.68.) The bond and any accompanying
documentation are to be provided to and approved by the Commission prior to the
commencement of conduct that is otherwise prohibited by section III of this Order. Upon the
Secretary’s acceptance of the bond, (a) the Secretary will serve an acceptance letter on all
parties, and (b) Respondent must serve a copy of the bond and accompanying documentation on
Complainant’s counsel.2
The bond is to be forfeited in the event that the United States Trade Representative
approves this Order (or does not disapprove it within the review period), unless (i) the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final
determination and order as to Respondent on appeal, or (ii) Respondent exports or destroys the
products subject to this bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the
Commission.
This bond is to be released in the event (i) the United States Trade Representative
disapproves this Order and no subsequent order is issued by the Commission and approved (or
not disapproved) by the United States Trade Representative, (ii) the U.S. Court of Appeals for
2 See Footnote 1.

9
the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final determination and order
as to Respondent on appeal, or (iii) Respondent exports or destroys the products subject to this
bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the Commission, upon service
on Respondent of an order issued by the Commission based upon application therefor made by
Respondent to the Commission.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: September 16, 2020

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER, COMMISSION has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on September 16, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
ABK Trading Corp.
925 S. Mason Road, Suite 168
Katy, TX 77450
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Aurora Flooring LLC
1920 Shiloh Road NW, Bldg. 5
Kennesaw, GA 30144
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Changzhou Jinuo Decorative Material Co., Ltd.
No. 4 Cuili Road
Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 2
Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
No. 5-1001 Changfa Commercial Plaza
Xinbei, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
No. 27 CuiRong Road, Shuangrong, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd.
Shuang Rong, Henglin
Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd.
10 Ying Bing Road, Cuibei, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 216
Houston, TX 77043
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Mr. Hardwood Inc.
4260 Industrial Center Ln NW #100
Acworth, GA 30101
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. 	☐ Via Hand Delivery

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 3
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 204
Houston, TX 77043 ☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

1
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT Aurora Flooring LLC of
Kennesaw, Georgia cease and desist from conducting any of the following activities in the
United States: importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing,
transferring (except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or distributors, and aiding or
abetting other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer
(except for exportation), or distribution of certain luxury vinyl tile and components thereof (as
defined in Definition (G) below) that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and
30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,200,460 (“the ’460 patent”); claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of U.S.
Patent No. 10,208,490 (“the ’490 Patent”); or claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of U.S. Patent No.
10,233,655 (“the ’655 Patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”) in violation of section 337
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337).
I.
Definitions
As used in this order:
(A) 	“Commission” shall mean the United States International Trade Commission.
(B) 	“Complainants” shall mean Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring Industries Ltd.
Sarl, and IVC US Inc.

2
(C) 	“Respondent” shall mean Aurora Flooring LLC of Kennesaw, Georgia.
(D) 	“Person” shall mean an individual, or any non-governmental partnership, firm,
association, corporation, or other legal or business entity other than Respondent or
its majority-owned or controlled subsidiaries, successors, or assigns.
(E) 	“United States” shall mean the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
(F) 	The terms “import” and “importation” refer to importation for entry for
consumption under the Customs laws of the United States.
(G) 	The term “covered products” shall mean certain luxury vinyl tile and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the
’460 patent; claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of the ’490 Patent; or claims 1-4,
6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the ’655 Patent. The certain luxury vinyl tile and
components thereof subject to this order are as follows: interlocking luxury vinyl
tile floor panels and components thereof. Covered products shall not include
articles for which a provision of law or license avoids liability for infringement.
II.
Applicability
The provisions of this Cease and Desist Order shall apply to Respondent and to any of its
principals, stockholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, distributors, controlled (whether
by stock ownership or otherwise) and majority-owned business entities, successors, and assigns,
and to each of them, insofar as they are engaging in conduct prohibited by section III, infra, for,
with, or otherwise on behalf of, Respondent.

3
III.
Conduct Prohibited
The following conduct of Respondent in the United States is prohibited by this Order.
For the remaining terms of the Asserted Patents, Respondent shall not:
(A) 	import or sell for importation into the United States covered products;
(B) 	market, distribute, sell, or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) imported
covered products;
(C) 	advertise imported covered products;
(D) 	solicit U.S. agents or distributors for imported covered products; or
(E) 	aid or abet other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after
importation, transfer, or distribution of covered products.
IV.
Conduct Permitted
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, specific conduct otherwise prohibited
by the terms of this Order shall be permitted if:
(A) 	in a written instrument, the owner of the Asserted Patents licenses or authorizes
such specific conduct; or
(B) 	such specific conduct is related to the importation or sale of covered products by
or for the United States.
V.
Reporting
For purposes of this requirement, the reporting periods shall commence on January 1 of
each year and shall end on the subsequent December 31. The first report required under this
section shall cover the period from the date of issuance of this order through December 31, 2020.
This reporting requirement shall continue in force until such time as Respondent has truthfully

4
reported, in two consecutive timely filed reports, that it has no inventory (whether held in
warehouses or at customer sites) of covered products in the United States.
Within thirty (30) days of the last day of the reporting period, Respondent shall report to
the Commission: (a) the quantity in units and the value in dollars of covered products that it has
(i) imported and/or (ii) sold in the United States after importation during the reporting period,
and (b) the quantity in units and value in dollars of reported covered products that remain in
inventory in the United States at the end of the reporting period.
When filing written submissions, Respondent must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to
the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer
to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1155”) in a prominent place on the cover pages
and/or the first page. See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000). If
Respondent desires to submit a document to the Commission in confidence, it must file the
original and a public version of the original with the Office of the Secretary and must serve a
copy of the confidential version on Complainant’s counsel.1
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or
before the deadlines stated above. The Commission’s paper filing requirements in 19 C.F.R.
1 Complainants must file a letter with the Secretary identifying the attorney to receive
reports and bond information associated with this Order. The designated attorney must be on the
protective order entered in the investigation.

5
210.4(f) are currently waived, pending resolution of the COVID-19 crisis. 85 Fed. Reg. 15798
(March 19, 2020).
Any failure to make the required report or the filing of any false or inaccurate report shall
constitute a violation of this Order, and the submission of a false or inaccurate report may be
referred to the U.S. Department of Justice as a possible criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
VI.
Record-Keeping and Inspection
(A) 	For the purpose of securing compliance with this Order, Respondent shall retain
any and all records relating to the sale, marketing, or distribution in the United
States of covered products, made and received in the usual and ordinary course of
business, whether in detail or in summary form, for a period of three (3) years
from the close of the fiscal year to which they pertain.
(B) 	For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Order and for
no other purpose, subject to any privilege recognized by the federal courts of the
United States, and upon reasonable written notice by the Commission or its staff,
duly authorized representatives of the Commission shall be permitted access and
the right to inspect and copy, in Respondent’s principal offices during office
hours, and in the presence of counsel or other representatives if Respondent so
chooses, all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, and other
records and documents, in detail and in summary form, that must be retained
under subparagraph VI(A) of this Order.

6
VII.
Service of Cease and Desist Order
The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this
investigation that has retained counsel or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic
service and upon CBP. While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to
COVID-19, the Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel
or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to
Commission Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission
orders that the Complainant complete service of this Order for any party without a method of
electronic service noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on
the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS).
Respondent is ordered and directed to:
(A) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this Order, a copy of this
Order upon each of its respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents, and
employees who have any responsibility for the importation, marketing,
distribution, or sale of imported covered products in the United States;
(B) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the succession of any persons referred to in
subparagraph VII(A) of this order, a copy of the Order upon each successor; and
(C) 	Maintain such records as will show the name, title, and address of each person
upon whom the Order has been served, as described in subparagraphs VII(A) and
VII(B) of this order, together with the date on which service was made.
The obligations set forth in subparagraphs VII(B) and VII(C) shall remain in effect until
the expiration of the Asserted Patents.

7
VIII.
Confidentiality
Any request for confidential treatment of information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to sections V and VI of this order should be made in accordance with section 201.6 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 201.6). For all reports for which
confidential treatment is sought, Respondent must provide a public version of such report with
confidential information redacted.
IX.
Enforcement
Violation of this order may result in any of the actions specified in section 210.75 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.75), including an action for
civil penalties under section 337(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)), as well as
any other action that the Commission deems appropriate. In determining whether Respondent is
in violation of this order, the Commission may infer facts adverse to Respondent if it fails to
provide adequate or timely information.
X.
Modification
The Commission may amend this order on its own motion or in accordance with the
procedure described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 C.F.R. § 210.76).
XI.
Bonding
The conduct prohibited by section III of this order may be continued during the sixty (60)
day period in which this Order is under review by the United States Trade Representative, as
delegated by the President (70 Fed. Reg. 43,251 (Jul. 21, 2005)), subject to Respondent’s posting

8
of a bond in the amount of $0.08 per square foot of the covered products. This bond provision
does not apply to conduct that is otherwise permitted by section IV of this Order. Covered
products imported on or after the date of issuance of this Order are subject to the entry bond as
set forth in the exclusion order issued by the Commission, and are not subject to this bond
provision.
The bond is to be posted in accordance with the procedures established by the
Commission for the posting of bonds by complainants in connection with the issuance of
temporary exclusion orders. (See 19 C.F.R. § 210.68.) The bond and any accompanying
documentation are to be provided to and approved by the Commission prior to the
commencement of conduct that is otherwise prohibited by section III of this Order. Upon the
Secretary’s acceptance of the bond, (a) the Secretary will serve an acceptance letter on all
parties, and (b) Respondent must serve a copy of the bond and accompanying documentation on
Complainant’s counsel.2
The bond is to be forfeited in the event that the United States Trade Representative
approves this Order (or does not disapprove it within the review period), unless (i) the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final
determination and order as to Respondent on appeal, or (ii) Respondent exports or destroys the
products subject to this bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the
Commission.
This bond is to be released in the event (i) the United States Trade Representative
disapproves this Order and no subsequent order is issued by the Commission and approved (or
not disapproved) by the United States Trade Representative, (ii) the U.S. Court of Appeals for
2 See Footnote 1.

9
the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final determination and order
as to Respondent on appeal, or (iii) Respondent exports or destroys the products subject to this
bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the Commission, upon service
on Respondent of an order issued by the Commission based upon application therefor made by
Respondent to the Commission.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: September 16, 2020

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER, COMMISSION has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on September 16, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
ABK Trading Corp.
925 S. Mason Road, Suite 168
Katy, TX 77450
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Aurora Flooring LLC
1920 Shiloh Road NW, Bldg. 5
Kennesaw, GA 30144
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Changzhou Jinuo Decorative Material Co., Ltd.
No. 4 Cuili Road
Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 2
Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
No. 5-1001 Changfa Commercial Plaza
Xinbei, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
No. 27 CuiRong Road, Shuangrong, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd.
Shuang Rong, Henglin
Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd.
10 Ying Bing Road, Cuibei, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 216
Houston, TX 77043
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Mr. Hardwood Inc.
4260 Industrial Center Ln NW #100
Acworth, GA 30101
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. 	☐ Via Hand Delivery

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 3
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 204
Houston, TX 77043 ☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

1
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT ABK Trading Corp. of Katy,
Texas cease and desist from conducting any of the following activities in the United States:
importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for
exportation), soliciting United States agents or distributors, and aiding or abetting other entities
in the importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer (except for exportation),
or distribution of certain luxury vinyl tile and components thereof (as defined in Definition (G)
below) that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of U.S. Patent No.
9,200,460 (“the ’460 patent”); claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,208,490
(“the ’490 Patent”); or claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,233,655 (“the ’655
Patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”) in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337).
I.
Definitions
As used in this order:
(A) 	“Commission” shall mean the United States International Trade Commission.
(B) 	“Complainants” shall mean Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring Industries Ltd.
Sarl, and IVC US Inc.

2
(C) 	“Respondent” shall mean ABK Trading Corp. of Katy, Texas.
(D) 	“Person” shall mean an individual, or any non-governmental partnership, firm,
association, corporation, or other legal or business entity other than Respondent or
its majority-owned or controlled subsidiaries, successors, or assigns.
(E) 	“United States” shall mean the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
(F) 	The terms “import” and “importation” refer to importation for entry for
consumption under the Customs laws of the United States.
(G) 	The term “covered products” shall mean certain luxury vinyl tile and components
thereof that infringe one or more of claims 7, 8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the
’460 patent; claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of the ’490 Patent; or claims 1-4,
6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the ’655 Patent. The certain luxury vinyl tile and
components thereof subject to this order are as follows: interlocking luxury vinyl
tile floor panels and components thereof. Covered products shall not include
articles for which a provision of law or license avoids liability for infringement.
II.
Applicability
The provisions of this Cease and Desist Order shall apply to Respondent and to any of its
principals, stockholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, distributors, controlled (whether
by stock ownership or otherwise) and majority-owned business entities, successors, and assigns,
and to each of them, insofar as they are engaging in conduct prohibited by section III, infra, for,
with, or otherwise on behalf of, Respondent.

3
III.
Conduct Prohibited
The following conduct of Respondent in the United States is prohibited by this Order.
For the remaining terms of the Asserted Patents, Respondent shall not:
(A) 	import or sell for importation into the United States covered products;
(B) 	market, distribute, sell, or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) imported
covered products;
(C) 	advertise imported covered products;
(D) 	solicit U.S. agents or distributors for imported covered products; or
(E) 	aid or abet other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after
importation, transfer, or distribution of covered products.
IV.
Conduct Permitted
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, specific conduct otherwise prohibited
by the terms of this Order shall be permitted if:
(A) 	in a written instrument, the owner of the Asserted Patents licenses or authorizes
such specific conduct; or
(B) 	such specific conduct is related to the importation or sale of covered products by
or for the United States.
V.
Reporting
For purposes of this requirement, the reporting periods shall commence on January 1 of
each year and shall end on the subsequent December 31. The first report required under this
section shall cover the period from the date of issuance of this order through December 31, 2020.
This reporting requirement shall continue in force until such time as Respondent has truthfully

4
reported, in two consecutive timely filed reports, that it has no inventory (whether held in
warehouses or at customer sites) of covered products in the United States.
Within thirty (30) days of the last day of the reporting period, Respondent shall report to
the Commission: (a) the quantity in units and the value in dollars of covered products that it has
(i) imported and/or (ii) sold in the United States after importation during the reporting period,
and (b) the quantity in units and value in dollars of reported covered products that remain in
inventory in the United States at the end of the reporting period.
When filing written submissions, Respondent must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to
the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer
to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1155”) in a prominent place on the cover pages
and/or the first page. See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000). If
Respondent desires to submit a document to the Commission in confidence, it must file the
original and a public version of the original with the Office of the Secretary and must serve a
copy of the confidential version on Complainant’s counsel.1
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or
before the deadlines stated above. The Commission’s paper filing requirements in 19 C.F.R.
1 Complainants must file a letter with the Secretary identifying the attorney to receive
reports and bond information associated with this Order. The designated attorney must be on the
protective order entered in the investigation.

5
210.4(f) are currently waived, pending resolution of the COVID-19 crisis. 85 Fed. Reg. 15798
(March 19, 2020).
Any failure to make the required report or the filing of any false or inaccurate report shall
constitute a violation of this Order, and the submission of a false or inaccurate report may be
referred to the U.S. Department of Justice as a possible criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
VI.
Record-Keeping and Inspection
(A) 	For the purpose of securing compliance with this Order, Respondent shall retain
any and all records relating to the sale, marketing, or distribution in the United
States of covered products, made and received in the usual and ordinary course of
business, whether in detail or in summary form, for a period of three (3) years
from the close of the fiscal year to which they pertain.
(B) 	For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Order and for
no other purpose, subject to any privilege recognized by the federal courts of the
United States, and upon reasonable written notice by the Commission or its staff,
duly authorized representatives of the Commission shall be permitted access and
the right to inspect and copy, in Respondent’s principal offices during office
hours, and in the presence of counsel or other representatives if Respondent so
chooses, all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, and other
records and documents, in detail and in summary form, that must be retained
under subparagraph VI(A) of this Order.

6
VII.
Service of Cease and Desist Order
The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this
investigation that has retained counsel or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic
service and upon CBP. While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to
COVID-19, the Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel
or otherwise provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to
Commission Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission
orders that the Complainant complete service of this Order for any party without a method of
electronic service noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on
the Electronic Document Information System (EDIS).
Respondent is ordered and directed to:
(A) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this Order, a copy of this
Order upon each of its respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents, and
employees who have any responsibility for the importation, marketing,
distribution, or sale of imported covered products in the United States;
(B) 	Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the succession of any persons referred to in
subparagraph VII(A) of this order, a copy of the Order upon each successor; and
(C) 	Maintain such records as will show the name, title, and address of each person
upon whom the Order has been served, as described in subparagraphs VII(A) and
VII(B) of this order, together with the date on which service was made.
The obligations set forth in subparagraphs VII(B) and VII(C) shall remain in effect until
the expiration of the Asserted Patents.

7
VIII.
Confidentiality
Any request for confidential treatment of information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to sections V and VI of this order should be made in accordance with section 201.6 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 201.6). For all reports for which
confidential treatment is sought, Respondent must provide a public version of such report with
confidential information redacted.
IX.
Enforcement
Violation of this order may result in any of the actions specified in section 210.75 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.75), including an action for
civil penalties under section 337(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)), as well as
any other action that the Commission deems appropriate. In determining whether Respondent is
in violation of this order, the Commission may infer facts adverse to Respondent if it fails to
provide adequate or timely information.
X.
Modification
The Commission may amend this order on its own motion or in accordance with the
procedure described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 C.F.R. § 210.76).
XI.
Bonding
The conduct prohibited by section III of this order may be continued during the sixty (60)
day period in which this Order is under review by the United States Trade Representative, as
delegated by the President (70 Fed. Reg. 43,251 (Jul. 21, 2005)), subject to Respondent’s posting

8
of a bond in the amount of $0.08 per square foot of the covered products. This bond provision
does not apply to conduct that is otherwise permitted by section IV of this Order. Covered
products imported on or after the date of issuance of this Order are subject to the entry bond as
set forth in the exclusion order issued by the Commission, and are not subject to this bond
provision.
The bond is to be posted in accordance with the procedures established by the
Commission for the posting of bonds by complainants in connection with the issuance of
temporary exclusion orders. (See 19 C.F.R. § 210.68.) The bond and any accompanying
documentation are to be provided to and approved by the Commission prior to the
commencement of conduct that is otherwise prohibited by section III of this Order. Upon the
Secretary’s acceptance of the bond, (a) the Secretary will serve an acceptance letter on all
parties, and (b) Respondent must serve a copy of the bond and accompanying documentation on
Complainant’s counsel.2
The bond is to be forfeited in the event that the United States Trade Representative
approves this Order (or does not disapprove it within the review period), unless (i) the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final
determination and order as to Respondent on appeal, or (ii) Respondent exports or destroys the
products subject to this bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the
Commission.
This bond is to be released in the event (i) the United States Trade Representative
disapproves this Order and no subsequent order is issued by the Commission and approved (or
not disapproved) by the United States Trade Representative, (ii) the U.S. Court of Appeals for
2 See Footnote 1.

9
the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final determination and order
as to Respondent on appeal, or (iii) Respondent exports or destroys the products subject to this
bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the Commission, upon service
on Respondent of an order issued by the Commission based upon application therefor made by
Respondent to the Commission.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: September 16, 2020

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER, COMMISSION has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on September 16, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
ABK Trading Corp.
925 S. Mason Road, Suite 168
Katy, TX 77450
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Aurora Flooring LLC
1920 Shiloh Road NW, Bldg. 5
Kennesaw, GA 30144
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Changzhou Jinuo Decorative Material Co., Ltd.
No. 4 Cuili Road
Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 2
Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
No. 5-1001 Changfa Commercial Plaza
Xinbei, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
No. 27 CuiRong Road, Shuangrong, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd.
Shuang Rong, Henglin
Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd.
10 Ying Bing Road, Cuibei, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 216
Houston, TX 77043
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Mr. Hardwood Inc.
4260 Industrial Center Ln NW #100
Acworth, GA 30101
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. 	☐ Via Hand Delivery

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 3
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 204
Houston, TX 77043 ☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
COMMISSION OPINION
The Commission has determined that there has been a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”), with respect to U.S. Patent
Nos. 9,200,460 (“the ’460 patent”), 10,208,490 (“the ’490 patent”), and 10,233,655 (“the
’655 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) on review of the presiding administrative law
judge’s (“ALJ”) Initial Determination (“ID”) and Recommended Determination (“RD”) (Order
No. 36) granting summary determination of a violation. 	After considering the public interest,
the Commission has also determined that the appropriate form of relief is a general exclusion
order (“GEO”) prohibiting the unlicensed importation of articles that infringe certain claims of
the Asserted Patents. 	The Commission has determined to set a bond during the period of
Presidential review in the amount of $0.08 per square foot of the infringing products imported.
The Commission has further determined to vacate the findings under review to the extent the ID
adjudicates infringement of the Asserted Patents as to non-respondents.
This opinion sets forth the Commission’s reasoning in support of its determinations. 	In
addition, the Commission adopts the findings in the ID to the extent such findings are not
inconsistent with this opinion.

PUBLIC VERSION
2
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 16, 2019, the Commission instituted this investigation based upon a complaint,
as amended, filed on behalf of Mohawk Industries Inc. of Calhoun, Georgia; Flooring Industries
Ltd. Sarl of Bertrange, Luxembourg; and IVC US Inc. of Dalton, Georgia (collectively,
“Complainants”) alleging violations of section 337 in the sale for importation, importation, or
sale in the United States after importation of luxury vinyl tile (“LVT”) and components thereof
that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. 	84 Fed. Reg. 22161 (May 16, 2019).
The notice of investigation names forty-five (45) respondents. 	Id. 	The Office of Unfair Import
Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation. 	Id.
Thirty-five (35) of the respondents were terminated on the basis of settlement, consent
order, or termination by Complainants. 	See Order No. 14 (Sept. 26, 2019), unreviewed by
Notice (Oct. 17, 2019); Order Nos. 15-21 (Sept. 27, 2019 for all), unreviewed by Notice (Oct. 17,
2019); Order No. 27 (Oct. 9, 2019), unreviewed by Notice (Nov. 6, 2019); Order No. 26 (Oct. 9,
2019)), unreviewed by Notice (Nov. 8, 2019); Order No. 35 (Jan. 24, 2020), unreviewed by
Notice (Feb. 25, 2020); Order Nos. 23-5 (Oct. 2, 2019 for all), unreviewed by Notice (Oct. 23,
2019); Order No. 34 (Nov. 7, 2019), unreviewed by, Notice (Dec. 11, 2019); Order No. 30 (Oct.
25, 2019), unreviewed by Notice (Nov. 21, 2019).
The other ten respondents were found in default, specifically:
1. 	ABK Trading Corp. of Katy, Texas (“ABK”);
2. 	Aurora Flooring LLC of Kennesaw, Georgia (“Aurora”);
3. 	Changzhou Runchang Wood Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Runchang”);
4. 	Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China;
5. 	Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd. Jiangsu, China;
6. 	Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd. of Jiangsu, China;
7. 	JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China;
8. 	Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC of Houston, Texas (“Maxwell Flooring”);
9. 	Mr. Hardwood Inc. of Acworth, Georgia (“Mr. Hardwood”); and
10. Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. of Houston, Texas (“Sam Houston”) (collectively,
“Defaulting Respondents”).

PUBLIC VERSION
3
See Order No. 31 (Oct. 25, 2019), unreviewed by Notice (Nov. 21, 2019); Order No. 32 (Oct. 30,
2019), unreviewed by Notice (Nov. 22, 2019); Order No. 33 (Oct. 30, 2019), unreviewed by
Notice (Nov. 25, 2019). 	Accordingly, no active parties remain in this investigation.
On January 15, 2020, Complainants filed a motion, which was supplemented three times,
for summary determination that Complainants demonstrated a domestic industry and that
Defaulting Respondents have violated section 337.1 	On May 15, 2020, the presiding ALJ issued
an ID and RD (Order No. 36) granting the motion for summary determination. 	See ID and RD.
The ALJ also recommended the issuance of a GEO, issuance of CDOs against only the five
domestic Defaulting Respondents (i.e., ABK, Aurora, Maxwell Flooring, Mr. Hardwood, and
Sam Houston), and imposition of a bond of $0.08 per square foot of LVT and components
thereof imported during the period of Presidential review. 	RD at 248-67.
On June 30, 2020, the Commission determined to review the ID in part. 	85 Fed. Reg.
40683 (July 7, 2020). 	On review, the Commission affirmed the finding of violation of
section 337 as to Defaulting Respondents. 	Id. 	The Commission, however, determined to
review and, on review, to take no position on the ID’s findings regarding the economic prong of
the domestic industry requirement under subsection 337(a)(3)(B) with respect to the ’460 patent.
Id. 	The Commission further determined to review the ID’s findings regarding a domestic
industry “in the process of being established” with respect to the ’490 and ’655 patents, and on
review, to clarify that its determination to affirm these domestic industry findings does not imply
1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Complainants’ Motion for Summary Determination
That Defaulting Respondents Have Violated Section 337 and For a Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bonding (Jan. 15, 2020) (“MSD”); Supplement to Complainants’
Motion for Summary Determination (Jan. 23, 2020); Supplement to Complainants’ Motion for
Summary Determination (Feb. 11, 2020); Second Supplement to Complainants’ Motion for
Summary Determination (Feb. 19, 2020).

PUBLIC VERSION
4
that the investments already made with respect to the ’490 and ’655 patents are not significant or
could not be used to show that a domestic industry exists under section 337(a)(3). 	Id. 	The
Commission further determined to review the ID’s infringement findings as to two products of
non-parties, i.e., the Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products. 	Id. 	The Notice also requested
written submissions on remedy, public interest, and bonding. 	See id.
On July 15, 2020, Complainants and OUII submitted briefs on remedy, public interest,
and bonding requesting that the Commission issue a GEO, issue CDOs against only the five
domestic Defaulting Respondents, and set a bond of $0.08 per square foot of infringing LVT and
components thereof imported during the period of Presidential review.2 	On July 22, 2020, OUII
submitted a reply to Complainants’ response.3 	No other submissions were received.
II. 	STANDARD ON REVIEW
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 of the
administrative law judge.” 	19 C.F.R. § 210.45(c). 	The Commission also “may take no position
on specific issues or portions of the initial determination,” and “may make any finding or
conclusions that in its judgment are proper based on the record in the proceeding.” 	Id.
2 Complainants’ Response to the Commission’s Notice and Submission on Remedy, the
Public Interest, and Bonding (July 15, 2020) (“Comp. Rmdy”); Written Submission of the Office
of Unfair Import Investigations on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (July 15, 2020)
(“OUII Rmdy”).
3 Reply Submission of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations to Complainants’
Response to the Commission’s Notice and Submission on Remedy, the Public Interest, and
Bonding (July 22, 2020) (“OUII Rmdy Reply”).

PUBLIC VERSION
5
III. 	ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS AS TO NON-RESPONDENTS
The Commission determined to review the ID’s findings with respect to the non-
respondents’ Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products. 	85 Fed. Reg. 40683 (July 7, 2020); see
also ID at 12-3, 18-9, 34-7, 103-118, 149-185. 	As discussed below, to avoid confusion and
possible prejudice to non-respondents in future proceedings, the Commission vacates certain
findings in the ID that may be read as adjudicating infringement by the non-respondents.
1. 	ID’s Findings Regarding Non-Respondents’ Quickstyle and Uniflor
Aqua Products
The ID states, “[i]n connection with complainants’ request for a general exclusion order,
complainants assert that two additional products from non-respondents – the Quickstyle and
Uniflor Aqua products – infringe the asserted patents.” 	Id. at 12-3 (in section titled, “1. The
Accused Products”). 	The ID further states,
The administrative law judge recognizes that non-respondent Quickstyle and Uniflor
Aqua products are not accused products in the ordinary sense. 	Nonetheless, hereinafter,
non-respondent Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products will be referred to as accused
products for ease of reference.
Id. at 13.
The ID analyzes whether the Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products were imported into
the United States in the same “Importation” section which analyzes Defaulting Respondents’
accused products. 	Id. at 18-9, 34-7. 	The ID finds, “the evidence shows that the Quickstyle and
Uniflor Aqua products have been imported into the United States.” 	Id. at 37.
In two sections, “Infringement Analysis of the ’490 patent” and “Infringement Analysis
of the ’655 Patent,” the ID analyzes whether the Quickstyle product infringes claim 1 of
the ’490 patent and whether the Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products infringe claim 1 of
the ’655 patent. 	Id. at 103, 149-150. 	The ID includes these two products from non-
respondents in the list of “accused products” for each patent and provides “an element by

PUBLIC VERSION
6
element infringement analysis for each of the products accused of infringing the [’490 and ’655
patents].” 	Id. at 103-118, 149-185. 	In the “Conclusions of Law,” the ID states, “[t]he accused
products infringe the asserted claims of [the Asserted Patents].” 	Id. at 267.
2. 	Analysis
In order to eliminate any risk of confusion or possible prejudice to non-parties, the
Commission has determined to vacate the findings under review to the extent the ID adjudicates
infringement as to non-parties.
In other investigations involving consideration of non-respondents’ products in the
context of whether issuance of a GEO is appropriate, the analysis has been more clearly limited
to whether there was a pattern of violation. 	For example, in Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors
and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same (“Coaxial Cable Connectors”), the RD
restricts findings for non-respondents’ products “for purposes of demonstrating a pattern of
violation only” and presents such findings in the remedy section of the RD, not in the
infringement section of the ID. 	See Inv. No. 337-TA-650, Initial Determination (October 13,
2009)4; compare Coaxial Cable Connectors, ID at 49-85 (infringement) to RD at 121, 125-26
(remedy). 	Specifically, in that investigation, the presiding ALJ found “that, for purposes of
demonstrating a pattern of violation only, PPC has produced sufficient evidence to show that the
4 The complainant in Coaxial Cable Connectors identified non-respondents that
allegedly infringed in order to support its assertion of a widespread pattern of infringement. 	ID
at 14, 17, 121; Coaxial Cable Connectors, Complainant’s Post-Hearing Brief at 15, 26-7. 	For
example, the complainant provided “Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
evidence cited [in its post-hearing brief], [and] at the hearing, [the complainant’s expert] testified
and provided undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative proof that each and every element
of [the asserted claims] were found in a total of fourteen infringing products from these non-
respondents.” 	Id. at 26. 	This evidence is similar to Complainants’ evidence regarding the non-
respondents’ Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products in the present investigation. 	MSD at 86-98,
105-136, 225, 247-48.

PUBLIC VERSION
7
imported [non-respondent’s product] meets the elements of [the asserted claims] and would
likely violate Section 337.” 	Coaxial Cable Connectors, RD at 133. 	That RD further states that,
“[w]hile not every product of non-respondents appears to infringe the ’257 patent, taken
together, the Administrative Law Judge finds that there is sufficient evidence . . . to establish a
pattern of violation with respect to the ’257 patent.” 	Id. at 140. 	The Commission determined
to issue a GEO for one patent and specifically noted, “[t]he ALJ credited PPC’s evidence of
‘certain non-respondents selling for importation, importing, or selling after importation coaxial
cable connectors alleged to infringe claims 1 and 2 of the ’194 patent.’” 	Coaxial Cable
Connectors, Comm’n Op. at 58 (March 31, 2010). 	The Commission’s use of the term “alleged”
further demonstrates that neither the ALJ nor the Commission found that non-respondents
infringed the claims of the asserted patent. 	Id.
Similarly, in Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefore, and
Kits Containing Same, the ALJ did not analyze whether the non-respondents infringed the
asserted patents but instead made note of the complainant’s evidence of non-ITC proceedings5
against alleged, non-respondent infringers. 	See Inv. No. 337-TA-959 (“Electric Skin Care
Devices”), Order No. 42 at 52 (Apr. 11, 2016). 	Further, the RD in that investigation analyzes
the allegations as to the non-respondents in the RD’s “Remedy & Bonding” section and not in
the ID’s “Infringement” section. 	Compare Electric Skin Care Devices, ID at 34-46 to RD at 46-
52. 	The Commission found in its Remedy analysis that “[u]ndisputed record evidence shows a
widespread pattern of infringement by both respondents and non-respondents” and specifically
noted the terminated respondents and non-ITC proceedings. 	Electric Skin Care Devices,
5 The non-ITC proceedings included U.S. district court litigations and enforcement
proceedings in China and Great Britain, where foreign counterparts of the asserted patents were
at issue. 	Inv. No. 337-TA-959, Order No. 42 at 52.

PUBLIC VERSION
8
Comm’n Op. at 17-8 (Feb. 6, 2017).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined to vacate certain findings in the ID to the
extent that they may be read to adjudicate infringement with respect to the non-respondents.6
This includes the ID’s analysis to the extent it: 	(1) assesses the non-respondents’ products in the
ID’s “Importation” and “Infringement” sections rather than the more appropriate RD’s
“Remedy” section; (2) uses the term “accused products” with respect to the non-respondents’
products; and (3) does not include language limiting the findings as to the non-respondents’
products “for purposes of demonstrating a pattern of violation only.”
IV. 	REMEDY, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING
A. 	Remedy
The Commission has “broad discretion in selecting the form, scope, and extent of the
remedy.” 	Viscofan, S.A. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 787 F.2d 544, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
1. 	General Exclusion Order
Section 337(d)(2) provides that “[t]he authority of the Commission to order an exclusion
from entry of articles shall be limited to persons determined by the Commission to be violating
this section unless the Commission determines that— (A) a general exclusion from entry of
articles is necessary to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named
6 Infringement findings made against non-parties are not preclusive as to the non-parties
in future proceedings. 	The Commission can issue a GEO that prohibits entry of articles that
infringe the relevant claims of the Asserted Patents without regard to whether the persons
importing such articles were parties to, or were related to parties to, the investigation that led to
issuance of the GEO. 	The Commission’s findings concerning infringement are final and
conclusive, unless appealed to the Federal Circuit, only as to parties who have had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issues before the Commission. 	See Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong)
Wood Indus. Co. v. United States, 535 F.3d 1322, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Comair
Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan Corp., 49 F.3d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1995)); see also Hyundai
Elecs. Indus. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.2d 1204, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

PUBLIC VERSION
9
persons; or (B) there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to identify the
source of infringing products.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)7; see also 19 C.F.R. § 210.50(c).
a. 	A GEO is Necessary to Prevent Circumvention of an LEO
The Commission finds that a GEO is an appropriate remedy and is needed to prevent
circumvention of an LEO.
The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Defaulting Respondents have altered their
corporate structures, changed their names or addresses, created new entities, or operated under
multiple names. 	RD at 255-57; see also Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters & Prods.
Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-739, Comm’n Op. at 88-9 (June 8, 2012) (a GEO was
appropriate based on evidence that named respondents would likely circumvent an LEO by
changing their corporate identity); Certain Cases for Portable Elec. Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-
867, Comm’n Op. at 9 (June 20, 2014) (a GEO was appropriate where there was evidence of
“companies operating under fake names and fake addresses”).
The Commission finds that Defaulting Respondents’ use of generic and non-descript
packaging, which omits the manufacturer’s names or the country of origin, increases the risk of
circumvention of an LEO. 	RD at 257. 	There is a further risk of circumvention because
Defaulting Respondents do not always sell the accused products under their own names. 	Id.
The evidence also shows that Defaulting Respondents have sold the accused products
online on various websites. 	Id. at 257-58. 	In addition to Defaulting Respondents’ online sales,
it is common practice to sell LVT on online platforms, such as Alibaba.com and eBay.com. 	Id.
7 Although 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2) applies to the consideration of whether to issue a
GEO in certain default cases, “this provision applies only when no respondent appears to contest
the investigation. 	In this case, since several respondents did appear and were later terminated
based on consent orders or settlement agreements, section 337(g)(2) does not apply.” 	Certain
Handbags, Luggage, Accessories, and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-754, Comm’n Op.
at 5 n.3 (June 13, 2012).

PUBLIC VERSION
10
at 258. 	For example, a search of “LVT Click” on Alibaba.com results in around 18,000 results.
Id. 	A similar search on eBay.com for “LVT Click” in the “Vinyl Flooring” product category for
items in “new” condition results in over 400 results. 	Id.
The Commission agrees with the RD’s conclusion that GEOs have issued in factual
circumstances that are similar to this investigation. 	Id. at 258-59 (citing Certain Toner
Cartridges, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-918 (“Certain Toner Cartridges”),
Comm’n Op. at 6 (Oct. 1, 2015) (finding a GEO appropriate under subsection (A) based on
practices including “(i) replication of operations; (ii) sourcing imported accused products from
domestic suppliers outside the reach of an LEO; (iii) facilitating circumvention through Internet
operations; (iv) masking of identities and product sources; and (v) use of unmarked, generic,
and/or reseller-branded packaging”); Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv.
No. 337-TA-829, Comm’n Op. at 6-7 (July 29, 2013) (GEO issued under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(d)(2)(A) to prevent likely circumvention because respondents “do business under
multiple names, and create an array of subsidiaries and changing corporate profiles” and because
their accused products “are often labeled under other brand names or packaged in unmarked,
generic packaging”); Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-740,
Comm’n Op. at 5 (Oct. 5, 2011) (GEO issued under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(A) because
“respondents do business under multiple names” and “an LEO could be circumvented because
Lexmark-compatible laser toner cartridges are often labeled under other original equipment
manufacturer brand names, making it easier . . . to evade enforcement.”)).
In addition, the Commission finds that there are other practices and industry conditions
that support the issuance of a GEO, including: 	(1) low barriers of entry and ease of replication
of operations; (2) high demand for accused products; (3) practices that maintain anonymity of

PUBLIC VERSION
11
importation, such as exclusion of manufacturers or importers from bills of lading; (4) complex
corporate structures and expansive supply chains; and (5) minimum order sizes and use of third
parties to import and source the products. 	Id. at 259-60.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the conditions for obtaining a GEO under
section 337(d)(2)(A) are satisfied because the evidence demonstrates that the named respondents
have been shown to use multiple ways that would circumvent an LEO.
b. 	There is a Pattern of Violation of Section 337 with Respect to the
Asserted Patents
The Commission also finds there is a widespread pattern of violation with respect to the
Asserted Patents. 	RD at 260-63; 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B). 	The RD notes that it found
Defaulting Respondents infringe the ’460 and ’655 patents with respect to at least five products,
and that these Defaulting Respondents also infringe the ’490 patent. 	Id. at 260-61. 	In addition,
the terminated respondents infringe the Asserted Patents. 	Id. (citing Certain Toner Cartridges,
Comm’n Op. at 9-10 (Oct. 1, 2015) (“in determining whether a GEO is warranted, the
Commission looks not only to the activities of active respondents, but also to those of
respondents that have been terminated from an investigation as well as non-respondents”)).
Moreover, Complainants have alleged that the Quickstyle product infringes claim 1 of the ’490
patent and that the Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products infringe claim 1 of the ’655 patent.
See id. 	For purposes of assessing whether there is a widespread pattern of violation only,
Complainants have produced sufficient evidence to show that the non-respondents’ Quickstyle
and Uniflor Aqua products meet the limitations of the Asserted Patents. 	See ID at 105-118
(claim 1 of the ’490 patent), 153-185 (claim 1 of the ’655 patent); MSD at 86-98, 105-136, 225,
247-48. 	The Commission finds that Complainants’ evidence supports the conclusion that there
is a widespread pattern of violation as to the Asserted Patents. 	See Coaxial Cable Connectors,

PUBLIC VERSION
12
Comm’n Op. at 58 (March 31, 2010); Electric Skin Care Devices, Comm’n Op. at 17-8 (Feb. 6,
2017). 	There are also a large number of entities involved in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of infringing products. 	RD at 261.
c. 	Sources of the Infringing Product are Difficult to Identify
The Commission further finds it is difficult to identify sources of the infringing LVT
products. 	As noted above, Defaulting Respondents: 	(1) have altered their corporate structures,
changed their names or addresses, created new entities, and/or operated under multiple names;
(2) use generic and non-descript packaging that omits their names and makes the manufacturers
difficult to identify; (3) sell the accused products using names other than their own; and (4) omit
the name of manufacturers and other relevant entities from the bill of lading. 	Id. at 255-57, 262.
Furthermore, as previously noted, LVT products are also sold extensively online via third-party
retail websites, such as Alibaba.com and eBay.com. 	Id. at 257-58.
Accordingly, based on the record before it, the Commission has determined that a GEO
barring entry of infringing articles is necessary to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order
limited to Defaulting Respondents. 	There is also a pattern of violation of section 337, and the
sources of the infringing products are difficult to identify. 	Thus, the conditions of both sections
337(d)(2)(A) and (B) are satisfied.
B. 	Cease and Desist Orders
Section 337(f)(1) provides that in addition to, or in lieu of, the issuance of an exclusion
order, the Commission may issue a cease and desist order (“CDO”) as a remedy for violation of
section 337. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(1).8 	CDOs are generally issued when, with respect to the
8 Complainants request for CDOs against the domestic Defaulting Respondents is
analyzed under section 337(f)(1) and not section 337(g)(1). 	Section 337(f)(1) provides that in
addition to, or in lieu of, the issuance of an exclusion order under subsections (d) or (e), the

PUBLIC VERSION
13
imported infringing products, respondents maintain commercially significant inventories in the
United States or have significant domestic operations that could undercut the remedy provided
by an exclusion order.9 	See, e.g., Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation
Technology & Components Thereof (“Table Saws”), Inv. No. 337-TA-965, Comm’n Op. at 4-6
(Feb. 1, 2017); Certain Protective Cases & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-780, USITC
Pub. No. 4405, Comm’n Op. at 28 (Nov. 19, 2012) (citing Certain Laser Bar Code Scanners &
Scan Engines, Components Thereof & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-551, Comm’n
Op. at 22 (June 24, 2007)). 	Complainants bear the burden on this issue. 	“A complainant
seeking a cease and desist order must demonstrate, based on the record, that this remedy is
Commission may issue a cease and desist order as a remedy for violation of section 337.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(1); see Certain Pocket Lighters, Inv. No. 337-TA-1142, Comm’n Op. at 16-
17 (July 13, 2020). 	As discussed earlier, Complainants’ request for a general exclusion from
entry of articles is analyzed under section 337(d), not (g)(1).
9 In Commissioner Schmidtlein’s view, Complainants’ request for CDOs against the
domestic Defaulting Respondents is governed by section 337(g)(1), rather than section
337(f)(1). 	Specifically, none of the domestic Defaulting Respondents responded to the
complaint or otherwise appeared in the investigation, and the other conditions of subsections (A)
through (E) of section 337(g)(1) are met with respect to the requested CDOs. 	See Order No. 32
(finding domestic Defaulting Respondents in default for failing to respond to the complaint, the
notice of investigation, and the show cause orders thereby satisfying subsections 337(g)(1)(A)-
(D)), unreviewed, Comm’n Notice (Nov. 22, 2019); Comp. Remedy Br. at 26 (requesting CDOs
limited to each of the domestic Defaulting Respondents satisfying subsection 337(g)(1)(E)). 	In
prior investigations, Commissioner Schmidtlein has explained her view that absent public
interest considerations to the contrary the “shall, upon request, issue” language in section
337(g)(1) does not grant the Commission discretion to decline to issue a requested CDO when
the conditions of subsections (A) through (E) are satisfied. 	See Certain Industrial Automation
Systems and Components Thereof Including Control Systems, Controllers, Visualization
Hardware, Motion and Motor Control Systems, Networking Equipment, Safety Devices, and
Power Supplies, Inv. No. 337-TA-1074, Comm’n Op., Dissenting Views of Commissioner
Schmidtlein (Apr. 23, 2019); Certain Water Filters and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-
1126, Comm’n Op. at 10, n.1 (Nov. 12, 2019). 	Consistent with that view, Commissioner
Schmidtlein finds that the Commission is required to issue the requested CDOs against the
domestic Defaulting Respondents, regardless of whether any inventories of infringing articles are
maintained by the domestic Defaulting Respondents in the United States.

PUBLIC VERSION
14
necessary to address the violation found in the investigation so as to not undercut the relief
provided by the exclusion order.” 	Table Saws, Comm’n Op. at 5 (citing Certain Integrated
Repeaters, Switches, Transceivers, & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-435, USITC
Pub. No. 3547 (Oct. 2002), Comm’n Op. at 27 (Aug. 16, 2002); see also H.R. REP. No. 100-40,
at 160 (1987)).
Complainants seek CDOs against only the five domestic Defaulting Respondents.
Comp. Rmdy at 26.10 	The Commission has consistently inferred the presence of commercially
significant inventories in the United States for domestic defaulting respondents and granted a
complainant’s request for relief in the form of a CDO toward domestic defaulting respondents.
See Certain Hand Dryers and Housing for Hand Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015, Comm’n Op. at
24 (Oct. 30, 2017) (citing Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers,
and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-486, Comm’n Op. at l7-8 (July 14, 2003)); Certain
Mobile Device Holders and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1028, Comm’n Op. at 24
(Mar. 22, 2018). 	In this investigation, it is undisputed that Defaulting Respondents ABK,
Aurora, Maxwell Flooring, Mr. Hardwood, and Sam Houston are domestic entities such that the
Commission infers commercially significant U.S. inventories. 	Id.; see also RD at 264-65.
There is also undisputed circumstantial evidence that the domestic Defaulting
Respondents maintain commercially significant inventories in the United States and engage in
sales activity directed at the United States. 	Comp. Rmdy at 28-32. 	For example, Complainants
presented evidence that domestic Defaulting Respondents maintain domestic storefronts. 	Id.
10 In its notice of review, the Commission requested Complainants to explain, to the
extent Complainants are seeking a CDO against foreign respondent Runchang, whether the
requirements of section 337(g)(1)(A)-(E) are satisfied with respect to Runchang. 	85 Fed. Reg.
40683 (July 7, 2020). 	Complainants responded that they are not seeking a CDO against
Runchang. 	Comp. Rmdy at 26.

PUBLIC VERSION
15
Further, Complainants purchased samples of infringing products from domestic storefronts
operated by Maxwell Flooring, which is associated with ABK and Sam Houston, and by Mr.
Hardwood, which is associated with Aurora. 	Id. at 31-2. 	Further, the RD finds that ABK is
believed to be associated with or using the name Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC. 	RD at 8.
The RD also finds that Aurora and Mr. Hardwood have domestic places of business in Georgia.
Id. at 8, 11.
The Commission finds that the record evidence demonstrates that domestic Defaulting
Respondents maintain commercially significant inventories and engage in business activities in
the United States. 	Accordingly, the Commission has determined to issue CDOs against
respondents ABK, Aurora, Maxwell Flooring, Mr. Hardwood, and Sam Houston.11
11 Commissioner Karpel concurs with the majority that CDOs directed to defaulting
respondents ABK, Aurora, Maxwell Flooring, Mr. Hardwood, and Sam Houston should be
issued but bases her decision on grounds that differ from the majority view. 	For the reasons
noted in Certain Powered Cover Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-1124, Comm’n Op. at 22-23 n.20
(June 11, 2020), Certain Pocket Lighters, Inv. No. 337-TA-1142, Comm’n Op. at 19-20 n.15
(July 13, 2020), and Certain Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-936 (remand), Comm’n Op. at 120-21
n.66 (Sept. 9, 2020), Commissioner Karpel does not consider the Commission’s determination to
issue a GEO under section 337(d)(2) to direct that the requested CDOs with respect to the five
domestic defaulting respondents be considered under section 337(f)(1). 	Rather, she considers
section 337(g)(1) is the appropriate authority for the issuance of CDOs as to the defaulting
respondents because the criteria for issuance of CDOs under subsection 337(g)(1)(A)-(E) are met
as to these respondents. 	Each of these respondents was named in the complaint and each was
served with the complaint and notice of investigation. 	See Order No. 32 (Oct. 30, 2019)
(finding ABK, Aurora, Maxwell Flooring, Mr. Hardwood, and Sam Houston in default for
failing to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation), unreviewed by Notice (Nov. 22,
2019). 	The ALJ issued show cause orders ordering these respondents to show cause why they
should not be held in default for failing to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation.
See id. 	None of these respondents filed responses to the show cause orders. 	Id. 	These
findings satisfy subsections 337(g)(1)(A)-(D). 	Complainants requested CDOs limited to each of
these defaulting respondents (Comp. Rmdy at 26), thus satisfying subsection 337(g)(1)(E).
Given that subsections 337(g)(1)(A)-(E) are satisfied and Complainants requested CDOs directed
to these respondents, the statute directs the Commission to issue the requested CDOs, subject to
consideration of the public interest. 	The public interest factors as detailed in Part IV(C) infra do
not support a finding that the remedial orders in this investigation would be contrary to the public

PUBLIC VERSION
16
C. 	Public Interest
Section 337 requires the Commission, upon finding a violation of section 337, to issue an
exclusion order “unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and
welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles
should not be excluded from entry.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(l). 	Similarly, the Commission must
consider these public interest factors before issuing a CDO. 	19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(1). 	The
statute requires the Commission to consider and make findings on the public interest in every
case in which a violation is found. 	19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(l), (f)(l).
Under appropriate facts and circumstances, the Commission may determine that no
remedy should issue because of the adverse impacts on the public interest. 	See, e.g., Certain
Fluidized Supporting Apparatus & Components Thereof, Inv. Nos. 337-TA-182/188, USITC
Pub. 1667, Comm’n Op. at 1–2, 23–25 (Oct. 1984) (finding that the public interest warranted
denying complainant’s requested relief). 	Moreover, when the circumstances of a particular
investigation require, the Commission has tailored its relief in light of the statutory public
interest factors. 	For example, the Commission has allowed continued importation for ongoing
medical research, exempted service parts, grandfathered certain infringing products, and delayed
the imposition of remedies to allow affected third party consumers to transition to non-infringing
products. 	E.g., Certain Microfluidic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1068 Comm’n Op. at 1, 22–48,
53–54 (analyzing the public interest, discussing applicable precedent, and ultimately issuing a
tailored LEO and a tailored CDO); Certain Road Milling Machines & Components Thereof, Inv.
No. 337-TA-1067, Comm’n Op. at 32–3 (July 18, 2019) (exempting service parts); Certain
interest. 	Accordingly, Commissioner Karpel would issue CDOs against ABK, Aurora, Maxwell
Flooring, Mr. Hardwood, and Sam Houston under section 337(g)(1).

PUBLIC VERSION
17
Baseband Processor Chips & Chipsets, Transmitter, & Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control
Chips, & Prods. Containing Same, Including Cellular Tel. Handsets, 337-TA-543, USITC Pub.
No. 4258, Comm’n Op. at 150–51 (Oct. 2011) (grandfathering certain products); Certain
Personal Data & Mobile Comm’n Devices & Related Software, 337-TA-710, USITC Pub. No.
4331, Comm’n Op., at 72–73, 80–81 (June 2012) (delaying imposition of remedy).
The record in this investigation contains no evidence that a GEO or CDOs would
adversely affect the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the
production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. 	See
19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(d)(l), (f)(1). 	In their submissions in response to the Commission notice of
June 30, 2020, both Complainants and OUII contend that the statutory public interest factors do
not warrant denying a remedy. 	Comp. Rmdy at 34-7; OUII Rmdy at 18-20; OUII Rmdy Reply
at 5. 	In addition to requesting submissions from the parties, the Commission requested
submissions from interested government agencies and any other interested persons with respect
to the public interest. 	See 85 Fed. Reg. 40683 (July 7, 2020). 	No third party filed a submission
in response to the Commission’s notice.
The LVT products at issue are used for flooring and there is no evidence that they are
necessary to fulfill any public health, safety, or welfare needs. 	Comp. Rmdy at 35; OUII Rmdy
at 19. 	In addition, the record shows that Complainants have sufficient capacity to readily
replace the infringing products at issue if they are excluded. 	See Comp. Rmdy at 34-7; see also
OUII Rmdy at 18-20; OUII Rmdy Reply at 5. 	Complainants manufacture many other types of
LVT that could fill any gap created by the exclusion of the accused products, and there are a
number of licensees that can provide LVT not implicated by the requested GEO or CDOs. 	Id.

PUBLIC VERSION
18
Accordingly, the Commission finds that the statutory public interest factors do not
preclude issuance of a GEO or the CDOs.
D. 	Bonding
When the Commission enters an exclusion order or a cease and desist order, a respondent
may continue to import and sell its products during the 60-day period of Presidential review
under a bond in an amount determined by the Commission to be “sufficient to protect the
complainant from any injury.” 	19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(3); see also 19 C.F.R. § 210.50(a)(3).
When reliable price information is available in the record, the Commission has often set the bond
in an amount that would eliminate the price differential between the domestic product and the
imported, infringing product. 	See Certain Microsphere Adhesives, Processes for Making Same,
& Prods. Containing Same, Including Self-stick Repositionable Notes, Inv. No. 337-TA-366,
USITC Pub. No. 2949, Comm’n Op. at 24 (Jan. 16, 1996). 	The Commission also has used a
reasonable royalty rate to set the bond amount where a reasonable royalty rate could be
ascertained from the evidence in the record. 	See, e.g., Certain Audio Digital-to-Analog
Converters & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-499, Comm’n Op. at 25 (Mar. 3, 2005).
Where the record establishes that the calculation of a price differential is impractical or there is
insufficient evidence in the record to determine a reasonable royalty, the Commission has
imposed a 100 percent bond. 	See, e.g., Certain Liquid Crystal Display Modules, Prods.
Containing Same, & Methods Using the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-634, Comm’n Op. at 6-7 (Nov.
24, 2009). 	The complainant, however, bears the burden of establishing the need for a bond.
Certain Rubber Antidegradants, Components Thereof & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-
TA-533, USITC Pub. No. 3975, Comm’n Op. at 40 (July 21, 2006).
Here, the ALJ, Complainants, and OUII all recommend a bond in the amount of $0.08

PUBLIC VERSION
19
per square foot of infringing LVT. 	RD at 265-67; Comp. Rmdy at 33-4; OUII Rmdy at 20-1;
OUII Rmdy Reply at 5-6. 	For the following reasons, the Commission agrees that a bond in the
amount of $0.08 per square foot of infringing LVT is appropriate.
Defaulting Respondents did not provide discovery in this investigation. 	Thus, there is a
lack of reliable pricing information. 	However, 	provided
___ 	licenses to the Asserted Patents, which can be used to determine the appropriate bond. 	RD
at 266-67 	Specifically, there are 	license agreements for products covered by the Asserted
Patents 	. 	Id. (citing
MSD, Ex. F (Prowse Decl.) ¶ 61). 	Further, Complainants identified over 	additional licenses
to patent portfolios covering LVT flooring, 20 of which included the Asserted Patents,
______________________________________________________ . 	Id. (citing MSD, Ex. F
(Prowse Decl.) ¶¶ 64–65; MSD, Exs. F-94 to F-129).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined to set the bond in the amount of $0.08 per
square foot of infringing LVT imported during the period of Presidential review.
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Commission determines that Complainants have
established a violation of section 337 by Defaulting Respondents with respect to claims 7, 8, 13,
15-7, 20-3, and 30 of the ’460 patent; claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-6, and 18 of the ’490 Patent; and
claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-6 of the ’655 Patent. 	Accordingly, the investigation is terminated
with a finding of violation of section 337. 	The Commission determines that the appropriate
remedy is a GEO that excludes from entry for consumption into the United States LVT and
components thereof that infringe one or more of the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents.
The Commission has also determined to issue CDOs directed to domestic Defaulting
Respondents: 	ABK; Aurora; Maxwell Flooring; Mr. Hardwood; and Sam Houston. 	The

PUBLIC VERSION
20
Commission has determined that the public interest does not preclude issuance of these remedial
orders. 	Finally, the Commission has determined to set the bond during the period of
Presidential review in the amount of $0.08 per square foot of infringing LVT and components
thereof imported.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: 	October 5, 2020

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached COMMISSION OPINION has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on October 5, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
ABK Trading Corp.
925 S. Mason Road, Suite 168
Katy, TX 77450
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Aurora Flooring LLC
1920 Shiloh Road NW, Bldg. 5
Kennesaw, GA 30144
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Changzhou Jinuo Decorative Material Co., Ltd.
No. 4 Cuili Road
Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 2
Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
No. 5-1001 Changfa Commercial Plaza
Xinbei, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
No. 27 CuiRong Road, Shuangrong, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd.
Shuang Rong, Henglin
Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd.
10 Ying Bing Road, Cuibei, Henglin
Wujin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103
China
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 216
Houston, TX 77043
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Mr. Hardwood Inc.
4260 Industrial Center Ln NW #100
Acworth, GA 30101
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. 	☐ Via Hand Delivery

CERTAIN LUXURY VINY TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Certificate of Service – Page 3
1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 204
Houston, TX 77043 ☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1155
NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO REVIEW IN PART
AND, ON REVIEW, TO AFFIRM AN INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING
SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION BY DEFAULTING RESPONDENTS;
REQUEST FOR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON REMEDY, THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
AND BONDING
AGENCY: 	U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: 	Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission
(“Commission”) has determined to review in part and, on review, to affirm an initial
determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting summary
determination of violation of section 337 by certain defaulting respondents. The Commission
requests written submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested
persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone (202) 205-3228. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at
https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 2019, the Commission instituted this
investigation based on a complaint filed by Mohawk Industries, Inc. of Calhoun, Georgia;
Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl of Bertrange, Luxembourg; and IVC US Inc. of Dalton, Georgia
(collectively, “Complainants”). 84 FR 22161 (May 16, 2019). The complaint, as supplemented,
alleges a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337
(“section 337”) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale

2
within the United States after importation of certain luxury vinyl tiles by reason of infringement
of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,200,460 (“the ’460 patent”); 10,208,490 (“the
’490 patent”); and 10,233,655 (“the ’655 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). Id. The
complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. The Commission’s notice of
investigation names forty-five respondents, including: ABK Trading Corp. of Katy, Texas
(“ABK”); Aurora Flooring LLC of Kennesaw, Georgia (“Aurora”); Changzhou Runchang Wood
Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Runchang”); Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu,
China (“Go-Higher”); Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd. Jiangsu,
China (“Divine”); Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Lejia”); JiangSu Licheer
Wood Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China (“Licheer”); Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC of Houston,
Texas (“Maxwell Flooring”); Mr. Hardwood Inc. of Acworth, Georgia (“Mr. Hardwood”); and
Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. of Houston, Texas (“Sam Houston”) (collectively, “Defaulting
Respondents”). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also participating in
the investigation. Id.
The Commission previously terminated the investigation as to thirty-five respondents
based on settlement, consent order, or partial withdrawal of the complaint. See Order No. 14
(Sept. 26, 2019), not rev’d, Notice (Oct. 17, 2019); Order Nos. 15-21 (Sept. 27, 2019 for all), not
rev’d, Notice (Oct. 17, 2019); Order Nos. 23-25 (Oct. 2, 2019 for all), not rev’d, Notice (Oct. 23,
2019); Order No. 27 (Oct. 9, 2019), not rev’d, Notice (Nov. 6, 2019); Order No. 26 (Oct. 9,
2019)), not rev’d, Notice (Nov. 8, 2019); Order No. 30 (Oct. 25, 2019), not rev’d, Notice (Nov.
21, 2019); Order No. 34 (Nov. 7, 2019), not rev’d, Notice (Dec. 11, 2019); Order No. 35 (Jan.
24, 2020), not rev’d, Notice (Feb. 25, 2020).
On November 21, 2019, the Commission found respondent Go-Higher in default. See
Order No. 31 (Oct. 25, 2019), not rev’d, Notice (Nov. 21, 2019). On November 22, 2019, the
Commission found an additional eight respondents in default: ABK; Aurora; Divine; Lejia;
Licheer; Maxwell Flooring; Mr. Hardwood; and Sam Houston. See Order No. 32 (Oct. 30,
2019), not rev’d, Notice (Nov. 22, 2019). On November 25, 2019, the Commission found
respondent Runchang in default. See Order No. 33 (Oct. 30, 2019), not rev’d, Notice (Nov. 25,
2019).
On January 15, 2020, Complainants filed a motion for summary determination of
domestic industry and violation of section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents. Complainants
filed supplements to their summary determination motion on January 23, 2020, February 11,
2020, and February 19, 2020.
On February 12, 2020, OUII filed a response to Complainants’ motion. On May 14,
2020, OUII filed a supplemental response.
On May 15, 2020, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 36) granting the motion for
summary determination and finding a violation of section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents.
The ALJ recommended that the Commission issue a GEO and CDOs against the five domestic
respondents: ABK, Aurora, Maxwell Flooring, Mr. Hardwood, and Sam Houston. The ALJ also

3
recommended setting a bond of $0.08 per square foot of luxury vinyl tile product and
components thereof imported during the period of Presidential review. Id. No party petitioned
for review of the subject ID.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, the Commission has determined to
review the subject ID in part, and on review, to affirm the ID’s finding of violation. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to review and, on review, to take no position on the ID’s findings
regarding the economic prong under subsection 337(a)(3)(B) with respect to the ’460 patent. The
Commission has also determined to review the ID’s findings regarding a domestic industry “in the
process of being established” with respect to the ’490 and ’655 patents and affirms those findings
but with the following clarifications: The ID addresses the issue of domestic industry for the
’490 and ’655 patents under the theory of whether the industry is “in the process of being
established” since that is the theory advanced by Complainants. In affirming the ID’s findings,
the Commission does not intend to imply that the investments already made with respect to the
’490 and ’655 patents are not substantial or could not be used to show the existence of a domestic
industry under section 337(a)(3). Further, although the “IVC Foamed Rigid LVT” product
asserted by the Complainants is not yet commercially manufactured, under Commission precedent
there is no requirement that there be a commercial domestic industry product in order to establish
an existing domestic industry. See Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors,
Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same II, Inv. No. 337-TA-1073,
Comm’n Op. at 9 (Aug. 12, 2019) (public version). The Commission has also determined to
review the ID’s findings with respect to the two products from non-parties, the Quickstyle and
Uniflor Aqua products.
The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID, including the
findings that Complainants have satisfied the domestic industry requirement under subsection
337(a)(3)(A) with respect to the ’460 patent. Accordingly, the Commission affirms the ID’s
finding of a violation of section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents’ importation of luxury vinyl
tiles and components thereof that infringe one or more of claims 7-8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of
the ’460 patent, claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18 of the ’490 patent, and claims 1-4, 6-16, 18,
and 20-26 of the ’655 patent.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes
issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that could result in the exclusion of the subject
articles from entry into the United States and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result in
the respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation
and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written
submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks
exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities
involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background,
see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7-10 (Dec. 1994). In addition, if a party seeks issuance
of any cease and desist orders, the written submissions should address that request in the context

4
of recent Commission opinions, including those in Certain Arrowheads with Deploying Blades
and Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-977, Comm’n Op. (Apr. 28,
2017) and Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits
Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-959, Comm’n Op. (Feb. 13, 2017). Specifically, if
Complainants seek a cease and desist order against a respondent, the written submissions should
respond to the following requests:
1. 	Please identify with citations to the record any information regarding
commercially significant inventory in the United States as to each respondent
against whom a cease and desist order is sought. If Complainants also rely on
other significant domestic operations that could undercut the remedy provided by
an exclusion order, please identify with citations to the record such information as
to each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought.
2. 	In relation to the infringing products, please identify any information in
the record, including allegations in the pleadings, that addresses the existence of
any domestic inventory, any domestic operations, or any sales-related activity
directed at the United States for each respondent against whom a cease and desist
order is sought.
3. 	Please discuss any other basis upon which the Commission could enter a
cease and desist order.
4. 	To the extent Complainants seek a cease and desist order against defaulting
respondent Runchang, please address whether the requirements of section
337(g)(1)(A)-(E) are satisfied with respect to Runchang.
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that remedy upon the
public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that
an exclusion order would have on: (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions
in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with
those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore
interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest
factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as
delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the
Commission’s determination. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251
(July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United
States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary
of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the
amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.

5
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and
any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy,
the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding.
In their initial submission, Complainants are also requested to identify the remedy sought
and Complainants and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission’s consideration. Complainants are further requested to state the dates that the
Asserted Patents expire, the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused products are
imported, and to supply the identification information for all known importers of the products at
issue in this investigation. The initial written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be
filed no later than close of business on July 15, 2020. Reply submissions must be filed no later
than the close of business on July 22, 2020. No further submissions on these issues will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or
before the deadlines stated above. The Commission’s paper filing requirements in 19 CFR
210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the
investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1155) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the
first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions
regarding filing should contact the Secretary, (202) 205-2000.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission
and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission
is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the
document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information,
including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is
properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be
disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel
(a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal
investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and
operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government
employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will
sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection on EDIS.

6
The Commission vote for this determination took place on June 30, 2020.
The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: 	June 30, 2020

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served via EDIS
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the following parties as
indicated, on June 30, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download

PUBLIC VERSION
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
In the Matter of
CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
Order No. 36
INITIAL DETERMINATION
Granting Complainants’ Motion for Summary Determination of
Violation by the Defaulting Respondents
And
RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION
On Remedy and Bonding

PUBLIC VERSION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. 	Background ……………………………………………………………….…. 	1
A. 	Institution of the Investigation; Procedural History …………..……... 	1
B. 	The Parties ………………………….……………….….…………….. 	7
C. 	The Products at Issue …………………………………………….…. 	11
D. 	Technological Background ………………………………………….. 	14
II. 	Jurisdiction …………………………….………………………………….….. 	17
III. 	Importation …………………………….………………………………….….. 	18
IV. 	General Principles of Applicable Law …..………………………………..…. 	37
V. 	United States Patent No. 9,200,460 …………………….……………...….….. 	43
VI. 	United States Patent No. 10,208,490 …………………….……………...….… 	98
VII. 	United States Patent No. 10,233,655 …………………….……………...….… 	140
VIII. 	Domestic Industry (Economic Prong) ………..……………………….………. 	228
IX. 	Remedy and Bonding ………………………………………………….……… 	248
X. 	Conclusions of Law ………………………………………………….……….. 	267
XI. 	Initial Determination and Order ……………………………………..……….. 	267

PUBLIC VERSION
ii
The following abbreviations may be used in this Initial Determination:
EDIS 	- 	Electronic Document Imaging System

PUBLIC VERSION
I. 	Background
A. 	Institution of the Investigation; Procedural History
By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on May 16, 2019, pursuant to
subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Commission
instituted this investigation to determine:
[W]hether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of
section 337 in the importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
after importation of certain products identified in paragraph
(2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 7, 8,
13, 15–17, 20-23, and 30 of the ‘460 patent [U.S. Patent
No. 9,200,460]; claims 1-21 of the ‘490 patent [U.S. Patent
No. 10,208,490]; and claims 1-27 of the ‘655 patent [U.S.
Patent No. 10,233,655], and whether an industry in the
United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of
section 337.
84 Fed. Reg. 22161 (May 16, 2019).
Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1):
[T]he plain language description of the accused products
or category of accused products, which defines the scope
of the investigation, is “interlocking luxury vinyl tile
floor panels and components thereof.”
Id.
The complainants are Mohawk Industries Inc. of Calhoun, Georgia; Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl of Bertrange, Luxembourg; and IVC US Inc. of Dalton, Georgia. The
named respondents are:
1. 	ABK Trading Corp. of Katy, Texas;
2. 	Anhui Hanhua Building Materials Co., Ltd. of Anhui, China;
3. 	Aspecta North America, LLC of Norwalk, Connecticut;

PUBLIC VERSION
2
4. 	Aurora Flooring LLC of Kennesaw, Georgia;
5. 	Benchwick Construction Products Ltd. of Jiangsu, China;
6. 	Changzhou Jinuo Decorative Material Co., Ltd of Jiangsu, China;
7. 	Changzhou Marco Merit International Solutions Co. of Jiangsu,
China;
8. 	Changzhou Runchang Wood Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China;
9. 	Christina & Son Inc. of Temple City, California;
10. Chungstine Inc. d/b/a Expert Hardwood Flooring of Ontario,
Canada;
11. Davati Group LLC of Austin, Texas;
12. DeSoto Sales, Inc. of Canoga Park, California;
13. Global Wood Inc. of Walnut, California;
14. Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China;
15. Golden Tree Import & Export Inc. of Temple City, California;
16. Halstead New England Corp. of Norwalk, Connecticut;
17. Hangzhou Kingdom Import & Export Trading Co. Ltd. of
Hangzhou, China;
18. IN.id Corp. of Diamond Bar, California;
19. JC Int’l Trading, Inc. of City of Industry, California;
20. Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
Jiangsu, China;
21. Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd. of Jiangsu, China;
22. JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu, China;
23. JiangSu TongSheng Decorative Materials Co., Ltd. of Jiangsu,
China;
24. Jkgy Inc. d/b/a Nextar Trading of City of Industry, California;
25. KJ Carpet Wholesale, Inc. of Pomona, California;
26. Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC of Houston, Texas;
27. Metroflor Corp. of Norwalk, Connecticut;

PUBLIC VERSION
3
28. Mountain High Corp. of El Monte, California;
29. Mr. Hardwood Inc. of Acworth, Georgia;
30. National Coverings, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida;
31. Nextar Wholesale of City of Industry, California;
32. Northann Distribution Center Inc. of Sacramento, California;
33. Pentamax Inc. of Compton, California;
34. RBT Industries LLC d/b/a Hardwood Bargains of Austin, Texas;
35. RC Vinyl Inc. of City of Industry, California;
36. Royal Family Inc. of Temple City, California;
37. Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. of Houston, Texas;
38. Zhejiang Changxing Senda Bamboo and Wood Products Co. Ltd.
of Jiangsu, Chin;
39. Zhangjiagang Elegant Home-Tech Co. Ltd of Jiangsu, China;
40. Zhangjiagang Elegant Plastics Co. Ltd. of Jiangsu, China;
41. Zhangjiagang Yihua Plastics Co., Ltd of Jiangsu, China;
42. Zhangjiagang Yihua Rundong New Material Co. Ltd of Jiangsu,
China;
43. Zhejiang Kimay Building Material Technology Co., Ltd. of
Zhejiang, China;
44. Zhejiang Kingdom Flooring Plastic Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang, China;
and
45. Zhejiang Walrus New Material Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang, China.1
1 Hereinafter, the 45 named respondents will be referenced using the following: (1) ABK
Trading Corp. (“ABK”); (2) Anhui Hanhua Building Materials Co., Ltd. (“Anhui”); (3)
Aspecta North America, LLC (“Aspecta”); (4) Aurora Flooring LLC (“Aurora”); (5)
Benchwick Construction Products Ltd. (“Benchwick”); (6) Changzhou Jinuo Decorative
Material Co., Ltd. (“Jinuo”); (7) Changzhou Marco Merit International Solutions Co.
(“Marco Merit”); (8) Changzhou Runchang Wood Co., Ltd. (“Runchang”); (9) Christina
& Son Inc. (“Christina & Son”); (10) Chungstine Inc. d/b/a Expert Hardwood Flooring
(“Chungstine”); (11) Davati Group LLC (“Davati”); (12) DeSoto Sales, Inc. (“DeSoto”);
(13) Global Wood Inc. (“Global Wood”); (14) Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
(“Go-Higher”); (15) Golden Tree Import & Export Inc. (“Golden Tree”); (16) Halstead

PUBLIC VERSION
4
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“Staff”) is a party to this investigation. Id.
The target date for completion of this investigation was set at September 16,
2020, which is sixteen months after institution of the investigation. See Order No. 3
(June 4, 2019). Accordingly, the due date for the initial determination on violation is
May 15, 2020.
* 	* 	*
On October 23, 2019, four of the named respondents (Global Wood; JC Int’l
Trading; National Coverings; and RC Vinyl) were terminated from the investigation
based on consent orders. See Commission Determination Not to Review Order Nos. 23-
25 (Oct. 23, 2019).
During the course of this investigation, the following 28 named respondents were
New England Corp. (“Halstead”); (17) Hangzhou Kingdom Import & Export Trading
Co. Ltd. (“Kingdom”); (18) IN.id Corp. (“IN.id”); (19) JC Int’l Trading, Inc. (“JC Int’l
Trading”); (20) Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd. (“Divine”);
(21) Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd. (“Lejia”); (22) JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd
(“Licheer”); (23) JiangSu TongSheng Decorative Materials Co., Ltd. (“TongSheng”);
(24) Jkgy Inc. d/b/a Nextar Trading (“Jkgy”); (25) KJ Carpet Wholesale, Inc. (“KJ”); (26)
Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC (“Maxwell Flooring”); (27) Metroflor Corp.
(“Metroflor”); (28) Mountain High Corp. (“Mountain High”); (29) Mr. Hardwood Inc.
(“Mr. Hardwood”); (30) National Coverings, LLC (“National Coverings”); (31) Nextar
Wholesale (“Nextar”); (32) Northann Distribution Center Inc. (“Northann”); (33)
Pentamax Inc. (“Pentamax”); (34) RBT Industries LLC d/b/a Hardwood Bargains
(“RBT”); (35) RC Vinyl Inc. (“RC Vinyl”); (36) Royal Family Inc. (“Royal Family”);
(37) Sam Houston Hardwood Inc. (“Sam Houston”); (38) Zhejiang Changxing Senda
Bamboo and Wood Products Co. Ltd. (“Senda”); (39) Zhangjiagang Elegant Home-Tech
Co. Ltd. (“Elegant Home-Tech”); (40) Zhangjiagang Elegant Plastics Co. Ltd. (“Elegant
Plastics”); (41) Zhangjiagang Yihua Plastics Co., Ltd. (“Yihua Plastics”); (42)
Zhangjiagang Yihua Rundong New Material Co. Ltd. (“Rundong”); (43) Zhejiang Kimay
Building Material Technology Co., Ltd. (“Kimay”); (44) Zhejiang Kingdom Flooring
Plastic Co., Ltd. (“Kingdom”); and (45) Zhejiang Walrus New Material Co., Ltd.
(“Walrus”).

PUBLIC VERSION
5
terminated from the investigation based upon settlement agreements: (1) Anhui; (2)
Aspecta; (3) Benchwick; (4) Jinuo; (5) Marco Merit; (6) Christina & Son; (7)
Chungstine; (8) Davati; (9) DeSoto; (10) Golden Tree; (11) Halstead; (12) Kingdom; (13)
IN.id; (14) TongSheng; (15) Jkgy; (16) KJ; (17) Metroflor; (18) Mountain High; (19)
Nextar; (20) Northann; (21) Pentamax; (22) RBT; (23) Royal Family; (24) Senda; (25)
Elegant Home-Tech; (26) Rundong; (27) Kingdom; and (28) Walrus. See Commission
Determination Not to Review Order No. 14 (Oct. 17, 2019); Commission Determination
Not to Review Order Nos. 15-21 (Oct. 17, 2019); Commission Determination Not to
Review Order No. 27 (Nov. 6, 2019); Commission Determination Not to Review Order
No. 26 (Nov. 8, 2019); Commission Determination Not to Review Order No. 35 (Feb. 25,
2020).
Three named respondents (Elegant Plastics; Yihua Plastics; and Kimay) were
terminated for good cause because those respondents changed their names and no longer
exist as legal entities. See Comm’n Determination Not to Review Order No. 30 (Nov. 21,
2019).
On November 21, 2019, the Commission determined not to review an initial
determination finding respondent Go-Higher in default pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.16.
See Commission Determination Not to Review Order No. 31 (Nov. 21, 2019).
On November 22, 2019, the Commission determined not to review an initial
determination finding the following eight respondents in default pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.16: (1) ABK; Aurora; Divine; Lejia; Licheer; Maxwell Flooring; Mr. Hardwood;
and Sam Houston. See Commission Determination Not to Review Order No. 32 (Nov.
22, 2019).

PUBLIC VERSION
6
On November 25, 2019, the Commission determined not to review an initial
determination finding respondent Runchang in default pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.16.
See Commission Determination Not to Review Order No. 33 (Nov. 25, 2019).
Thus, remaining ten respondents ABK; Aurora; Runchang; Go-Higher; Divine;
Lejia; Licheer; Maxwell Flooring; Mr. Hardwood; and Sam Houston (collectively
“defaulting respondents”) are the subject of the motion for summary determination of
violation discussed below.
Summary Determination Motion
On January 15, 2020, complainants filed a motion for summary determination of
violation of section 337 by the defaulting respondents, and for a recommended
determination on remedy and bonding, and a memorandum in support thereof. Motion
Docket No. 1155-53. Specifically, complainants seek the following:
(1) an initial determination that the Defaulting Respondents have
violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §
1337, through their importation into the United States, sale for importation
and/or sale within the United States after importation of certain luxury
vinyl tile products that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 9,200,460, 10,208,490,
and 10,233,655;
(2) an initial determination that Complainants have satisfied both
the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement of
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)-(3)(A)-(B); and (3) a determination recommending
that the Commission issue a general exclusion order pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(d)(2), and in no event less than a limited exclusion order against
Defaulting Respondents under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1); issue cease and
desist orders pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(1) directed to the domestic2
Defaulting Respondents; and set a bond during the Presidential Review
Period at $0.08 per square foot for any Accused Product imported during
the Presidential Review Period.
Mot. at 1-2.
Supplements to complainants’ motion were filed on January 23, 2020, February

PUBLIC VERSION
7
11, 2020, and February 19, 2020. See EDIS Doc. ID Nos. 700137, 702220, 702940.
On February 12, 2020, the Staff filed a response supporting the motion in part,
and as requested by the administrative law judge, on May 14, 2020, the Staff filed a
supplemental response. See Staff Resp. at 1-4; Staff Supp. Resp. (EDIS Doc. ID No.
710376).
B. 	The Parties
1. 	Complainants
a. 	Mohawk Industries, Inc.
Complainant Mohawk is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 160 South Industrial Boulevard, Calhoun, Georgia 30701. Compl., ¶ 8.
Mohawk is in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, and marketing
flooring products to enhance residential and commercial spaces around the world.
Compl. ¶ 9. Mohawk is the world’s largest flooring company, with operations in the
United States, as well as Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Malaysia,
Mexico, New Zealand, and Russia. Compl., ¶ 9.
b. 	Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl
Flooring Industries is a corporation organized under the laws of Luxembourg and
Ireland, with its principal place of business at 10B rue des Merovingiens, 8070, Bertrange
Luxembourg. Flooring Industries is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Mohawk.
Compl., ¶ 10. Flooring Industries owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest
in, and to the asserted patents. Compl., ¶ 11; Compl. Exs. 1-6.
c. 	IVC US Inc.
IVC is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business at 101 IVC

PUBLIC VERSION
8
Drive, Dalton, GA 30721. Compl., ¶ 12. IVC manufactures luxury vinyl tile floor panel
products in the United States. Pursuant to a license from Flooring Industries. Compl., ¶
12. IVC is a non-exclusive licensee of the asserted patents and is an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Mohawk. Compl., ¶ 12.
2. 	Defaulting Respondents
As noted above, 32 respondents have been terminated from this investigation.
The following 10 respondents remain in this investigation, all of whom have been found
in default.
a. 	ABK Trading Corp.
ABK Trading Corp. is a company organized and existing under the laws of the
United States, having its principal place of business located at 925 S. Mason Road, Suite
168, Katy, TX 77450. Compl., ¶ 14. ABK is believed to be associated with and/or
operate under the name Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC. Compl., ¶ 14.
ABK imports or sells after importation the accused EZ Go, Premier Flooring, and
Top Flooring products. Compl., ¶¶ 15, 144, 186; Mem. at 6, 13, 26-31.
b. 	Aurora Flooring LLC
Aurora Flooring LLC is a company organized and existing under the laws of the
United States, having its principal place of business located at 1920 Shiloh Road NW,
Bldg. 5, Kennesaw, GA 30144. Compl., ¶ 20. Aurora Flooring LLC is believed to be
associated with and/or operate under the names Aurora Hardwood, Nova Hardwoods,
LLC, Worldwide Flooring Inc., and JXZ Hardwood Inc. Compl., ¶ 20.
Aurora imports or sells after importation the accused WaterGuard products. See
Compl., ¶¶ 21, 142, 182-83; Mem. at 6, 13, 31-34.

PUBLIC VERSION
9
c. 	Changzhou Runchang Wood Co., Ltd.
Runchang Changzhou Runchang Co. Wood, Ltd. is a company organized and
existing under the laws of China, having its principal place of business at 5 Banagshang
Road, Cuiqiao North Industrial Zone, Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213103. EDIS Doc.
ID No. 678396, Runchang’s Response to the Complaint, ¶ 28. Runchang is in the
business of manufacturing, importing, and selling luxury vinyl tile floor panels. See id., ¶
29.
Runchang sells for importation the accused Ultra SPC products. See Compl., ¶¶
29, 166, 212; Mem. at 6-7, 13, 34-36.
d. 	Go-Higher Trading (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.
Go-Higher is a company organized and existing under the laws of China, having
its principal place of business located at No. 5-1001 Changfa Commercial Plaza, Xinbei,
Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000. Compl., ¶ 40.
Go-Higher imports or sells for importation the accused Ultra SPC products. See
Compl., ¶¶ 41, 166, 212; Mem. at 7, 13, 34-36.
e. 	Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co. Ltd.
Divine is a company organized and existing under the laws of China, having its
principal place of business located at No. 27 CuiRong Road, Shuangrong, Henglin,
Wujin, Changzhou Jiangsu. Compl., ¶ 52. Divine is believed to be associated with
and/or operate under the name JiangSu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd. Compl., ¶ 52.
Divine sells for importation the accused Antigua WPC and Sorrento Niagara
products. See Compl., ¶¶ 53, 146, 188; Mem. at 7, 13, 38-40.

PUBLIC VERSION
10
f. 	Jiangsu Lejia Plastic Co. Ltd.
Lejia is a company organized and existing under the laws of China, having its
principal place of business located at Shuang Rong, Henglin, Changzhou, Jiangsu.
Compl., ¶ 54.
Lejia sells for importation the accused Ultra SPC and NSG Hospitality products.
See Compl., ¶¶ 55, 166, 212; Mem. at 7, 13, 34-38.
g. 	Jiangsu Licheer Wood Co., Ltd.
Licheer is a company organized and existing under the laws of China, having its
principal place of business located at l0 Ying Bing Road, Cuibei, Henglin, Wujin,
Changzhou, Jiangsu 2l3l03. Compl., ¶ 56. Licheer is believed to be associated with
and/or operate under the name Jiangsu Divine Building Technology Development Co.
Ltd. Compl., ¶ 56.
Licheer sells for importation the accused Antigua WPC and Sorrento Niagara
products. See Compl., ¶¶ 57, 146, 188; Mem. at 7, 13, 38-40.
h. 	Maxwell Flooring Distribution LLC
Maxwell Flooring is a company organized and existing under the laws of the
United States, having its principal place of business located at I075 West Sam Houston
Pkwy North, Suite 216, Houston, TX 77043. Compl., ¶ 64. Maxwell Flooring is
believed to be associated with and/or operate under the name Maxwell Flooring. Compl.,
¶ 64.
Maxwell Flooring imports or sells in the United States after importation the
accused EZ Go, Premier Flooring, and Top Flooring products. See Compl., ¶¶ 65, 144,
186; Mem. at 7-8, 13, 26-31.

PUBLIC VERSION
11
i. 	Mr. Hardwood Inc.
Mr. Hardwood is a company organized and existing under the laws of the United
States, having its principal place of business located at 4260 Industrial Center Ln NW
#100, Acworth, GA 30101. Compl., ¶ 70.
Mr. Hardwood imports or sells in the United States after importation the accused
WaterGuard and Adventure II. See Compl., ¶¶ 71, 142, 183; Mem. at 8, 13, 31-34.
j. 	Sam Houston Hardwood Inc.
Sam Houston is a company organized and existing under the laws of the United
States, having its principal place of business located at 1075 W. Sam Houston Pkwy
North, Suite 204, Houston, TX 77043. Compl., ¶ 86.
Sam Houston imports or sells in the United States after importation the accused
EZ Go, Premier Flooring, and Top Flooring products. See Compl., ¶ 87, 144, 185; Mem.
at 8, 13, 26-31.
C. 	The Products at Issue
1. 	The Accused Products
The accused products associated with the defaulting respondents in this
investigation are LVT floor panels manufactured in China and then imported into the
United States. See Mem. at 12-14; Compl., ¶¶ 104, 108. These products include: (1) EZ
Go; (2) Premier Flooring; (3) Top Flooring; (4) WaterGuard; (5) Adventure II; (6) Ultra
SPC; (7) NSC Hospitality; (8) Antigua WPC; and (9) Sorrento Niagara. The defaulting
respondents associated with each product are listed in the table below.

PUBLIC VERSION

Accused Product | Defaulting Respondents Patent
ABK Trading
EZ Go Sam Houston Hardwood “655

Maxwell Flooring

ABK Trading
Premier Flooring | Sam Houston Hardwood ‘460

Maxwell Flooring

ABK Trading
Top Flooring Sam Houston Hardwood “655

Maxwell Flooring

Aurora Flooring

WaterGuard *655
Mr. Hardwood

Adventure IT Mr. Hardwood ‘460
Changzhou Runchang

Ultra SPC Go-Higher Trading “655

Jiangsu Lejia

NSG Hospitality Jiangsu Lejia “460
; _ “460

. Jiangsu Divine
Antigua WPC ‘490

Jiangsu Licheer
“655

; Jiangsu Divine
Sorrento Niagara ; ; “460
Jiangsu Licheer

Complainants’ expert also tested additional products. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), §§ 150,

186.7 In connection with complainants’ request for a general exclusion order,

? Citations to exhibits refer to exhibits to the pending motion and memorandum thereto
unless noted otherwise.

12

PUBLIC VERSION

complainants assert that two additional products from non-respondents—the Quickstyle
and Uniflor Aqua products—infringe the asserted patents. Thus, these two products are
imported, sold for importation, or sold after importation in the United States by non-
respondents. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), § 19; Ex. B-16 (Uniflor Aqua); Ex. C ({ ]
Decl.), § 14; Ex. C-10 (Quickstyle). The remaining tested products are products of
terminated respondents. See Exhibit UUU (Chart of Tested and Representative
Products).

As used herein, the term “accused products” refers to the products listed above as
well as any product that allegedly practices one or more of the asserted claims of the
asserted patents and that has been imported, sold for importation, or sold after
importation without authentic L2C labels properly affixed to the short side of the box.
See Compl., §§ 129-136.* The administrative law judge recognizes that non-respondent
Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products are not accused products in the ordinary sense.
Nonetheless, hereinafter, non-respondent Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products will be

referred to as accused products for ease of reference.

2. The Domestic Industry Products

Complainants identify the following products as the domestic industry products:

Asserted U.S.

Patent No. Complainants’ Domestic Industry Product

9,200,460

3 As used herein, the term “unlabeled” refers to products that do not have an authentic
L2C label properly affixed to the short side of the box. This includes certain accused
products that had an I4F label but not an authentic L2C label.

13

PUBLIC VERSION
14
]
The above models use the click installation method and are sold
under at least the following collection names:
Aladdin Grass Valley Click Collection, Home Decorators Floating
Vinyl Plank Collection, Home Decorators Luxury Vinyl Plank
Flooring Collection, IVC Horizon Collection (Click Installation),
IVC Revel Click Collection, Mohawk Home Expressions Collection,
Mohawk Home Signature Collection, Mohawk Lasting Charm
Collection, Mohawk Woodlands Collection, Portico Brentwood
Collection, and Portico Lasting Splendor Collection
10,208,490
10,233,655
IVC’s Foamed Rigid LVT Product is planned to be sold under at
least the following brand names:
[
]
See Mem. at 14-15.
Further, complainants identify the Home Decorators Luxury Vinyl Plank Flooring
Collection (“Home Decorators Collection”) as representative of the ‘460 domestic
industry products, i.e., the IVC CL Flex LVT line. See Complainants’ Amended
Disclosure of Domestic Industry Products (Aug. 13, 2019).
D. 	Technological Background
The ‘460 Patent
The ‘460 patent, entitled “Floor Covering, Floor Element and Method for
Manufacturing Floor Elements,” issued on December 1, 2015, to inventor Mark Cappelle.
The ‘460 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/672,437, filed on
March 30, 2015, and expires on March 22, 2027. The ‘460 patent has 30 claims, 2 of
which are independent claims. See Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent). Complainant Flooring

PUBLIC VERSION
15
Industries Ltd. Sarl owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the
‘460 patent. See Complaint Ex. 4 (certified assignment record).
The ‘460 patent discloses an “invention relat[ing] to a floor covering, to a floor
element with which such floor covering can be composed, as well as to a method for
manufacturing floor elements.” Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent) at 1:8-10. More specifically, the
‘460 patent is “aim[ed] at a floor covering or floor elements having, allowing,
respectively, a better and/or sturdier and/or simpler to manufacture coupling among
adjacent floor elements in a floor covering.” Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent) at 1:40-44.
Complainants assert claims 7-8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the ‘460 patent.
Mem. at 10.
The ‘490 Patent
The ‘490 patent, entitled “Floor Panel,” issued on February 19, 2019 to inventors
Laurent Meersseman and Luc Vanhastel. The ‘490 patent issued from U.S. Patent
Application Serial No. 15/972,633, filed on May 7, 2018, and expires on April 28, 2031.
The ‘490 patent has 30 claims, 3 of which are independent claims. See Ex. A-2 (‘490
Patent). Complainant Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl owns by assignment the entire right,
title, and interest in and to the ‘490 patent. See Complaint Ex. 5 (certified assignment
record).
The ‘490 patent relates to floor panels “of the type which is at least composed of a
substrate and a top layer provided on this substrate, wherein said top layer comprises a
print, “ and “above such motif a transparent or translucent synthetic material layer may
be provided, which then forms part of said top layer.” Ex. A-2 (‘490 Patent) at 1:16-22.
In addition, the ‘490 patent “relates to panels of the type which, at two or more opposite

PUBLIC VERSION
16
edges, comprises coupling means or coupling parts, with which two of such floor panels
can be coupled at the respective edges, such that they are locked to each other in a
horizontal direction perpendicular to the respective edge and as in the plane of the floor
panels, as well as in a vertical direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor panels.”
Ex. A-2 (‘490 Patent) at 1:23-30.
Complainants assert claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18 of the ‘490 patent. Mem.
at 11.
The ‘655 Patent
The ‘655 patent, entitled “Floor Panel,” issued on March 19, 2019 to inventors
Laurent Meersseman, Martin Segaert, Bernard Thiers, Benjamin Clement, and
Christophe Maesen. The ‘655 patent issued from U.S. patent Application Serial No.
16/158,612, filed on October 12, 2018, and expires on April 28, 2031. The ‘655 patent
has 30 claims, 3 of which are independent claims. See Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent).
Complainant Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl owns by assignment the entire right, title, and
interest in and to the ‘655 patent. See Complaint Ex. 6 (certified assignment record).
The ‘655 patent discloses “floor panels and methods for manufacturing floor
panels.” Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at 1:26-27. More specifically, the ‘655 patent “relates to
floor panels of the type which is at least composed of a substrate and a top layer provided
on this substrate, wherein said top layer comprises a motif,” and “above said motif a
transparent or translucent synthetic material layer can be provided, which layer then
forms part of said top layer.” Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at 1:28-33. Additionally, the ‘655
patent “relates to floor panels of the type which, at two or more opposite edges,
comprises coupling means or coupling parts, with which two of such floor panels can be

PUBLIC VERSION
17
coupled at the respective edges, such that they are locked together in a horizontal
direction perpendicular to the respective edge and in the plane of the floor panels, as well
as in a vertical direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor panels.” Ex. A-3 (‘655
Patent) at 1:34-41.
Complainants assert claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the ‘655 patent. Mem. at
12.
II. 	Jurisdiction
As indicated in the Commission’s notice of investigation, discussed above, this
investigation involves the importation of products alleged to infringe United States patent
and trademarks in a manner that violates section 337 of the Tariff Act, as amended. No
party has contested the Commission’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
investigation. It is found that the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over this
investigation.
No party has contested the Commission’s personal jurisdiction over it. In
particular, respondents have been given notice of this investigation at least through
service of the complaint and notice of investigation. It is therefore found that the
Commission has personal jurisdiction over all parties.
No party has contested the Commission’s in rem jurisdiction over the accused
products. Evidence of specific instances of importation of the accused products is
discussed in the importation section of this initial determination. Accordingly, it is found
that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the accused products.

PUBLIC VERSION
18
III. 	Importation
Section 337 prohibits “[t]he importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer,
or consignee, of articles that – (i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States
patent . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B). Section 337 also prohibits “[t]he importation
into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after
importation by the owner, importer, or consignee, of articles that infringe a valid and
enforceable United States trademark . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(C).
A complainant “need only prove importation of a single accused product to satisfy
the importation element.” Certain Purple Protective Gloves, Inv. No. 337-TA-500,
Order No. 17 at 5 (Sept. 23, 2004); Certain Trolley Wheel Assemblies, Inv. No. 337-TA-
161, Views of the Commission at 7-8 (Aug. 29, 1984), USITC Pub. No. 1605
(Nov. 1984), available as 1984 WL 951859 (importation of product sample sufficient to
establish violation, even though sample “had no commercial value and had not been sold
in the United States”).
As discussed below, complainants presented substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence of importation as to each of the defaulting respondents. See Mem. at 25-40.
See Staff Resp. at 23-41.
Complainants have submitted declarations from Paul Schuster, the Business
Development Manager, Technology, and manager of the market research team at
complainant Flooring Industries, and [ 	], a market researcher at Unilin
North America, LLC, along with the evidence attached to the declarations of counsel and
complainants’ expert, Dr. Stephen Prowse, to show that the defaulting respondents have

PUBLIC VERSION
19
imported, sold for importation, or sold after importation the accused products. See Exs. B
(Schuster Decl.); Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.); Ex. D (Kiepura Decl.); Ex. E (Abhyankar
Decl.); (Ex. F (Prowse Decl.); Compl. Exs. 54, 54A, 54B; Mem. at 15-16, 25-40. For
example, Mr. Schuster and his team of market researchers, such as [ 	],
uncovered evidence of specific instances of importation by purchasing the accused
products in the United States and conducting research of importation data and other
available information to tie the products to particular business entities. See Exs. B
(Schuster Decl.), ¶¶ 10-23; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶¶ 2-14; Compl. Ex. 54, ¶¶ 1-3,7-
16,32, 33; Compl. Ex. 54A, ¶¶ 1, 2, 5, 8-11, Compl. Ex. 54B, ¶¶ 2-4, 10; Ex. D (Kiepura
Decl.), ¶¶ 2-6, 9; Ex. E, ¶¶ 2-6. Evidence showing importation of the accused products
by the defaulting respondents is discussed below.
1. 	Adventure II Accused Products and Defaulting
Respondent Mr. Hardwood
The evidence with respect to the Adventure II accused products and defaulting
respondent Mr. Hardwood includes:
[
]

PUBLIC VERSION
OTRIUMPH
A Victory in )Flooring Technology and Innovation TRIUMPH
Insta
llation
FLOORS® Engineered
HARD SURFACES FLOORS®
Engineered
score
floor
ESPC
OTRIUMPH
INVENTORY SKU#
RR005-5002-7X48-FL
PRODUCTION DATE: 2019/5/25
DIMENSIONS
Width
Thickness
7 3/32" (180mm) 0.2165" (5.5mm) 48 1/32" (1220mm)
Avg. Length
Made in China
20

PUBLIC VERSION
21
See Exs. E (Abhyankar Decl.), ¶¶ 2-5 (declaring that the Adventure II products were
purchased from and delivered to a home in the United States by defaulting respondent
Mr. Hardwood), E-1 (invoice showing a sale of accused products from Mr. Harwood Inc.
to a Max Rubinson in Atlanta, GA); E-2 (photographs of the accused Adventure II
products’ packaging indicating that the products were “Made in China”); Mem. at 34.
2. 	Sorrento Niagara Accused Products and Defaulting
Respondents Divine and Licheer
The evidence as to the Sorrento Niagara accused products and defaulting
respondents Divine and Licheer includes:

PUBLIC VERSION
22
See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 17; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 13; Ex. C-7; Ex. C-8
(declarations, receipt, and photographs showing that the Sorrento Niagara accused
products were purchased on November 27, 2019, from the Second & Surplus store in
Texas and the packaging stated the Sorrento Niagara products were “MADE IN
CHINA”).
Complainants’ market research team, after a search of importation information in
the Descartes Datamyne database, uncovered evidence of a link between the Second &
Surplus store were the accused products were purchased and defaulting respondent
Divine. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 17; Ex. B-2; Ex. B-13; Ex. S at 1, 5, 11, 14. In
particular, the Datamyne search revealed that Divine is the only company that ships
products having a short container description matching those typically used in the
industry for LVT flooring to a “Seconds and Surplus Building Material.” See Ex. B

PUBLIC VERSION
23
(Schuster Decl.), ¶ 17; Ex. B-2 (yellow annotations). The “About Us” page of the
website for the Second & Surplus store where complainants’ purchased the Sorrento
Niagara accused products identifies the full name of the company as “Second and Surplus
Building Materials,” stating “Seconds and Surplus Building Materials has been bringing
contractors bargains from all of the world . . . We buy directly from the manufacturer
new and surplus merchandise.” Ex. B-13. In addition, the “Consignee Declared
Address” used by Second and Surplus Building Material in the Datamyne records is one
of several associated property addresses for Second & Surplus. Ex. S at 1, 5, 11, 14.
Mr. Schuster further declared that, based upon his industry knowledge, he knows
that Divine is an LVT flooring manufacturer and that defaulting respondent Licheer is its
related entity. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 13; Compl. Ex. 54A, ¶ 11, Attachment G.
Furthermore, complainants have provided evidence that defaulting respondents Divine
and Licheer are owned by the same individual and currently operate out of the same
address. See Ex. F-142 at 24; Ex. WW at 28; Ex. F-142 at 5 (Jiangsu Divine address);
Compl. Ex. 54A (Schuster 2nd Decl.) Attachment G at 1 (Jiangsu Licheer address).
The record evidence, when combined, provides reliable, probative and substantial
evidence that the importation requirement has been satisfied with respect to defaulting
respondents Divine and Licheer and the Sorrento Niagara accused products.
3. 	Antigua WPC Accused Products and Defaulting
Respondents Divine and Licheer
The evidence for the Antigua WPC accused products and the defaulting
respondents Divine and Licheer includes:

PUBLIC VERSION
PENTAMAX, INC. 2410 S. SIERRA DRIVE COMPTON, CA 90220 TEL: 310-537-2244 FAX: 310-537-4477
Invoice
Data
Invoice #
4/11/2019
PEN-101278
Đê To
Ship To
PO Number
Terms
Rep
Stup
FOB
Project
4/152019
PICK-UP
Quantity
Item Code
Description
Price Each
Amount
116 65 WPC-KEN
WFC FLOORING, KENTUCKY GREY OAK 7' X 38" X 65 MM 23 33 SQ FT/BOX, 65 BXS/PALLET
1 80
209 97
SALES TAX
21 52
21 52
TOTAL $ BXS
Total
$231 49
RING
QTY: 23.33 SQ.FT
D
MADE IN CHINA
AK
LOT NO. BW-CH060
K
ANTIGUA WPC FLOORING
SIZE: 7" x 48" ×6.5mm
STERLING OAK
LA JOLLA OAK
D
SILVERTON OAK
MADE IN CHINA
GRIZZLY STONE
CHESTNUT OAK
] NORTHERN OAK
SAND PET ,BLE
LONG BEACH OAK
LOT NO. BW-CHO6D
KENTUCKY GREY
] DOWNTOWN OAK
QTY: 23.33 SQ.FT
24

PUBLIC VERSION
25
See Compl. Ex. 54B, ¶ 4, Attachment D1 (declaration, invoice, and photographs showing
that the Antigua WPC accused products were purchased on April 11, 2019 from the
Pentamax Inc. store in California and the packaging stated the Antigua WPC products
were “MADE IN CHINA”); Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 12. There is evidence that
complainants made an earlier purchase of the Antigua WPC accused products from the
Pentamax Inc. store on January 11, 2019. Compl. Ex. 54, Attachment D1 at 2, 11-12; Ex.
C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 11.
As with the Sorrento Niagara products, complainants’ market research team, after
a search of importation information in the Descartes Datamyne database, uncovered
evidence of a link between the address of the Pentamax Inc. store and defaulting
respondent Divine. The Datamyne search showed that, since early 2017, Divine has
continuously shipped imported LVT flooring to the Pentamax store address. Ex. B
(Schuster Decl.), ¶ 13; Ex. B-12; Compl. Ex. 54, ¶¶ 13-16, Attachment D2.
As discussed above, Mr. Schuster also declared that, based upon his industry
knowledge, he knows that Divine is an LVT flooring manufacturer and there is evidence
that defaulting respondent Licheer is its related entity. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 13;
Compl. Ex. 54A, ¶ 11, Attachment G; Ex. F-142 at 24; Ex. WW at 28; Ex. F-142 at 5
(Jiangsu Divine address); Compl. Ex. 54A (Schuster 2nd Decl.) Attachment G at 1
(Jiangsu Licheer address).
Thus, it is determined that there is reliable, probative and substantial evidence that
the importation requirement has been satisfied with respect to defaulting respondents
Divine and Licheer and the Antigua WPC accused products.

PUBLIC VERSION
26
4. 	Ultra SPC Accused Products and Defaulting
Respondents Runchang, Lejia and Go-Higher
The evidence with respect to the Ultra SPC accused products and defaulting
respondents Runchang, Lejia, and Go-Higher includes:

PUBLIC VERSION
27
See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 12; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 8; Compl. Ex. 54, ¶¶ 32, 33,
Attachment J1 (declarations, paid invoice, and photographs showing that the Ultra SPC
accused products were purchased on January 9, 20194 from the Global Wood Inc. store in
California and the packaging stated the Ultra SPC products were “MADE IN CHINA”).
Complainants’ market research team linked the accused Ultra SPC products with
terminated respondent JC Int’l Trading, who it in turn is linked to terminated respondent
RC Vinyl. Compl. Ex. 54, ¶ 32; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 12. The evidence shows that
4 The Ultra SPC products are accused of infringing the ‘655 patent, which issued on
March 19, 2019. Thus, complainants’ January 19, 2019, purchase was prior to the
issuance of the ‘655 patent. Complainants, however, have provided evidence that the
Ultra SPC products were available online for sale in the United States on April 12, 2019.
Compl. Ex. 54A, ¶ 5, Attachment D. The Staff, however notes that it is unclear from the
evidence of record whether the Ultra SPC products available online included an authentic
L2C labels and were therefore licensed products. Staff Resp. at 32 n.7. In addition,
Datamyne importation records indicate that defaulting respondents Runchang and Go-
Higher shipped products from China as late as October 2019 and August 2019,
respectively, to terminated respondent RC Vinyl at an address near and on the same street
as the Global Wood Inc. store where complainants purchased the accused Ultra SPC
products. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 12; Ex. B-11. As explained above, RC Vinyl
also admitted it was an importer of the accused Ultra SPC products and that it was
associated and shares an address with terminated Respondent JC Int’l Trading and the
Global Wood Inc. store admitted it purchased the Ultra SPC products from JC Int’l
Trading. See EDIS Doc. ID Nos. 678837, Global Wood Inc.’s Response to the
Complaint and NOI, ¶ 214; 678835, JC Int’l Trading and RC Vinyl’s Response to the
Complaint and NOI, ¶¶ 213-214.

PUBLIC VERSION
28
RC Vinyl’s Ultra SPC products are linked to the Global Wood Inc. location where
complainants purchased the accused products. In particular, terminated respondent RC
Vinyl admitted it was an importer of the accused Ultra SPC products and that it was
associated with and shares an address with terminated respondent JC Int’l Trading. See
EDIS Doc. ID No. 678835, JC Int’l Trading and RC Vinyl’s Response to the Complaint
and NOI, ¶¶ 213-214. Additionally, the Global Wood Inc. store admitted it purchased the
Ultra SPC products from JC Int’l Trading. See EDIS Doc. ID 678837, Global Wood
Inc.’s Response to the Complaint and NOI, ¶ 214.
Moreover, Datamyne importation records identify defaulting respondents Go-
Higher, Lejia, and Runchang as the “Shipper”5 of products having a short form
description matching those typically used for LVT Flooring from China to RC Vinyl at
an address near and, in fact, on the same street as the Global Wood Inc. store where
complainants purchased the accused Ultra SPC products. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 12;
Ex. B-11; Compl. Ex. 54, ¶ 32-33, Attachments J1, J2.
Thus, the direct and circumstantial evidence as to the Ultra SPC products, when
combined, provides reliable, probative and substantial evidence that defaulting
Runchang, Lejia, and Go-Higher respondents sold the accused Ultra SPC products for
importation into the United States, satisfying the importation requirement.
5 Based upon his experience and industry knowledge, Mr. Shuster declared that
companies identified as “shippers” in Datamyne are manufacturers or they are companies
that purchase from a manufacturer to re-sell the product. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 12.
Changzhou Runchang is a company that manufactures LVT flooring product in China.
Id. Go-Higher Trading is a company in China that purchases and re-sells LVT flooring.
Id.

PUBLIC VERSION
29
5. 	EZ Go, Premier Flooring, and Top Flooring Accused
Products and Defaulting Respondents ABK, Maxwell
Flooring and Sam Houston
The evidence shows that complainants purchased the accused EZ Go,6 Premier
Flooring, and Top Flooring accused products from defaulting respondent Maxwell
Flooring store in Texas. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶¶ 10, 14, 18; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.),
¶¶ 2-5; Ex. C-1 (receipt for Premier Flooring purchase); Ex. C-2 (photographs of Premier
Flooring); Ex. C-3 (receipt for Top Flooring purchase); Ex. C-4 (photographs of Top
Flooring); Compl. Ex. 54, ¶ 10, Attachment C1.
The EZ Go, Premier Flooring, and Top Flooring products and their packaging do
not indicate their country of origin and there is no other direct evidence of importation.
Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶¶ 2-5; Ex. C-1 (receipt for Premier Flooring purchase); Ex. C-2
(photographs of Premier Flooring); Ex. C-3 (receipt for Top Flooring purchase); Ex. C-4
(photographs of Top Flooring); Compl. Ex. 54, ¶ 10, Attachment C1.
Complainants have nevertheless provided circumstantial evidence that these
accused products have been imported, likely from China. First, there is evidence
showing that, if applicable, LVT flooring products typically display “Made in the
6 Complainants’ purchase of the EZ Go products from the Maxwell Flooring store was on
May 4, 2017, which was prior to the March 19, 2019 issuance of the ‘655 patent that the
products are accused of infringing. See Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 2; Compl. Ex. 54, ¶
10, Attachment C1. However, complainants have provided evidence that the same
accused products were for sale at the Maxwell Flooring store on April 8, 2019, but a
minimum purchase of 1000 sq. ft. was required. Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 3. The
evidence shows that, on September 30, 2019, complainants purchased additional EZ Go
products that were supplied by Maxwell Flooring through the iDeal Floors website and
had them shipped to a residence in Maryland. Ex. D (Kiepura Decl.), ¶¶ 2-4; Ex. D-1
(invoice for EZ Go purchase); Ex. D-2 (invoice for EZ Go purchase); Ex. D-3 (email
from iDeal Floors sales representative with screen shot from the representative’s
computer showing that Maxwell Flooring is the supplier for iDeal Floors’ EZ Go
products); Ex. D-4 (photographs of the purchased EZ Go products).

PUBLIC VERSION
30
U.S.A.” or something similar, prominently on the product packaging, because such
statements are highly marketable to consumers. Compl. Ex. 54A, ¶ 9; Ex. B (Schuster
Decl.), ¶ 20. Moreover, Mr. Schuster declared that the absence of a country of origin is a
common means of disguising the product’s source that is used by manufacturers in the
LVT industry, particularly in China. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 21.
Second, the evidence shows that the EZ Go and Top Flooring products are WPC
products; and aside from IVC US, only two other companies currently are, or soon may
be, manufacturing WPC products in the United States—Shaw Industries Group, Inc. and
Nox Corporation—and both companies sell under specific branded product lines. Compl.
Ex. 54A (Schuster Decl.), ¶¶ 8, 10; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20. Likewise, the Premier
Flooring product is a SPC product, and aside from IVC, only a few other companies
make SPC in the United States: Nox Corporation, ROKplank Inc., Reward Flooring (a
Galleher Company), and Armstrong Flooring, Inc. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20. Those
companies also sell under specific branded product lines. Id. The EZ Go, Top Flooring,
and Premier Flooring products are not from one of the specific branded product lines.
Compl. Ex. 54A (Schuster Decl.), ¶¶ 8, 10; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20.
Third, as discussed above, complainants purchased the EZ Go, Premier Flooring,
and Top Flooring products from Maxwell Flooring, and a search of importation records
revealed that all LVT flooring imported to Maxwell Flooring’s address originated in
China. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 22. Furthermore, Maxwell Flooring’s store has Chinese
characters on the sign on its storefront. Ex. D-9; Ex. D-10; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 4.
The evidence, including evidence from business registration records, certificates
of formation, the Texas Sales Taxpayer database, and importation records, shows that

PUBLIC VERSION
31
defaulting respondent Maxwell Flooring is interrelated with the defaulting ABK and Sam
Houston respondents. See Mem. at 28-31; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶¶ 9, 10; Ex. C
([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 4; Ex. B-9; Ex. C-1; Ex. C-3; Ex. D-8; Ex. D-9; Ex. D-10; Ex. D-11;
Compl. Ex. 54, ¶¶ 2, 10, 11, Attachments C1, C2; Compl. Ex. 57; Ex. F-135; Ex. F-136
(Maxwell Flooring Accurint Business Report) at 1-3; Ex. F-137 (ABK Certificate of
Formation).
Based on the above, it is determined that there is reliable, probative, and
substantial evidence with respect to the EZ Go, Premier Flooring and Top Flooring
products that the importation requirement necessary for finding a violation of section 337
has been met for defaulting respondents Maxwell Flooring, ABK, and Sam Houston.
6. 	WaterGuard Accused Products and Defaulting
Respondents Aurora Flooring and Mr. Hardwood
The evidence shows that complainants purchased the WaterGuard accused
products from defaulting respondent Mr. Hardwood’s store in Acworth, Georgia. Ex. B
(Schuster Decl.), ¶ 11; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶¶ 6, 7; Compl. Ex. 54, ¶ 7, Attachment
B1; Compl. Ex. 54B, ¶ 2, Attachment B1. Packing slips attached to the invoices for the
purchased WaterGuard accused products indicate that the products were billed and
shipped to Mr. Hardwood from defaulting respondent Aurora, located at 1920 Shiloh
Road, Building 5, Kennesaw, Ga. Id. Further, [ 	] declared that a
representative from Mr. Hardwood sent him to Aurora’s address to pick up the accused
WaterGuard products. Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶¶ 6, 7.
The WaterGuard products and their packaging do not indicate their country of
origin and there is no other direct evidence of importation. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶

PUBLIC VERSION
32
11; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶¶ 6, 7; Compl. Ex. 54, ¶ 7, Attachment B1; Compl. Ex.
54B, ¶ 2, Attachment B1. Complainants, however, have provided circumstantial
evidence that the WaterGuard accused products have been imported, likely from China.
First, as discussed above, there is evidence showing that, when applicable, LVT flooring
products typically display “Made in the U.S.A.” or something similar, prominently on the
product packaging, because such statements are highly marketable to consumers. Compl.
Ex. 54A, ¶ 9; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20. Moreover, Mr. Schuster declared that the
absence of a country of origin is a common means of disguising the product’s source that
is used by manufacturers in the LVT industry, particularly in China. Ex. B (Schuster
Decl.), ¶ 21.
Second, the evidence shows that the WaterGuard accused products are WPC
products; and aside from IVC US, only two other companies currently are, or soon may
be, manufacturing WPC products in the United States, Shaw Industries Group, Inc. and
Nox Corporation, and both companies sell under specific branded product lines. See
Compl. Ex. 54A (Schuster Decl.), ¶¶ 8, 10; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20. The
WaterGuard products are not from one of those specific branded product lines. Compl.
Ex. 54A (Schuster Decl.), ¶¶ 8, 10; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20.
Third, as discussed above, complainants purchased the WaterGuard products from
defaulting respondent Mr. Hardwood and picked them up from defaulting respondent
Aurora. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 11; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶¶ 6, 7. Searches of
importation records revealed that all LVT flooring imported to Aurora’s address
originated in China. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶¶ 11, 22; Ex. B-10; Compl. Ex. 54,
Attachment B2.

PUBLIC VERSION
33
Accordingly, there is reliable, probative, and substantial evidence with respect to
the WaterGuard products that the importation requirement for finding a violation of
section 337 has been met for defaulting respondents Mr. Hardwood and Aurora.
7. 	NSG Hospitality Accused Products and Defaulting
Respondent Lejia
Complainants purchased the NSG Hospitality Products from a National Stone
Gallery store located in Texas. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 15; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.),
¶ 9; Ex. C-5; Ex. C-6.
The NSG Hospitality products and their packaging do not indicate their country of
origin and there is no other direct evidence of importation. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶¶
15, 16; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 9; Ex. C-5; Ex. C-6. However, complainants provided
circumstantial evidence that the NSG accused products have been imported, likely from
China. First, as discussed above, there is evidence showing that, when applicable, LVT
flooring products typically display “Made in the U.S.A.” or something similar,
prominently on the product packaging, because such statements are highly marketable to
consumers. Compl. Ex. 54A, ¶ 9; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20. Moreover, Mr. Schuster
declared that the absence of a country of origin is a common means of disguising the
product’s source that is used by manufacturers in the LVT industry, particularly in China.
Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 21.
Second, the evidence shows that the NSG Hospitality products are SPC products,
and aside from IVC, only a few other companies make SPC in the United States, Nox
Corporation, ROKplank Inc., Reward Flooring (a Galleher Company), and Armstrong
Flooring, Inc.. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20. Those companies also sell under specific

PUBLIC VERSION
34
branded product lines. Id. The NSG Hospitality products are not from one of those
specific branded product lines. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20.
Third, as discussed above, complainants purchased the NSG Hospitality products
from the National Stone Gallery store in Texas. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 15; Ex. C
([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 9; Ex. C-5. Searches of importation records revealed that all LVT
flooring imported to Aurora’s address originated in China. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶
16, 22; Suppl. Ex. B. (Schuster Suppl. Decl.), ¶ 2; Ex. B-1.
As with several of the other accused products, complainants’ market research
team, after a search of importation information in the Descartes Datamyne database,
uncovered evidence of a link between the National Stone Gallery store where the accused
products were purchased and defaulting respondent Lejia. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶
16; Ex. B-1. Specifically, the Datamyne search revealed that Lejia is the only company
that ships products having a short container description matching those typically used in
the industry for LVT flooring to a National Stone Gallery store where the accused
products were purchased. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 16; Ex. B-1 (yellow annotations).
Thus, there is reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that the importation
requirement has been satisfied with respect to defaulting respondent Lejia and the NSG
Hospitality Products.
8. 	Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua Products
In connection with complainants’ request for a general exclusion order,
complainants assert that two additional products from non-respondents (the Quickstyle
and Uniflor Aqua products) infringe the asserted patents. The evidence shows that these
additional products are imported into the United States.

PUBLIC VERSION
35
As to the Quickstyle products, the evidence shows that complainants’ purchased
the products in Florida in July 2019 and, as seen below, the packaging indicates that the
products were “Made in PRC,” referring to the “People’s Republic of China.” See Ex. C
([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 14; Ex. C-9 (receipt for Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products); Ex.
C-10 (photographs of Quickstyle products).
With respect to the Uniflor Aqua products, the evidence shows that complainants
purchased these products in Florida. Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 14; Ex. C-9 (receipt for
Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products); Ex. C-11 (photographs of Uniflor Aqua
products).
The Uniflor Aqua products and their packaging do not indicate their country of
origin and there is no other direct evidence of importation. Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 19;
Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 14; Ex. C-9; Ex. C-11. Nonetheless, complainants have

PUBLIC VERSION
36
provided circumstantial evidence that the Unifllor Aqua products were imported, likely
from China. First, as discussed above, there is evidence showing that, when applicable,
LVT flooring products typically display “Made in the U.S.A.” or something similar,
prominently on the product packaging, because such statements are highly marketable to
consumers. Compl. Ex. 54A, ¶ 9; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20. Moreover, Mr. Schuster
declared that the absence of a country of origin is a common means of disguising the
product’s source that is used by manufacturers in the LVT industry, particularly in China.
Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 21.
Second, the evidence shows that the Uniflor Aqua products are WPC products;
and aside from IVC US, only two other companies currently are, or soon may be,
manufacturing WPC products in the United States, Shaw Industries Group, Inc. and Nox
Corporation, and both companies sell under specific branded product lines. See Compl.
Ex. 54A (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 10; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20. The Uniflor Aqua products
are not from one of those specific branded product lines. Compl. Ex. 54A (Schuster
Decl.), ¶ 10; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 20.
Third, as discussed above, complainants purchased the Uniflor Aqua products
from a location in Texas. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 19; Ex. C ([ 	] Decl.), ¶ 14;
Ex. C-9. Using information from the product packaging and online, complainants
determined that the Uniflor Aqua products were imported by a company known as
Custom Wholesale Floors, Inc. Moreover, searches of importation records revealed that
the only company that ships products to Custom Wholesale Floors, Inc. having a short
container description matching those typically used in industry for LVT flooring is

PUBLIC VERSION
37
Changzhou Yongfeng Packing Material and those products originated in China. See Ex.
B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 19; Ex. B-16.
Thus, the evidence shows that the Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products have
been imported into the United States.
* 	* 	*
In sum, the evidence shows that the importation requirement for finding a
violation of section 337 has been met for each of the defaulting respondents and that the
non-respondent Quickstyle and Uniflor products are also imported products.
IV. 	General Principles of Applicable Law
A. 	Summary Determination
Section 337 prohibits “[t]he importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation by the owner, importer,
or consignee, of articles that (i) infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent ….”
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B). A complainant need only prove importation of a single
accused product to satisfy the importation element. See Certain Trolley Wheel
Assemblies, Inv. No. 337-TA-161, Comm’n Op. at 7-8, USITC Pub. No. 1605 (Nov.
1984).
The Commission Rules provide that “[a]ny party may move with any necessary
supporting affidavits for a summary determination in its favor upon all or part of the
issues to be determined in the investigation. 19 C.F.R. § 210.18(a). Summary
determination “shall be rendered if pleadings and any depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that

PUBLIC VERSION
38
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
summary determination as a matter of law.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.18(b).
B. 	Patent Claim Construction
Claim construction begins with the plain language of the claim.7 Claims should
be given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary
skill in the art, viewing the claim terms in the context of the entire patent.8 Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1170
(2006).
In some instances, claim terms do not have particular meaning in a field of art,
and claim construction involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
meaning of commonly understood words. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. “In such
circumstances, general purpose dictionaries may be helpful.” Id.
In many cases, claim terms have a specialized meaning, and it is necessary to
determine what a person of skill in the art would have understood the disputed claim
language to mean. “Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of
skill in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because patentees frequently use
terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to ‘those sources available to the public that show
7 Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’l
Trade Comm., 366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vivid Tech., Inc. v. American Sci. &
Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
8 Factors that may be considered when determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
include: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in
the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are
made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in
the field.” Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1043 (1984).

PUBLIC VERSION
39
what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to
mean.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The public sources identified
in Phillips include “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the
specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant
scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. (quoting
Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116).
In cases in which the meaning of a claim term is uncertain, the specification
usually is the best guide to the meaning of the term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. As a
general rule, the particular examples or embodiments discussed in the specification are
not to be read into the claims as limitations. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The specification
is, however, always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis, and is usually
dispositive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Moreover, “[t]he construction that stays true to the
claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention
will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316.
C. 	Patent Infringement
Under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), direct infringement consists of making, using, offering
to sell, or selling a patented invention without consent of the patent owner. The
complainant in a section 337 investigation bears the burden of proving infringement of
the asserted patent claims by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Certain Flooring
Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-443, Comm’n Notice of Final Determination of No Violation

PUBLIC VERSION
40
of Section 337, 2002 WL 448690, at *59, (Mar. 22, 2002); Enercon GmbH v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 151 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Literal infringement of a claim occurs when every limitation recited in the claim
appears in the accused device, i.e., when the properly construed claim reads on the
accused device exactly.9 Amhil Enters., Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 (Fed.
Cir. 1996); Southwall Tech. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed Cir. 1995).
D. 	Domestic Industry
A violation of section 337(a)(1)(B), (C), (D), or (E) can be found “only if an
industry in the United States, with respect to the articles protected by the patent,
copyright, trademark, mask work, or design concerned, exists or is in the process of being
established.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). Section 337(a) further provides:
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), an industry in the United States
shall be considered to exist if there is in the United States, with
respect to the articles protected by the patent, copyright, trademark,
mask work, or design concerned—
(A) significant investment in plant and equipment;
(B) significant employment of labor or capital; or
(C) substantial investment in its exploitation, including
engineering, research and development, or licensing.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3).
9 Each patent claim element or limitation is considered material and essential. London v.
Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If an accused device
lacks a limitation of an independent claim, the device cannot infringe a dependent claim.
See Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1552 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

PUBLIC VERSION
41
These statutory requirements consist of an economic prong (which requires
certain activities)10 and a technical prong (which requires that these activities relate to the
intellectual property being protected). Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-586, Comm’n Op. at 13 (May 16, 2008)
(“Stringed Musical Instruments”). The burden is on the complainant to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the domestic industry requirement is satisfied.
Certain Multimedia Display and Navigation Devices and Systems, Components Thereof,
and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-694, Comm’n Op. at 5 (July 22, 2011).
“With respect to section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), the technical prong is the
requirement that the investments in plant or equipment and employment in labor or
capital are actually related to ‘articles protected by’ the intellectual property right which
forms the basis of the complaint.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 13-14.
“The test for satisfying the ‘technical prong’ of the industry requirement is essentially
same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted
claims.” Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “With
respect to section 337(a)(3)(C), the technical prong is the requirement that the activities
10 The Commission practice is usually to assess the facts relating to the economic prong
at the time that the complaint was filed. See Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and
Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-560, Comm’n Op.
at 39 n.17 (Apr. 14, 2010) (“We note that only activities that occurred before the filing of
a complaint with the Commission are relevant to whether a domestic industry exists or is
in the process of being established under sections 337(a)(2)-(3).”) (citing Bally/Midway
Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 714 F.2d 1117, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In some
cases, however, the Commission will consider later developments in the alleged industry,
such as “when a significant and unusual development occurred after the complaint has
been filed.” See Certain Video Game Systems and Controllers, Inv. No. 337-TA-743,
Comm’n Op., at 5-6 (Jan. 20, 2012) (“[I]n appropriate situations based on the specific
facts and circumstances of an investigation, the Commission may consider activities and
investments beyond the filing of the complaint.”).

PUBLIC VERSION
42
of engineering, research and development, and licensing are actually related to the
asserted intellectual property right.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 13.
With respect to the economic prong, and whether or not section 337(a)(3)(A) or
(B) is satisfied, the Commission has held that “whether a complainant has established that
its investment and/or employment activities are significant with respect to the articles
protected by the intellectual property right concerned is not evaluated according to any
rigid mathematical formula.” Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components
Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-690, Comm’n Op. at 27 (Feb. 17, 2011) (“Printing and
Imaging Devices”) (citing Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337 TA-546,
Comm’n Op. at 39 (Aug. 1, 2007)). Rather, the Commission examines “the facts in each
investigation, the article of commerce, and the realities of the marketplace.” Id. “The
determination takes into account the nature of the investment and/or employment
activities, ‘the industry in question, and the complainant’s relative size.’” Id. (citing
Stringed Musical Instruments at 26).
The Commission has rejected a finding of quantitative significance based solely
on the absolute value of the domestic industry investments devoid of any context. A
contextual analysis is required. The analysis may include a discussion of the value of
domestic investments in the context of the 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. See Certain
Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123,
Comm’n Op. at 18 (Oct. 28, 2019).

PUBLIC VERSION
43
E. 	Default
“In any motion requesting the entry of default or the termination of the
investigation with respect to the last remaining respondent in the investigation, the
complainant shall declare whether it is seeking a general exclusion order.” 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.16(b)(4)(2). “A party found in default shall be deemed to have waived its right to
appear, to be served with documents, and to contest the allegations at issue in the
investigation.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.16(b)(4). After a respondent has been found in default
by the Commission, “[t]he facts alleged in the complaint will be presumed to be true with
respect to the defaulting respondent.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.16(c).
V. 	U.S. Patent No. 9,200,460
The ‘460 patent, entitled “Floor Covering, Floor Element and Method for
Manufacturing Floor Elements,” issued on December 1, 2015, to inventor Mark Cappelle.
The ‘460 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/672,437, filed on
March 30, 2015, and expires on March 22, 2027. The ‘460 patent has 30 claims, 2 of
which are independent claims. See Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent). Complainant Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the
‘460 patent. See Complaint Ex. 4 (certified assignment record).
Complainants assert claims 7-8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the ‘460 patent.
Mem. at 10.
A. 	Dr. Scott’s Testing Methods
Dr. Scott, complainants’ technical expert, conducted numerous tests on the
accused products and domestic industry products. See Mem. at 41-45; Ex. A (Scott

PUBLIC VERSION
44
Decl.), ¶¶ 60-86.11 Complainants provided a summary of the various tests Dr. Scott
conducted. See Mem. at 41-45. Additional details regarding the tests described below,
and how those tests support Dr. Scott’s product analysis, are included in the declaration
of Dr. Scott and supporting appendices.
1. 	Visual Inspection
Individual panels and the boxes in which they were obtained were inspected
visually. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 61. The surfaces and sides of the panels were
inspected. Product panels were photographed, measured for thickness using a caliper,
and measured for length, and width using a tape measure. Id.
2. 	Optical Microscopy (OM)
Optical Microscopy (“OM”) testing was performed using a Carl Zeiss SteREO
Discovery V12 stereomicroscope. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 62. Panels were cut using a
table saw so that panel cross-sections could be observed and photographed. Id. Panel
cross-section were measured and photographed using the onboard digital camera. Id.
3. 	Computerized Tomography (CT) Scanning
Computerized tomography (“CT”) scanning utilizes X-rays to probe and
document the geometry and structure of an object. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 63. The
results of the CT scan include a digital three-dimensional representation of the panel and
its interior. Id.
The CT scans allowed each panel and its layers to be visualized, examined, and
measured. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 64. For example, layers of different composition
11 As noted, citations to exhibits refer to exhibits to the pending motion and memorandum
thereto unless noted otherwise.

PUBLIC VERSION
45
like solid layers, foam layers, glue layers, and filled layers were identified. Layer
thicknesses were measured from the images using caliper software. CT scanning was
also used to measure the volume fraction of solid material of different portions through
the thickness of foamed substrates. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 65. For each region the
software was utilized to calculate the total volume examined and the volume of solid
(non-void) material. Id. The distinction between solid and void was determined by the
software through a threshold isosurface value. Id. The ratio of the solid volume to the
total volume is the volume fraction of solid material in that portion. Id.
4. 	Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy
Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS)
Scanning electron microscopy (“SEM”) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy
(“EDS”) were used to probe the microstructure of products. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶
66. A scanning electron microscope uses electrons to image materials at high
magnifications. Specimens were generally examined and photographed over a range of
magnifications from 30x to 3,000x. Id. EDS is used to probe the elemental composition
of portions of samples using X-rays. Id.
5. 	Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy
Panels were dissected, and the layers were tested by Fourier transform infrared
(“FTIR”) spectroscopy. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 74-76. Fourier transform infrared
spectroscopy is an analytical technique used for testing the composition of materials. Id.
¶ 74. This instrument measures the interaction of infrared waves with the chemical
structure of the constituents of a sample. The results are presented as a spectrum with

PUBLIC VERSION
46
“Wavenumbers (cm -1 )” on the x-axis and “Absorbance” on the y-axis. The infrared
spectra were used to identify the major components of each layer tested. Id.
6. 	Density Measurements
Densities of product portions were calculated from measurements of the volume
and mass of each portion. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 77-79. Each portion to be tested
was cut as a rectangular specimen from a product panel. Id. ¶ 77. The mass of layer(s)
was either measured directly or calculated by difference (before and after layer removal).
Id. ¶¶ 77-78.
7. 	Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA)
The substrates of certain products were tested using thermal gravimetric analysis
(“TGA”). This is an analytical technique used for testing the inorganic content of
composite materials. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 80. A specimen is slowly heated from
room temperature to 750º C while its mass is precisely measured. The test results show
thermal decomposition and combustion of the specimen along with its resulting loss of
mass as the temperature is increased. Id.
8. 	Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (GC-MS)
The back layer of selected products was tested using gas chromatography – mass
spectroscopy (GC-MS). This is an analytical technique used for testing for the presence
of chemicals, especially additives, in plastic parts. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 81. This
method uses gas chromatography to separate the specimen into individual components
and then mass spectroscopy to analyze each component. Id. The results of the test were
analyzed using the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 2008 Mass
Spectral Library to identify specific chemicals detected in the sample. Id.

PUBLIC VERSION
47
9. 	Circumference Analysis
Circumferences of coupling parts were measured on cross-sections of long side
joints. In each case the circumference was measured on both the male side and female
side of the joint. The figure below shows the analyses for both sides of the coupling
parts. The top layer circumference is marked in red, the foamed PVC board in yellow,
and the backing layer in blue.
See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 82
10. 	Gas Infiltration
Open cell content of selected foam substrates was measured by a gas infiltration
method. Testing was guided by ASTM D6226-15 “Standard Test Method for Open Cell
Content of Rigid Cellular Plastics.” See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 85. This test method is
based on a determination of the accessible cellular volume of a cellular plastic that can be
permeated by the gas. Id. This test method is suitable in the context of flooring panels
due to the similarity of the test methodology (permeation of the specimen by a gas) to the
actual application (permeation of a floor panel by air, moisture, or water). The remaining
un-accessible volume is that occupied by closed cells and cell walls. Id.

PUBLIC VERSION
48
B. 	Claim Construction
1. 	A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Complainants, the Staff, and terminated respondents proposed very similar
education and experience levels for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
claimed invention. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.) at 19-21. The differences are not significant
for purposes of deciding the issues on the merits in this investigation.
Thus, as proposed by complainants, the administrative law judge has determined
that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have
either (i) an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, materials science or
engineering, polymer science, engineering arts, or an equivalent field, and a minimum
two years of practical experience in the design, development, analysis or manufacturing
of polymer-based structures, or (ii) a minimum of four years of practical experience in
polymer-based floor covering design, development, analysis, or manufacturing. See id. at
19-20.
2. 	Claim Construction
As noted, complainants assert claims 7-8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the ‘460
patent. Mem. at 10.
Asserted independent claim 7 is recited below:
7. Floor covering, consisting of floor elements, which, at least at a first
pair of two opposite sides, comprise coupling parts, which substantially
are performed as a male coupling part and a female coupling part,
which are provided with vertically active locking portions, which, when
the coupling parts of two of such floor elements cooperate with each
other, effect a locking in vertical direction, perpendicular to a plane of
the floor covering, and also are provided with horizontally active
locking portions, which, when the coupling parts of two of such floor
elements cooperate with each other, effect a locking in horizontal

PUBLIC VERSION
49
direction, perpendicular to the respective sides and in the plane of the
floor covering, wherein said coupling parts are of a type allowing that
two of such floor elements can be connected to each other at said sides
by pushing one of these floor elements with the male coupling part, by
means of a downward movement, into the female coupling part of the
other floor element;
wherein said floor elements comprise at least a substrate; wherein said
substrate substantially consists of a filled synthetic material composite;
wherein said substrate forms at least one side of said first pair of
opposite sides, such that at least one of said coupling parts, either the
male coupling part or the female coupling part, is at least partially made
of said filled synthetic material composite;
wherein the floor elements have a second pair of opposite sides, which
also are provided with mutually cooperating coupling parts, which
substantially are made as a male and a female coupling part, which are
provided with vertically active locking portions and horizontally active
locking portions; and wherein the coupling parts of the second pair of
opposite sides allow that two of such floor elements can be
interconnected at this pair of sides by providing one of these floor
elements with the male coupling part, by means of a turning movement,
in the female coupling part of the other floor element.
Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent).
The parties disputed three claim terms for the ‘460 patent. See Mem. at 45-54;
Staff Resp. at 43-44; Joint Claim Construction Chart (EDIS Doc. ID No. 687360); Staff’s
Claim Construction Brief (EDIS Doc. ID No. 688498).
The proposed constructions for the three disputed claim terms are set forth in the
table below. See Mem. at 45-47; Staff Resp. at 43.

PUBLIC VERSION

Cc lainants’ Terminated
Claim Term omp aman s Respondents’ Staff’s Construction
Construction . 49
Construction
“by pushing” Plain and ordinary “by exerting a steady | Plain and ordinary
(claim 7) meaning: “by force on” meaning: “by exerting a
exerting a force on” force on”
“filled synthetic “a composite having | “a composite having | The Staff no longer
material a matrix formed ofa | a matrix formed ofa | believes that this term

composite” (claim | synthetic material synthetic material requires construction. If
7) and filler contained | and filler contained | construction is necessary,
within that matrix” within that matrix” however, it should be

construed as “a composite
having a matrix formed of
a synthetic material and
filler contained within that
matrix.”

“said substrate Plain and ordinary “the substrate The Staff no longer

substantially meaning: “the includes only the believes that this term

consists of a filled | substrate is filled synthetic requires construction. If

synthetic material
composite” (claim
7)

substantially made
up of a filled
synthetic material
composite”

material composite
and acceptable
levels of impurity”

construction is necessary,
however, the term should
be given its plain and
ordinary meaning, which
is “the substrate is
substantially composed of
a filled synthetic material
composite.”

a. “by pushing” (Claim 7)

The claim term “by pushing” appears in asserted independent claim 7 of the ‘460

patent. See Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent) cl. 7. Complainants and the Staff agree that the “by

? The terminated respondents were terminated after they submitted their proposed claim
constructions but were no longer active in this investigation when the responses to the

pending motion were due. Nonetheless, their proposed constructions are included for the
sake of completeness.

50

PUBLIC VERSION
51
pushing” term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and that a person of skill
in the art would understand that meaning to be “by exerting a force on.” See Mem. at 47-
52; Staff Resp. at 43-44; Ex. A-6 (Joint Claim Construction Chart) at 7. The terminated
respondents, on the other hand, previously proposed this term be construed as “by
exerting a steady force on.” Id.
The term “by pushing” is part of the larger phrase “floor elements can be
connected to each other at said sides by pushing one of these floor elements with the male
coupling part, by means of a downward movement, into the female coupling part of the
other floor element.” Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent) cl. 7. As is seen by this phrase, the “by
pushing . . . by means of a downward movement” language describes a coupling method
that can be used to connect the male and female coupling parts of two floor elements. In
particular, the male coupling part of one floor element is pushed down into the female
coupling part of another floor element. Id.; id. at Abstract; 1:58-64; 11:65-12:13; 12:24-
36; 14:4-29; 14:53-15:9; 16:31-41; 17:62-18:14; 18:66-19:13; 19:19-47; 27:44-50; 28:14-
33; claims 1, 7; and Figs. 3-6.
This type of coupling part is well known as “push-lock,” “fold-down,” or “drop-
lock” inasmuch as the coupling parts are designed to allow for connection using a
downward movement. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 153. “Push-lock” type coupling parts are
distinguished from other types of coupling parts known as “angle” or “snap.” See id.; Ex.
K (Gould Decl.), ¶¶ 38-41. Angle-type coupling parts are designed to allow coupling
using a “turning” or “pivoting” movement, and snap-type coupling parts allow coupling
using a horizontal movement where one element is moved horizontally into the other.
Ex. K (Gould Decl.), ¶¶ 36-37. The claim language at issue therefore describes the type

PUBLIC VERSION
52
of coupling part by explaining that the parts allow for installation by pushing the male
part into a female part using a downward movement. Nothing in the claims recite how
that movement must be accomplished, or how much force is required. Ex. A (Scott
Decl.), ¶ 153.
The terminated respondents proposed a construction whereby claim 7 requires
“floor elements can be connected to each other at said sides [by exerting a steady force
on] one of these floor elements with the male coupling part, by means of a downward
movement, into the female coupling part of the other floor element.” See Ex. A-6 (Joint
Claim Construction Chart) at 7.
The Staff argues that “in this instance and consistent with the intrinsic evidence,
the plain and ordinary meaning of the ‘by pushing’ term refers to the exertion of ‘a’
singular force on the floor element. Staff Resp. at 44 (emphasis in original).
Complainants disagree with the Staff on this particular issue.
As argued by complainants, this further limitation appears to be incorrect, as there
is nothing in the claims or specification that would be understood by a person of ordinary
skill in the art to require that the coupling parts be connected using only a single
movement. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 159. For instance, although the specification
which describes a “single movement, namely the turning movement W” (Staff Br. at 12),
this movement refers to a movement of the floor element as a whole and is meant only to
distinguish between other known locking systems, such as “angle-snap.” See Ex. A
(Scott Decl.), ¶ 159; Ex. K (Gould Decl.), ¶¶ 39. In the claimed “push-lock” system, it is
the “single turning movement” of the floor element (as a whole) at the long side of the
floor element that creates the downward movement on the short side and is used to

PUBLIC VERSION
53
couple both the long and short side to floor elements that are already installed, but
nothing in the claims or specification limits the force necessary to push the male coupling
part into the female coupling part as part of the downward movement to a “singular
force.” See id.
Accordingly, as proposed by complainants and the Staff, the administrative law
judge construes the claim term “by pushing” as “by exerting a force on .” However, the
force need not be a singular force.
b. 	“filled synthetic material composite” (Claim 7)
The parties agreed that if it is determined that “filled synthetic material
composite” should be construed, it should be construed as “a composite having a matrix
formed of a synthetic material and filler contained within that matrix.” Mem. at 52-53;
Staff Resp. at 44; Ex. A-6 (Joint Claim Construction Chart) at 7.
Thus, as proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construes the claim
term “filled synthetic material composite” as “a composite having a matrix formed of a
synthetic material and filler contained within that matrix.”
c. 	said substrate substantially consists of a filled
synthetic material composite” (Claim 7)
Complainants and the Staff agree that “said substrate substantially consists of a
filled synthetic material composite” should be construed as “the substrate is substantially
made up of (or composed of) a filled synthetic material composite.” Mem. at 53-54;
Staff Resp. at 44; Ex. A-6 (Joint Claim Construction Chart) at 7. The terminated
respondents proposed a construction whereby claim 7 requires only acceptable levels of
impurity.

PUBLIC VERSION
54
To the extent that terminated respondents construction allows for only a single
synthetic, a single filler, and acceptable levels of impurity, such construction is incorrect.
See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 168. The construction of “filled synthetic material composite”
does not exclude for example the presence of multiple synthetics and/or multiple fillers.
Id. Thus, a substrate that has multiple synthetics or multiple fillers can be a “filled
synthetic material composite” so long as it is a composite having a matrix formed of a
synthetic material and filler contained within that matrix.” Id. Indeed, the ‘460 patent
explicitly contemplates multiple fillers such as wood fibers, wood chips, hemp fibers,
glass fiber, carbon fibers and the like. See Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent) at 12:37-58.
Accordingly, as proposed by complainants and the Staff, the administrative law
judge construes the claim term “said substrate substantially consists of a filled synthetic
material composite” as “the substrate is substantially made up of (or composed of) a
filled synthetic material composite.”
C. 	Infringement Analysis of the ‘460 Patent
As noted, complainants assert claims 7-8, 13, 15-17, 20-23, and 30 of the ‘460
patent. Mem. at 10.
As discussed above, with its motion, complainants submitted a declaration from
their expert, Dr. Scott, detailing his opinions after analysis and extensive testing
conducted by him or at his direction of the defaulting respondents’ accused luxury vinyl
tiles.
Dr. Scott is the president of Material Answers LLC, a technical consulting firm

PUBLIC VERSION
55
specializing in material science and engineering. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 7; Ex. A-4.13
Dr. Scott conducted and directed a variety of extensive technical tests and analyses of the
defaulting respondents’ accused products, including the Adventure II, Sorrento Niagara,
Antigua WPC, Ultra SPC, EZ Go, Premier Flooring, Top Flooring, WaterGuard, and
NSG Hospitality accused products. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 59-141. Further, Dr. Scott
conducted and directed extensive testing of the Quickstyle and Uniflor Aqua products
from non-respondents. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 142-149.
Based on this testing and analyses, claim charts that contain Dr. Scott’s detailed
infringement analyses and include annotated photographs and test results accompany Dr.
Scott’s declaration. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 59, 99, 116, 129, 137, 141, 151-168, 186;
Suppl. Ex. A (Scott Suppl. Decl.) , ¶¶ 12-13; Ex. A-8 (Premier Flooring Chart); Ex. A-11
(Adventure II Chart); Ex. A-13 (NSG Hospitality Chart); Ex. 14 (Antigua WPC Chart);
Ex. A-15 (Sorrento Niagara Chart). The claim charts provide an element by element
explanation, of how, in the opinion of complainants’ expert, the defaulting respondents’
accused products meet every limitation of claims 7, 13, 15-17, 20-23, 30 of the ‘460
patent.14 See id.; Mem. at 45-54, 61-86.
13 Dr. Scott is an expert in material science with an emphasis in material structure,
properties, and processing, including thermoplastics and composites. Id. He holds a
Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Minnesota and a M.S. in
Macromolecular Science and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Case Western
Reserve University. Id. He was formerly a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), teaching courses on Polymer Processing and Materials Processing.
Id. Dr. Scott has over 25 years of experience related to manufacturing, product
development, and product design of systems including polymers, fillers, fibers, coatings,
and adhesives, including related to composite flooring materials. Id.
14 The claim chart for the accused Antigua WPC products shows that those products
additionally infringe dependent claim 8. See Ex. A-14 at13-14.

PUBLIC VERSION
56
Dr. Scott’s analysis explains how, in his opinion, the accused products infringe
the asserted claims under each of the proposed claim constructions for the three disputed
claim terms, including the Staff’s and the terminated respondents’ proposed
constructions. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 151-168; Ex. A-8 (Premier Flooring Chart);
Ex. A-11 (Adventure II Chart); Ex. A-13 (NSG Hospitality Chart); Ex. 14 (Antigua WPC
Chart); Ex. A-15 (Sorrento Niagara Chart); Mem. at 45-54.
* 	* 	*
The ‘460 accused products include the following:
• 	Antigua WPC;
• 	Adventure II;
• 	Premier Flooring;
• 	NS Hospitality; and
• 	Sorrento Niagara.
The Staff argues that it “is not aware of any dispute as to the evidence offered by
Dr. Scott and Complainants. The Staff is therefore of the view that Complainants are
entitled to a summary determination of infringement as to the asserted claims of the ‘460
Patent.” Staff Resp. at 47.
The table below, provided by the Staff, summarizes the results of Dr. Scott’s
analysis and his opinions with respect to the ‘460 patent. See Staff Resp. at 47; Ex. A
(Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 59, 99, 116, 129, 137, 141, 151-168, 186; Suppl. Ex. A (Scott Suppl.
Decl.) , ¶¶ 12-13; Ex. A-8 (Premier Flooring Chart); Ex. A-11 (Adventure II Chart); Ex.
A-13 (NSG Hospitality Chart); Ex. 14 (Antigua WPC Chart); Ex. A-15 (Sorrento Niagara
Chart).

PUBLIC VERSION

Defaulting < Claim Chart and
Accused Product Respondents 460 patent Opinion
ABK tai Ex A, 99 93-99; 151-
Premier Flooring Sam Houston Cc nee . > 7, 168, 186;
Maxwell Flooring Ex. A-8
; Ex A, J 110-116,
Adventure II Mr. Hardwood marae 3.1517, 151-168, 186;
, Ex. A-1]
Ex A, J 123-129,
— Lejia Claims 7, 13, 15-17, | 151-168, 186; Suppl.
NSG Hospitality 20-23, 30 Ex. A, sla 12-13
Ex. A-13
Ex A, §§ 130-137,
; Divine Claims 7, 8, 13, 15- | 151-168, 186; Suppl.
Antigua WPC Licheer 17, 20-23, 30 Ex. A, §§ 12-13
Ex. A-14
Sorrento Niagara Divine Claims 7, 13, 15, 17, Ex A, f¥ 138-141,
. 21-23, 30 151-168, 186;
Licheer

Ex. A-15

An element by element infringement analysis for each of the products accused of

infringing the ‘460 patent is discussed below.

1.

Independent Claim 7

Independent claim 7 is directed to a “[f]loor covering, consisting of floor

elements.” See Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent) at 30:32. Visual inspection confirmed that the ‘460

accused products, which include the Antigua WPC, Adventure II, Premier Flooring, and

NSG Hospitality products, are floor coverings consisting of floor elements. See Ex. A-14

(Antigua WPC); Ex. A-11 (Adventure II); Ex. A-8 (Premier Flooring); Ex. A-13 (NSG

Hospitality); Ex. A-15 (Sorrento Niagara).

57

PUBLIC VERSION
58
Asserted independent claim 7 is recited below:
7. Floor covering, consisting of floor elements, which, at least at a first
pair of two opposite sides, comprise coupling parts, which substantially
are performed as a male coupling part and a female coupling part,
which are provided with vertically active locking portions, which, when
the coupling parts of two of such floor elements cooperate with each
other, effect a locking in vertical direction, perpendicular to a plane of
the floor covering, and also are provided with horizontally active
locking portions, which, when the coupling parts of two of such floor
elements cooperate with each other, effect a locking in horizontal
direction, perpendicular to the respective sides and in the plane of the
floor covering, wherein said coupling parts are of a type allowing that
two of such floor elements can be connected to each other at said sides
by pushing one of these floor elements with the male coupling part, by
means of a downward movement, into the female coupling part of the
other floor element;
wherein said floor elements comprise at least a substrate; wherein said
substrate substantially consists of a filled synthetic material composite;
wherein said substrate forms at least one side of said first pair of
opposite sides, such that at least one of said coupling parts, either the
male coupling part or the female coupling part, is at least partially made
of said filled synthetic material composite;
wherein the floor elements have a second pair of opposite sides, which
also are provided with mutually cooperating coupling parts, which
substantially are made as a male and a female coupling part, which are
provided with vertically active locking portions and horizontally active
locking portions; and wherein the coupling parts of the second pair of
opposite sides allow that two of such floor elements can be
interconnected at this pair of sides by providing one of these floor
elements with the male coupling part, by means of a turning movement,
in the female coupling part of the other floor element.
Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent).

PUBLIC VERSION
59
a. 	[7.a] which, at least at a first pair of two opposite
sides, comprise coupling parts, which
substantially are performed as a male coupling
part and a female coupling part
i. 	Antigua WPC
Visual inspection and Optical Microscopy (“OM”) testing confirmed that the
Antigua WPC products contain a first pair of two opposite sides having a male coupling
part and a female coupling part. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 7(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3
at SCOTT-A-3.2-004. For example, short sides of the floor elements have coupling parts
that are either a male or female coupling part. See id.
ii. 	Adventure II
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Adventure II products
contain a first pair of two opposite sides having a male coupling part and a female
coupling part. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 7(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-
028.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Premier Flooring products
contain a first pair of two opposite sides having a male coupling part and a female
coupling part. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 7(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-
032.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the NSG Hospitality products
contain a first pair of two opposite sides having a male coupling part and a female
coupling part. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 7(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-
030.

PUBLIC VERSION
60
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Sorrento Niagara products
contain a first pair of two opposite sides having a male coupling part and a female
coupling part. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 7(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-050.
b. 	[7.b] which are provided with vertically active
locking portions, which, when the coupling parts
of two of such floor elements cooperate with each
other, effect a locking in vertical direction,
perpendicular to a plane of the floor covering,
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking parts of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the
male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain vertically active
locking portions which effect a locking in the vertical direction, perpendicular to a plane
of the floor covering. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 7(b); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-
A-3.2-004.
ii. 	Adventure II
OM testing of the locking parts of the Adventure II products confirmed that the
male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain vertically active
locking portions which effect a locking in the vertical direction, perpendicular to a plane
of the floor covering. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 7(b); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-
A-3.2-028.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
OM testing of the locking parts of the Premier Flooring products confirmed that
the male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain vertically
active locking portions which effect a locking in the vertical direction, perpendicular to a

PUBLIC VERSION
61
plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 7(b); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-032.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
OM testing of the locking parts of the NSG Hospitality products confirmed that
the male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain vertically
active locking portions which effect a locking in the vertical direction, perpendicular to a
plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 7(b); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-030.
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
OM testing of the locking parts of the Sorrento Niagara products confirmed that
the male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain vertically
active locking portions which effect a locking in the vertical direction, perpendicular to a
plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 7(b); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-
A-3.2-050.
c. 	[7.c] and also are provided with horizontally
active locking portions, which, when the
coupling parts of two of such floor elements
cooperate with each other, effect a locking in
horizontal direction, perpendicular to the
respective sides and in the plane of the floor
covering,
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking parts of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the
male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain horizontally
active locking portions which effect a locking in the horizontal direction, perpendicular to

PUBLIC VERSION
62
the respective sides and in the plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent
claim 7(c); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
ii. 	Adventure II
OM testing of the locking parts of the Adventure II products confirmed that the
male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain horizontally
active locking portions which effect a locking in the horizontal direction, perpendicular to
the respective sides and in the plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent
claim 7(c); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-028.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
OM testing of the locking parts of the Premier Flooring products confirmed that
the male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain horizontally
active locking portions which effect a locking in the horizontal direction, perpendicular to
the respective sides and in the plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent
claim 7(c); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-032.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
OM testing of the locking parts of the NSG Hospitality products confirmed that
the male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain horizontally
active locking portions which effect a locking in the horizontal direction, perpendicular to
the respective sides and in the plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent
claim 7(c); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-030.
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
OM testing of the locking parts of the Sorrento Niagara products confirmed that
the male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides contain horizontally

PUBLIC VERSION
63
active locking portions which effect a locking in the horizontal direction, perpendicular to
the respective sides and in the plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim
7(c); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-050.
d. 	[7.d] wherein said coupling parts are of a type
allowing that two of such floor elements can be
connected to each other at said sides by pushing
one of these floor elements with the male
coupling part, by means of a downward
movement, into the female coupling part of the
other floor element,
As proposed by complainants and the Staff, the administrative law judge
construed the claim term “by pushing” as “by exerting a force on.” However, the force
need not be a singular force.
Under this construction the ‘460 accused products meet this limitation. For
example, claim 7 requires “floor elements can be connected to each other at said sides [by
exerting a force on] one of these floor elements with the male coupling part, by means of
a downward movement, into the female coupling part of the other floor element.” Ex. A-
1 (‘460 Patent) at claim 7 (construction included).
Dr. Scott assembled each of the ‘460 accused products, and in doing so, exerted a
force on one floor element with the male coupling part by means of a downward
movement into the female coupling part of the other floor element in order to connect
two floor elements. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 154.
Also, under the terminated respondents’ proposed construction, the ‘460 accused
products meet this limitation. Id. ¶ 156. With respondents’ construction, claim 7
requires “floor elements can be connected to each other at said sides [by exerting a steady
force on] one of these floor elements with the male coupling part, by means of a

PUBLIC VERSION
64
downward movement, into the female coupling part of the other floor element.” See Ex.
A-1 (‘460 Patent) at claim 7 (construction included). The ‘460 accused products are
capable of being connected to each other by way of a steady force. Dr. Scott
accomplished this with a steady force when he connected panels of the ‘460 accused
products. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 156.
e. 	[7.e] wherein said floor elements comprise at
least a substrate;
i. 	Antigua WPC
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Antigua WPC products
contain a substrate. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 7(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004. The presence of a substrate was further confirmed by CT
scan, FTIR testing, and SEM/EDS testing. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 7(e); Ex. A,
Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0009; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at
SCOTT-A-5-0005.
ii. 	Adventure II
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Adventure II products
contain a substrate. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 7(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at Scott-A-
3.2-028. The presence of a substrate was further confirmed by SEM/EDS testing. See
Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 7(e); Ex. A, Appx 5 at Scott-A-5-0028.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Premier Flooring products
contain a substrate. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 7(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-032. The presence of a substrate was further confirmed by SEM/EDS testing. See
Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 7(e); Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0046.

PUBLIC VERSION
65
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the NSG Hospitality products
contain a substrate. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 7(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-030. The presence of a substrate was further confirmed by SEM/EDS testing. See
Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0066.
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Sorrento Niagara products
contain a substrate. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 7(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-
050. The presence of a substrate was further confirmed by SEM testing. See Ex. A,
Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0173.
f. 	[7.f] wherein said substrate substantially consists
of a filled synthetic material composite;
As proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construed the claim term
“filled synthetic material composite” as “a composite having a matrix formed of a
synthetic material and filler contained within that matrix.”
Under this construction, as discussed below, the substrates of the ‘460 accused
products substantially consist of a filled synthetic material composite. Dr. Scott’s testing
confirms that the ‘460 accused products meet this limitation.
The terminated respondents proposed a construction whereby claim 7 requires
only acceptable levels of impurity. Although this proposed construction is incorrect, the
‘460 accused products meet this limitation as discussed below.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Fourier transform infrared (“FTIR”) spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy
(“SEM”), and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (“EDS”) testing shows that the

PUBLIC VERSION
66
Antigua WPC products contain PVC (a synthetic) and calcium carbonate (a filler) in the
substrate, to form a filled synthetic material composite of the substrate. See Ex. A-14 at
‘460 patent claim 7(f); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00018; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-
A-5-0005, SCOTT-A-5-0017.
OM, FTIR, SEM/EDS, and CT testing also show that the substrate includes only
the filled synthetic material composite and acceptable levels of impurity. See Ex. A-14 at
‘460 patent claim 7(f).
ii. 	Adventure II
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing shows that the Adventure II products contain PVC (a
synthetic) and calcium carbonate (a filler) in the substrate, to form a filled synthetic
material composite of the substrate. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 7(f); Ex. A, Appx.
5 at SCOTT-A-5-0031; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00077.
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing shows that the substrate includes only the filled
synthetic material composite and acceptable levels of impurity. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460
patent claim 7(f).
iii. 	Premier Flooring
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing shows that the Premier Flooring products contain
PVC (a synthetic) and calcium carbonate (a filler) in the substrate, to form a filled
synthetic material composite of the substrate. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 7(f); Ex.
A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0046; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00088.
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing shows that the substrate includes only the filled
synthetic material composite and acceptable levels of impurity. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460
patent claim 7(f).

PUBLIC VERSION
67
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing shows that the NSG Hospitality products contain
PVC (a synthetic) and calcium carbonate (a filler) in the substrate, to form a filled
synthetic material composite of the substrate. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 7(f); Ex.
A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0066; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00087.
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing shows that the substrate includes only the filled
synthetic material composite and acceptable levels of impurity. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460
patent claim 7(f).
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
FTIR and SEM testing shows that the Sorrento Niagara products contain PVC (a
synthetic) and calcium carbonate (a filler) in the substrate, to form a filled synthetic
material composite of the substrate. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 7(f); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at
SCOTT-A-6-00123; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-0173.
FTIR and SEM testing shows that the substrate includes only the filled synthetic
material composite and acceptable levels of impurity. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 7(f).
g. 	[7.g] wherein said substrate forms at least one
side of said first pair of opposite sides, such that
at least one of said coupling parts, either the
male coupling part or the female coupling part,
is at least partially made of said filled synthetic
material composite;
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking parts of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the
substrate forms at least one side of the first pair of opposite sides. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460
patent claim 7(g); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004.

PUBLIC VERSION
68
ii. 	Adventure II
OM testing of the locking parts of the Adventure II products confirmed that the
substrate forms at least one side of the first pair of opposite sides. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460
patent claim 7(g); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-028.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
OM testing of the locking parts of the Premier Flooring products confirmed that
the substrate forms at least one side of the first pair of opposite sides. See Ex. A-8 at
‘460 patent claim 7(g); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-032.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
OM testing of the locking parts of the NSG Hospitality products confirmed that
the substrate forms at least one side of the first pair of opposite sides. See Ex. A-13 at
‘460 patent claim 7(g); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-030.
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
OM testing of the locking parts of the Sorrento Niagara products confirmed that
the substrate forms at least one side of the first pair of opposite sides. See Ex. A-15 at
‘460 claim 7(g); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-050.
h. 	[7.h] wherein the floor elements have a second
pair of opposite sides, which also are provided
with mutually cooperating coupling parts, which
substantially are made as a male and a female
coupling part,
i. 	Antigua WPC
Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the Antigua WPC
products confirmed that the second pair of opposite sides have a male and female

PUBLIC VERSION
69
coupling part that mutually cooperate with each other. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim
7(h); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
ii. 	Adventure II
Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the Adventure II
products confirmed that the second pair of opposite sides have a male and female
coupling part that mutually cooperate with each other. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim
7(h); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-027.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the Premier
Flooring products confirmed that the second pair of opposite sides have a male and
female coupling part that mutually cooperate with each other. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent
claim 7(h); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-031.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the NSG
Hospitality products confirmed that the second pair of opposite sides have a male and
female coupling part that mutually cooperate with each other. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460
patent claim 7(h); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-029.
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the Sorrento
Niagara products confirmed that the second pair of opposite sides have a male and female
coupling part that mutually cooperate with each other. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 7(h);
Ex. A, Appx.3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-051.

PUBLIC VERSION
70
i. 	[7.i] which are provided with vertically active
locking portions and horizontally active locking
portions;
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking parts of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the
male and female coupling parts on the long sides have vertically and horizontally active
locking portions. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 7(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-003.
ii. 	Adventure II
OM testing of the locking parts of the Adventure II products confirmed that the
male and female coupling parts on the long sides have vertically and horizontally active
locking portions. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 7(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-027.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
OM testing of the locking parts of the Premier flooring products confirmed that
the male and female coupling parts on the long sides have vertically and horizontally
active locking portions. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 7(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-
A-3.2-031.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
OM testing of the locking parts of the NSG Hospitality products confirmed that
the male and female coupling parts on the long sides have vertically and horizontally
active locking portions. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 7(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-029.

PUBLIC VERSION
71
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
OM testing of the locking parts of the Sorrento Niagara products confirmed that
the male and female coupling parts on the long sides have vertically and horizontally
active locking portions. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 7(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-051.
j. 	[7.j] and wherein the coupling parts of the
second pair of opposite sides allow that two of
such floor elements can be interconnected at this
pair of sides by providing one of these floor
elements with the male coupling part, by means
of a turning movement, in the female coupling
part of the other floor element.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Physical assembly and OM testing of the locking parts of the Antigua WPC
products confirmed that two of such floor elements can be interconnected by providing
the floor element with the male coupling part in the female coupling part of the other
floor element by means of a turning movement. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 7(j);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
ii. 	Adventure II
Physical assembly and OM testing of the locking parts of the Adventure II
products confirmed that two of such floor elements can be interconnected by providing
the floor element with the male coupling part in the female coupling part of the other
floor element by means of a turning movement. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 7(j);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-027.

PUBLIC VERSION
72
iii. 	Premier Flooring
Physical assembly and OM testing of the locking parts of the Premier Flooring
products confirmed that two of such floor elements can be interconnected by providing
the floor element with the male coupling part in the female coupling part of the other
floor element by means of a turning movement. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 7(j);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-031.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
Physical assembly and OM testing of the locking parts of the NSG Hospitality
products confirmed that two of such floor elements can be interconnected by providing
the floor element with the male coupling part in the female coupling part of the other
floor element by means of a turning movement. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 7(j);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-029.
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
Physical assembly and OM testing of the locking parts of the Sorrento Niagara
products confirmed that two of such floor elements can be interconnected by providing
the floor element with the male coupling part in the female coupling part of the other
floor element by means of a turning movement. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 7(j); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-051.
2. 	Dependent Claim 8: wherein said filled synthetic
material composite comprises at least two zones of
different composition
Antigua WPC
Computerized tomography (“CT”) scanning confirmed that the filled synthetic
material composite of the Antigua WPC products comprises at least two zones of

PUBLIC VERSION
73
different composition. By measuring proportions of solid and hollow areas (i.e., voids)
of the filled synthetic material composite, it is possible to determine different
composition zones based on different solid/void ratios. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim
8; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0013 (showing a top zone with 55% solids (45%
voids), and central zone with 40% solids (60% voids).
3. 	Dependent Claim 13: wherein a thermoplastic material
is applied as the synthetic material in said filled
synthetic material composite.
i. 	Antigua WPC
FTIR testing confirmed that PVC (a thermoplastic material) is the synthetic
material in the synthetic material composite of the Antigua WPC products. See Ex. A-14
at ‘460 patent claim 13; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00018.
ii. 	Adventure II
FTIR testing confirmed that PVC (a thermoplastic material) is the synthetic
material in the synthetic material composite of the Adventure II products. See Ex. A-11
at ‘460 patent claim 13; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00077.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
FTIR testing confirmed that PVC (a thermoplastic material) is the synthetic
material in the synthetic material composite of the Premier Flooring products. See Ex. A-
8 at ‘460 patent claim 13; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00088.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
FTIR testing confirmed that PVC (a thermoplastic material) is the synthetic
material in the synthetic material composite of the NSG Hospitality products. See Ex. A-
13 at ‘460 patent claim 13; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00087.

PUBLIC VERSION
74
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
FTIR testing confirmed that PVC (a thermoplastic material) is the synthetic
material in the synthetic material composite of the Sorrento Niagara products. See Ex. A-
15 at ‘460 claim 13; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00123.
4. 	Dependent Claim 15: wherein the synthetic material in
said filled synthetic material composite is one of the
following materials: polyethylene, polypropylene,
polystyrene, polycarbonate or polyvinylchloride.
i. 	Antigua WPC
As described with respect to claim 13, FTIR testing confirmed that PVC is the
synthetic material in the synthetic material composite of the Antigua WPC products. See
Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00018.
ii. 	Adventure II
As described with respect to claim 13, FTIR testing confirmed that PVC is the
synthetic material in the synthetic material composite of the Adventure II products. See
Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00077.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
As described with respect to claim 13, FTIR testing confirmed that PVC is the
synthetic material in the synthetic material composite of the Premier Flooring products.
See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00088.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
As described with respect to claim 13, FTIR testing confirmed that PVC is the
synthetic material in the synthetic material composite of the NSG Hospitality products.
See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00087.

PUBLIC VERSION
75
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
As described with respect to claim 13, FTIR testing confirmed that PVC is the
synthetic material in the synthetic material composite of the Sorrento Niagara products.
See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 6 SCOTT-A-6-00123.
5. 	Dependent Claim 16: wherein a mixing ratio between
the synthetic material and the filling material of said
filled synthetic material composite is between 70/30 and
20/80.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Thermal gravimetric analysis (“TGA”) testing confirmed that the mixing ratio
between the synthetic material and the filling material of the filled synthetic material
composite for the Antigua WPC products is between 70/30 and 20/80. See Ex. A-14 at
‘460 patent claim 16; Ex. A, Appx. 8 at SCOTT-A-8-0001, SCOTT-A-8-0009.
Specifically, the testing shows that the mixing ratio is approximately 50/50. See id.
ii. 	Adventure II
TGA testing confirmed that the mixing ratio between the synthetic material and
the filling material of the filled synthetic material composite for the Adventure II
products is between 70/30 and 20/80. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 16; Ex. A,
Appx. 8 at SCOTT-A-8-0005, SCOTT-A-8-0002. Specifically, the testing shows the
mixing ratio is approximately 30/70. See id.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
TGA testing confirmed that the mixing ratio between the synthetic material and
the filling material of the filled synthetic material composite for the Premier Flooring
products is between 70/30 and 20/80. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 16; Ex. A, Appx.

PUBLIC VERSION
76
8 at SCOTT-A-8-0007, SCOTT-A-8-0004. Specifically, the testing shows the mixing
ratio is approximately 29/71. See id.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
TGA testing confirmed that the mixing ratio between the synthetic material and
the filling material of the filled synthetic material composite for the NSG Hospitality
products is between 70/30 and 20/80. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 16; Ex. A,
Appx. 8 at SCOTT-A-8-0003; SCOTT-A-8-0006. Specifically, the testing shows the
mixing ratio is approximately 29/71. See id.
6. 	Dependent Claim 17: wherein said substrate is provided
with a top layer.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Visual inspection confirmed that the Antigua WPC products include a top layer.
See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 17. OM, CT, SEM/EDS, and FTIR testing further
confirm the presence of a top layer located above the substrate. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0007-SCOTT-A-
4-0013; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0020; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011.
ii. 	Adventure II
Visual inspection confirmed that the Adventure II products include a top layer.
See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 17. OM and SEM/EDS testing further confirm the
presence of a top layer located above the substrate. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-028; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0038.

PUBLIC VERSION
77
iii. 	Premier Flooring
Visual inspection confirmed that the Premier Flooring products include a top
layer. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 17. OM and SEM/EDS testing further confirm
the presence of a top layer located above the substrate. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-032; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0057.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
Visual inspection confirmed that the NSG Hospitality products include a top
layer. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 17. OM and SEM/EDS testing further confirm
the presence of a top layer located above the substrate. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-030; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0075.
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
Visual inspection confirmed that the Sorrento Niagara products include a top
layer. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 17. OM testing further confirmed the presence of a top
layer located above the substrate. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-050.
7. 	Dependent Claim 20: wherein said substrate is provided
with a top layer and a backing layer.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Visual inspection confirmed that the substrate of the Antigua WPC products
includes a top layer and a backing layer. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 20. OM, CT,
SEM/EDS, and FTIR testing further confirmed that this limitation is met. See id.; Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0007-
SCOTT-A-4-0013; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0015; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-
00011.

PUBLIC VERSION
78
ii. 	Adventure II
Visual inspection confirmed that the substrate of the Adventure II products
includes a top layer and a backing layer. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 20. OM and
SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that this limitation is met. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-028; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0025.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
Visual inspection confirmed that the substrate of the Premier Flooring products
includes a top layer and a backing layer. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 20. OM and
SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that this limitation is met. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-032; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0043.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
Visual inspection confirmed that the substrate of the NSG Hospitality products
includes a top layer and a backing layer. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 20. OM and
SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that this limitation is met. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-030; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0062.
8. 	Dependent Claim 21: wherein said substrate forms both
sides of said first pair of opposite sides, such that both
of said coupling parts at the first pair of opposite sides,
the male coupling part and the female coupling part,
show at least a portion which is made in said filled
synthetic material composite.
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking parts of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the
substrate forms both sides of said first pair of opposite sides, and that both coupling parts
at the first pair of opposite sites show at least a portion which is made in the filled

PUBLIC VERSION
79
synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 21; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
ii. 	Adventure II
OM testing of the locking parts of the Adventure II products confirmed that the
substrate forms both sides of said first pair of opposite sides and that both coupling parts
at the first pair of opposite sites show at least a portion which is made in the filled
synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 21; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-028.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
OM testing of the locking parts of the Premier Flooring products confirmed that
the substrate forms both sides of said first pair of opposite sides and that both coupling
parts at the first pair of opposite sites show at least a portion which is made in the filled
synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 21; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-032.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
OM testing of the locking parts of the NSG Hospitality products confirmed that
the substrate forms both sides of said first pair of opposite sides and that both coupling
parts at the first pair of opposite sites show at least a portion which is made in the filled
synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 21; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-030.
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
OM testing of the locking parts of the Sorrento Niagara products confirmed that
the substrate forms both sides of said first pair of opposite sides and that both coupling

PUBLIC VERSION
80
parts at the first pair of opposite sites show at least a portion which is made in the filled
synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 21; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-
A-3.2-050.
9. 	Dependent Claim 22: wherein both coupling parts at
the first pair of opposite sides are entirely made of said
filled synthetic material composite
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking parts of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the
coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-14 at
‘460 patent claim 22; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
ii. 	Adventure II
OM testing of the locking parts of the Adventure II products confirmed that the
coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-11 at
‘460 patent claim 22; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-028.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
OM testing of the locking parts of the Premier Flooring products confirmed that
the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-8
at ‘460 patent claim 22; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-032.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
OM testing of the locking parts of the NSG Hospitality products confirmed that
the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-13
at ‘460 patent claim 22; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-030.

PUBLIC VERSION
81
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
OM testing of the locking parts of the Sorrento Niagara products confirmed that
the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-15
at ‘460 claim 22; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-050.
10. 	Dependent Claim 23: wherein the floor elements are
rectangular; wherein the first pair of opposite sides
forms the short sides of the floor elements; and wherein
the second pair of opposite sides forms the long sides of
the floor elements.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Visual inspection of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the floor elements
are rectangular. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 23; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-
0001. Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the Antigua WPC
products further confirmed that first pair of opposite sides forms the short sides and the
second pair of opposite sides forms the long sides. See Ex. A-14 at ‘460 patent claim 23;
Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0099-SCOTT-A-1-0106; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
ii. 	Adventure II
Visual inspection of the Adventure II products confirmed that the floor elements
are rectangular. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 23; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-
0201. Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the Adventure II
products further confirmed that first pair of opposite sides forms the short sides and the
second pair of opposite sides forms the long sides. See Ex. A-11 at ‘460 patent claim 23;
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-027-SCOTT-A-3.2-028; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at Ex. A, Appx.
1 at SCOTT-A-1-0204- SCOTT-A-3.2-0206.

PUBLIC VERSION
82
iii. 	Premier Flooring
Visual inspection of the Premier Flooring products confirmed that the floor
elements are rectangular. See Ex. A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 23; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at
SCOTT-A-1-0198. Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the
Premier Flooring products further confirmed that first pair of opposite sides forms the
short sides and the second pair of opposite sides forms the long sides. See Ex. A-8 at
‘460 patent claim 23; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0199-SCOTT-A-1-0200; Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-031-SCOTT-A-3.2-032.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
Visual inspection of the NSG Hospitality products confirmed that the floor
elements are rectangular. See Ex. A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 23; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at
SCOTT-A-1-0192. Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the
NSG Hospitality products further confirmed that first pair of opposite sides forms the
short sides and the second pair of opposite sides forms the long sides. See Ex. A-13 at
‘460 patent claim 23; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0193- SCOTT-A-1-0194; Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-029- SCOTT-A-3.2-030.
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
Visual inspection of the Sorrento Niagara products confirmed that the floor
elements are rectangular. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim 23; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-
0213. Visual inspection as well as OM testing of the locking parts of the Sorrento
Niagara products further confirmed that first pair of opposite sides forms the short sides
and the second pair of opposite sides forms the long sides. See Ex. A-15 at ‘460 claim

PUBLIC VERSION
83
23; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0213-SCOTT-A-1-0214; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-
A-3.2-050-SCOTT-A-3.2-051.
11. 	Dependent Claim 30: wherein at least one of said
coupling parts at the first pair of opposites sides, either
the male coupling part or the female coupling part, is
entirely made of the filled synthetic material composite.
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-14
at ‘460 patent claim 30; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
ii. 	Adventure II
OM testing of the locking sections of the Adventure II products confirmed that
the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-11
at ‘460 patent claim 30; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-028.
iii. 	Premier Flooring
OM testing of the locking sections of the Premier Flooring products confirmed
that the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex.
A-8 at ‘460 patent claim 30; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-032.
iv. 	NSG Hospitality
OM testing of the locking sections of the NSG Hospitality products confirmed
that the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex.
A-13 at ‘460 patent claim 30; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-030.

PUBLIC VERSION
84
v. 	Sorrento Niagara
OM testing of the locking sections of the Sorrento Niagara products confirmed
that the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite. See Ex.
A-15 at ‘460 claim 30; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-050.
D. 	Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) – ‘460 Patent
“With respect to section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), the technical prong is the
requirement that the investments in plant or equipment and employment in labor or
capital are actually related to ‘articles protected by’ the intellectual property right which
forms the basis of the complaint.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 13-14.
“The test for satisfying the ‘technical prong’ of the industry requirement is essentially
same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted
claims.” Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “With
respect to section 337(a)(3)(C), the technical prong is the requirement that the activities
of engineering, research and development, and licensing are actually related to the
asserted intellectual property right.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 13.
Complainants argue:
Complainants currently manufacture flexible LVT products with
locking profiles along the long and short edges (“Click Flex LVT
products”), that practice at least one claim of the ‘460 Patent. See Ex. J
(Young Decl.), ¶¶ 2-3. The Click Flex LVT products are manufactured at
their Dalton, Georgia facility and are sold commercially in the United
States under at least the following collection names: Aladdin Grass Valley
Click Collection, Home Decorators Floating Vinyl Plank Collection,
Home Decorators Luxury Vinyl Plank Flooring Collection, IVC Horizon
Collection (Click Installation), IVC Revel Click Collection, Mohawk
Home Expressions Collection, Mohawk Home Signature Collection,
Mohawk Lasting Charm Collection, Mohawk Woodlands Collection,
Portico Brentwood Collection, and Portico Lasting Splendor Collection
(collectively “the ‘460 Domestic Industry Products”). See Ex. J (Young

PUBLIC VERSION
85
Decl.), ¶¶ 2-3. Complainants identify the Home Decorators Luxury Vinyl
Plank Flooring Collection (“the Home Decorators Collection”) as
representative of the ‘460 Domestic Industry products, i.e., the IVC Click
Flex LVT line. See Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶ 3….
Testing and analysis performed by Dr. Scott confirm that the
current Home Decorators Collection products practice claims 7, 13, 15-17,
21-23, 29-30 of the ‘460 Patent. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 193. Testing
was performed, including examination of cross-sections using optical
microscopy (OM), SEM, and EDS. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 198-204.
The cross-sections were also imaged using CT scan. Id.
Mem. at 64-66 (footnote omitted).
The Staff argues:
In the Staff’s view, there is no dispute as to any material fact that
Complainant IVC’s domestically manufactured CL Flex LVT domestic
industry products practice claims 7, 13, 15-17, 21-23, 29, and 30 of the
‘460 Patent , satisfying the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement related to the ‘460 Patent.
The declaration from Dr. Scott, Complainants’ expert, supports
finding that IVC’s CL Flex LVT products practice claims from the ‘460
Patent. Based upon the technical information provided by Complainants
and their declarants, as well as on the testing and analysis of the CL Flex
LVT products that he conducted or directed, Dr. Scott performed a
limitation-by-limitation analysis and opined that IVC’s CL Flex LVT
domestic industry products practice claims 7, 13, 15-17, 21-23, 29, and 30
of the ‘460 Patent. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.) at ¶¶ 187-193, 198-204, 209-
220, 224; Ex. A-18 (CL Flex LVT Claim Chart). Dr. Scott’s analysis also
explains how, in his opinion, the CL Flex LVT products practice those
claims, even if each of the proposed claim constructions for the three
disputed claim terms of the ‘460 Patent, including the Staff’s and the
terminated Respondents’ proposed constructions. Id. Moreover, Dr. Scott
noted that changes were made to the CL Flex LVT products during the
course of this investigation, including [ 	] the locking profile of the
short sides of the products and adjusting the [
]. See Ex. A (Scott
Decl.) at ¶¶ 187-193; Ex. J (Young Decl.) at ¶¶4-10. Dr. Scott opined
that, in his opinion these changes were “inconsequential” for purposes of
whether the CL Flex LVT products practice the claims of the ‘460 Patent
and that both the version of the products that existed at the time the
Complaint was filed and the current version practice claims 7, 13, 15-17,

PUBLIC VERSION
86
21-23, 29, and 30 of the ‘460 Patent. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.) at ¶¶ 187-
193. 198-204, 209-220, 224; Ex. A-18 (CL Flex LVT Claim Chart).
The Staff is not aware of any dispute as to the evidence offered by
Complainants or Dr. Scott’s technical prong analysis. The Staff is
therefore of the view that Complainants are is entitled to a summary
determination that the technical prong of the domestic industry
requirement as to the ‘460 Patent is satisfied.
Staff Resp. at 56-57.
Complainants currently manufacture flexible LVT products with locking profiles
along the long and short edges (“Click Flex LVT products”), that practice at least one
claim of the ‘460 patent. See Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶¶ 2-3. The Click Flex LVT products
are manufactured at their Dalton, Georgia facility and are sold commercially in the
United States under at least the following collection names: Aladdin Grass Valley Click
Collection, Home Decorators Floating Vinyl Plank Collection, Home Decorators Luxury
Vinyl Plank Flooring Collection, IVC Horizon Collection (Click Installation), IVC Revel
Click Collection, Mohawk Home Expressions Collection, Mohawk Home Signature
Collection, Mohawk Lasting Charm Collection, Mohawk Woodlands Collection, Portico
Brentwood Collection, and Portico Lasting Splendor Collection (collectively “the ‘460
domestic industry products”).15 See Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶¶ 2-3. Complainants identify
the Home Decorators Luxury Vinyl Plank Flooring Collection (“the Home Decorators
15 The following models correspond to the ‘460 domestic industry products: [
]. See
Complainants Amended Disclosure of Domestic Industry Products (Aug. 13, 2019); Ex. J
(Young Decl.) ¶ 2.

PUBLIC VERSION
87
Collection”) as representative of the ‘460 domestic industry products, i.e., the IVC Click
Flex LVT line. See Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶ 3.
At the time of the complaint, the short sides of the Home Decorators Collection
featured a LockXpress locking profile, which is a specific type of “push-lock” coupling
mechanism. See Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶ 4 (showing LockXpress locking profile); Ex. A
(Scott Decl.), ¶ 190. Certain criticisms of the LockXpress locking profile were that
LockXpress was [ 	]. See
Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶ 6. Since the filing of the complaint, the Home Decorators
Collection products have been [ 	] to incorporate a DropXpress profile on short
sides, which is another type of “push-lock” coupling mechanism. See Ex. J (Young
Decl.), ¶ 5 (showing DropXpress locking profile); Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 191.
DropXpress is [ 	] version of LockXpress with [ 	],
which allows for a greater ease of installation. See Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶ 6. The
transition to the DropXpress locking profile was completed by [ 	] and
DropXpress is currently the short-side locking joint for all flexible LVT products at the
Dalton facility. See Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶ 6.
There have also been slight modifications to the [ 	] of the Home
Decorators Collection products to account for the [
]. See Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶ 7; Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 192. For
example, the amount of [
] in order to increase the overall rigidity of the product.
Id. This change was completed by [ 	]. Although no additional
testing was performed on the former Home Decorators Collection product, the recent

PUBLIC VERSION
88
changes are immaterial to the technical-prong analysis and do not effect whether the
Home Decorators Collection products practice one or more claims of the ‘460 patent. See
Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 193.
As discussed below, testing and analysis performed by Dr. Scott demonstrates
that the current Home Decorators Collection products practice claims 7, 13, 15-17, 21-23,
29-30 of the ‘460 patent. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 193. Testing was performed,
including examination of cross-sections using optical microscopy (OM), SEM, and EDS.
See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 198-204. The cross-sections were also imaged using CT scan.
Id.
An element by element technical prong analysis for the Home Decorators
Collection products is discussed below.
1. 	Independent Claim 7
Independent claim 7 is directed to a “[f]loor covering, consisting of floor
elements.” See Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent) at 30:32. Visual inspection confirmed that the
Home Decorators Collection products are floor coverings consisting of floor elements.
See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 7; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0154-SCOTT-A-1-
0179). As discussed below, the Home Decorators Collection products meet each
limitation of independent claim 7 of the ‘460 patent.
a. 	[7.a] which, at least at a first pair of two opposite
sides, comprise coupling parts, which
substantially are performed as a male coupling
part and a female coupling part,
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Home Decorators Collection
products contain a first pair of two opposite sides having a male coupling part and a

PUBLIC VERSION
89
female coupling part. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 7(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-
A-3.2-016, SCOTT-A-3.2-018. For example, short sides of the floor elements have
coupling parts that are either a male or female coupling part. See id.; Ex. J (Young
Decl.), ¶¶ 4-5.
b. 	[7.b] which are provided with vertically active
locking portions, which, when the coupling parts
of two of such floor elements cooperate with each
other, effect a locking in vertical direction,
perpendicular to a plane of the floor covering,
OM testing of the locking parts of the Home Decorators Collection products
confirmed that the male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides
contain vertically active locking portions that effect a locking in vertical direction
perpendicular to a plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 7(b);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-016, SCOTT-A-3.2-018; Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶¶ 4-5.
c. 	[7.c] and also are provided with horizontally
active locking portions, which, when the
coupling parts of two of such floor elements
cooperate with each other, effect a locking in
horizontal direction, perpendicular to the
respective sides and in the plane of the floor
covering;
OM testing of the locking parts of the Home Decorators Collection products
confirmed that the male and female coupling parts on the first pair of opposite sides also
contain horizontally active locking portions that effect a locking in horizontal direction
perpendicular to the respective sides and in the plane of the floor covering. See Ex. A-18
at ‘460 patent claim 7(c); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-016, SCOTT-A-3.2-018; Ex. J
(Young Decl.), ¶¶ 4-5.

PUBLIC VERSION
90
d. 	[7.d] wherein said coupling parts are of a type
allowing that two of such floor elements can be
connected to each other at said sides by pushing
one of these floor elements with the male
coupling part, by means of a downward
movement, into the female coupling part of the
other floor element,
Visual inspection, OM testing, and physical connection of the Home Decorators
Collection products confirmed that the male and female coupling parts on the first pair of
opposite sides allow floor elements to be connected by pushing the male coupling part of
one floor element into the female coupling part of the other floor element by means of a
downward movement into the female coupling part. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim
7(d); Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-00154-SCOTT-A-1-00179; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-016, SCOTT-A-3.2-018; Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶¶ 4-5.
As proposed by complainants and the Staff, the administrative law judge
construed the claim term “by pushing” as “by exerting a force on.” However, the force
need not be a singular force.
Under this construction, the Home Decorators Collection products meet this
limitation. For example, claim 7 requires “floor elements can be connected to each other
at said sides [by exerting a force on] one of these floor elements with the male coupling
part, by means of a downward movement, into the female coupling part of the other floor
element. Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent) at claim 7 (construction included).
Dr. Scott assembled an example the Home Decorators Collection products, and in
doing so, exerted a force on one floor element with the male coupling part by means of a
downward movement into the female coupling part of the other floor element in order to
connect two floor elements. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 171.

PUBLIC VERSION
91
Additionally, under the terminated respondent’s proposed construction these
products meet this limitation. With respondents’ construction claim 7 requires “floor
elements can be connected to each other at said sides [by exerting a steady force on] one
of these floor elements with the male coupling part, by means of a downward movement,
into the female coupling part of the other floor element.” Ex. A-1 (‘460 Patent) at claim
7 (construction included). The Home Decorators Collection products are capable of
being connected to each other by way of a steady force. Dr. Scott accomplished this with
a steady force when he connected panels personally. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 184.
e. 	[7.e] wherein said floor elements comprise at
least a substrate;
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Home Decorators Collection
products contain a substrate. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 7(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.1-013-SCOTT-A-3.1-014; Ex. J-3 (“[ 	]” tab referring to the “[
]” (i.e. “[ 	]”), “[ 	],” and “[ 	]” (i.e. [ 	]) as the
substrate). The presence of a substrate was further confirmed by CT scan, FTIR testing,
and SEM and EDS analysis. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 7(e); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0001-SCOTT-A-4-0002; Ex. A, Appx. A-6 at SCOTT-A-6-00074; Ex. A,
Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0138.
f. 	[7.f] wherein said substrate substantially consists
of a filled synthetic material composite;
As proposed by complainants and the Staff, the administrative law judge
construed the claim term “said substrate substantially consists of a filled synthetic
material composite” as “the substrate is substantially made up of (or composed of) a
filled synthetic material composite.”

PUBLIC VERSION
92
The substrate of the Home Decorators Collection products substantially consists
of a filled synthetic material composite. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 7(f). For
example, the substrate of the Home Decorators Collection products includes PVC, a
synthetic, additives, and filler. See Ex. J-3 (“[ 	]” tab referring to “[ 	]” and
“[ 	]” of the substrate); Ex. J-4; Ex. J-2 (“[ 	]” tab referring to “[ 	]” and
“[ 	]” of the substrate); Ex. J (Young Decl.), ¶¶ 7-9.
As proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construed the claim term
“filled synthetic material composite” as “a composite having a matrix formed of a
synthetic material and filler contained within that matrix .” Dr. Scott’s testing confirms
that the Home Decorators Collection products meet this limitation. For instance, FTIR
and SEM/EDS testing shows that the Home Decorators Collection products contain PVC
(a synthetic) and calcium carbonate (a filler) in the substrate. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent
claim 7(f).
As proposed by complainants and the Staff, the administrative law judge
construed the claim term “said substrate substantially consists of a filled synthetic
material composite” as “the substrate is substantially made up of (or composed of) a
filled synthetic material composite.” The Home Decorators Collection products meet this
limitation. For example, the FTIR analysis shows that the Home Decorators Collection
products contain PVC (a synthetic) and calcium carbonate (a filler) in the substrate. See
id.
Additionally, under the terminated respondent’s proposed construction these
products meet this limitation. The terminated respondents proposed a construction
whereby claim 7 requires only acceptable levels of impurity. The OM, FTIR, SEM/EDS,

PUBLIC VERSION
93
and CT testing further confirmed that the substrate includes only the filled synthetic
material composite and acceptable levels of impurity. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim
7(f); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-013-SCOTT-A-3.1-014; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at
SCOTT-A-6-00075; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0138; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-
4-0001-SCOTT-A-4-0002.
g. 	[7.g] wherein said substrate forms at least one
side of said first pair of opposite sides, such that
at least one of said coupling parts, either the
male coupling part or the female coupling part,
is at least partially made of said filled synthetic
material composite;
OM testing of the locking parts of the Home Decorators Collection products
confirmed that the substrate forms at least one side of the first pair of opposite sides. See
Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 7(g); Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-016, SCOTT-A-3.2-018;
Ex. J-3 (“[ 	]” tab referring to the “[ 	]” (i.e. “[ 	]”),
“[ 	],” and “[ 	]” (i.e. [ 	]) as the substrate); Ex. J-2.
h. 	[7.h] wherein the floor elements have a second
pair of opposite sides, which also are provided
with mutually cooperating coupling parts, which
substantially are made as a male and a female
coupling part,
OM testing of the locking parts of the Home Decorators Collection products
confirmed that the second pair of opposite sides have a male and female coupling part.
See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 7(h); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-015, SCOTT-A-
3.2-017.

PUBLIC VERSION
94
i. 	[7.i] which are provided with vertically active
locking portions and horizontally active locking
portions;
OM testing of the locking parts of the Home Decorators Collection products
confirmed that the male and female coupling parts on the long sides have vertically and
horizontally active locking portion. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 7(i); Ex. A, Appx.
3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-015, SCOTT-A-3.2-017.
j. 	[7.j] and wherein the coupling parts of the
second pair of opposite sides allow that two of
such floor elements can be interconnected at this
pair of sides by providing one of these floor
elements with the male coupling part, by means
of a turning movement, in the female coupling
part of the other floor element.
Physical assembly and OM testing of the locking parts of the Home Decorators
Collection products confirmed that two of such floor elements can be interconnected by
providing the floor element with the male coupling part in the female coupling part of the
other floor element by means of a turning movement. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim
7(j); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-015, SCOTT-A-3.2-017.
2. 	Dependent Claim 13: wherein a thermoplastic material
is applied as the synthetic material in said filled
synthetic material composite.
FTIR testing confirmed that PVC (a thermoplastic material) is the synthetic
material in the synthetic material composite of the Home Decorators Collection products.
See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 13; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00075; Ex. J-3
(“[ 	]” tab referring to “[ 	]” and “[ 	]” of the substrate containing various
types of PVC); Ex. J-2; Ex. J-4.

PUBLIC VERSION
95
3. 	Dependent Claim 15: wherein the synthetic material in
said filled synthetic material composite is one of the
following materials: polyethylene, polypropylene,
polystyrene, polycarbonate or polyvinylchloride.
As described with respect to claim 13, FTIR testing confirmed that PVC is the
synthetic material in the synthetic material composite of the Home Decorators Collection
products. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00075;
Ex. J-3 (“[ 	]” tab referring to “[ 	]” and “[ 	]” of the substrate containing
various types of PVC); Ex. J-2; Ex. J-4.
4. 	Dependent Claim 16: wherein a mixing ratio between
the synthetic material and the filling material of said
filled synthetic material composite is between 70/30 and
20/80.
The mixing ratio of the Home Decorators Collection products between the
synthetic material and the filling material of the filled synthetic material composite is
between 70/30 and 20/80. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 16. Specifically, the mixing
ratio is approximately [ 	]. See Ex. J-3 (“[ 	]” tab referring to “[ 	]” and
“[ 	]” of the substrate); Ex. J-2.
5. 	Dependent Claim 17: wherein said substrate is provided
with a top layer.
Visual inspection confirmed that the Home Decorators Collection products
include a top layer. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 17; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-
1-0154-SCOTT-A-1-0179; Ex. J-3 (“[ 	]” tab referring to the “[ 	],”
“[ 	],” and “[ 	]”); Ex. J-2. OM, CT, SEM/EDS, and FTIR testing further
confirmed that this limitation is met. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 17; Ex. A, Appx.
3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-013-SCOTT-A-3.1-014; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0001-

PUBLIC VERSION
96
SCOTT-A-4-0002; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0150; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-
00074.
6. 	Dependent Claim 21: wherein said substrate forms both
sides of said first pair of opposite sides, such that both
of said coupling parts at the first pair of opposite sides,
the male coupling part and the female coupling part,
show at least a portion which is made in said filled
synthetic material composite.
OM testing of the locking parts of the Home Decorators Collection products
confirmed that the substrate forms both sides of said first pair of opposite edges. See Ex.
A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 21; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-016, SCOTT-A-3.2-018.
7. 	Dependent Claim 22: wherein both coupling parts at
the first pair of opposite sides are entirely made of said
filled synthetic material composite.
OM testing of the locking parts of the Home Decorators Collection products
confirmed that the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite.
See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 22; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-016, SCOTT-A-
3.2-018.
8. 	Dependent Claim 23: wherein the floor elements are
rectangular; wherein the first pair of opposite sides
forms the short sides of the floor elements; and wherein
the second pair of opposite sides forms the long sides of
the floor elements.
Visual inspection and OM testing of the cross sections of the Home Decorators
Collection confirmed that the floor elements are rectangular. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent
claim 23; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0154-SCOTT-A-1-0179; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.1-013-SCOTT-A-3.1-014. OM testing of the locking parts of the Home
Decorators Collection products further confirmed that first pair of opposite sides forms

PUBLIC VERSION
97
the short sides and the second pair of opposite sides forms the long sides. See id.; Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-015-SCOTT-A-3.2-018.
9. 	Dependent Claim 29: wherein the vertically active
locking portions comprise first locking portions located
at a distal end of the male coupling part at the first pair
of opposite sides and second locking portions located at
a distal end of a projecting lip of the female coupling
part at the first pair of opposite sides.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Home Decorators Collection products
confirmed that the vertically active locking portions include first locking portions located
at a distal end of the male coupling part at the first pair of opposite sides and second
locking portions located at a distal end of a projecting lip of the female coupling part at
the first pair of opposite sides. See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 29; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-016, SCOTT-A-3.2-018.
10. 	Dependent Claim 30: wherein at least one of said
coupling parts at the first pair of opposites sides, either
the male coupling part or the female coupling part, is
entirely made of the filled synthetic material composite.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Home Decorators Collection products
confirmed that the coupling parts are entirely made of filled synthetic material composite.
See Ex. A-18 at ‘460 patent claim 30; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-016, SCOTT-A-
3.2-018.
E. 	Validity of the ‘460 Patent
The patent at issue is presumed valid as a matter of law. 35 U.S.C. § 282. This
resumption of validity may be overcome only by “clear and convincing evidence.”
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

PUBLIC VERSION
98
Complainant Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl owns by assignment the entire right,
title, and interest in and to the ‘460 patent. See Complaint Ex. 4 (certified assignment
record).`
No party has challenged the validity or enforceability of the ‘460 patent. Thus,
there is no issue of material fact as to the validity or enforceability of the ‘460 patent.
See Lannom Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 799 F.2d 1572, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(Commission did not have authority to redetermine patent validity when no defense of
invalidity had been raised).
VI. 	U.S. Patent No. 9,200,490
The ‘490 patent, entitled “Floor Panel,” issued on February 19, 2019 to inventors
Laurent Meersseman and Luc Vanhastel.16 The ‘490 patent issued from U.S. Patent
Application Serial No. 15/972,633, filed on May 7, 2018, and expires on April 28, 2031.
The ‘490 patent has 30 claims, 3 of which are independent claims. See Ex. A-2 (‘490
Patent). Complainant Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl owns by assignment the entire right,
title, and interest in and to the ‘490 patent. See Complaint Ex. 5 (certified assignment
record).
Complainants assert claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18 of the ‘490 patent. Mem.
at 11.
16 A certificate of correction issued from the USPTO on June 11, 2019 to correct
inventorship of this patent. The certificate of correction lists Laurent Meersseman,
Martin Segaert, and Mark Cappelle as inventors. See Ex. A-2 (‘490 Patent) at 22 (‘490
Patent Cert. of Correction).

PUBLIC VERSION
99
A. 	Dr. Scott’s Testing Methods
As noted, Dr. Scott, complainants’ technical expert, conducted numerous tests on
the accused products and domestic industry products. See Mem. at 41-45; Ex. A (Scott
Decl.), ¶¶ 60-86. Complainants provided a summary of the various tests Dr. Scott
conducted. See Mem. at 41-45; Section V.A, supra.
B. 	Claim Construction
1. 	A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Complainants, the Staff, and terminated respondents proposed very similar
education and experience levels for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
claimed invention. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.) at 19-21. The differences are not significant
for purposes of deciding the issues on the merits in this investigation.
Thus, as proposed by complainants, the administrative law judge has determined
that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have
either (i) an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, materials science or
engineering, polymer science, engineering arts, or an equivalent field, and a minimum
two years of practical experience in the design, development, analysis or manufacturing
of polymer-based structures, or (ii) a minimum of four years of practical experience in
polymer-based floor covering design, development, analysis, or manufacturing. See id. at
19-20.
2. 	Claim Construction
As noted, complainants assert claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18 of the ‘490
patent. Mem. at 11.

PUBLIC VERSION
100
Asserted independent claims 1 and 13 are recited below:
1. A floor panel comprising:
a substrate; and
a top layer located above the substrate;
wherein the top layer is connected to the substrate by means of glue;
wherein the substrate is single-layered and includes a closed cell
foamed PVC board having a density of more than 450 kilograms per
cubic meter;
wherein the substrate has a thickness of 2 to 10 millimeters;
wherein the substrate forms at least half of the thickness of the floor
panel;
wherein the top layer includes a back layer, a printed synthetic film
located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer located above the printed synthetic film;
wherein the transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer includes a
vinyl-based material;
wherein the back layer includes PVC with plasticizers and fillers;
wherein the floor panel is rectangular and oblong and includes a pair
of long edges and a pair of short edges;
wherein the floor panel includes first mechanical coupling parts at the
pair of long edges and second mechanical coupling parts at the pair
of short edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts are arranged for horizontal
and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective long edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a
groove;
wherein the tongue and the groove are substantially responsible for the
vertical locking;
wherein the tongue and the groove include locking parts substantially
responsible for the horizontal locking;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts are substantially realized
in the substrate;
wherein the second mechanical coupling parts comprise a male
coupling part and a female coupling part arranged for horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a downward
movement along the respective short edges;

PUBLIC VERSION
101
wherein the downward movement is automatically created by the
turning movement along the respective long edges; and
wherein the second mechanical coupling parts are substantially
realized in the substrate.
13. A floor panel comprising:
a substrate;
a top layer located above the substrate; and
a backing layer located below the substrate;
wherein the top layer is connected to the substrate by means of glue;
wherein the substrate is single-layered and includes a closed cell
foamed PVC board having a density of more than 650 kilograms per
cubic meter;
wherein the substrate has a thickness of 2 to 10 millimeters;
wherein the substrate forms at least half of the thickness of the floor
panel;
wherein the top layer includes a back layer, a printed synthetic film
located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer located above the printed synthetic film;
wherein the back layer includes PVC with plasticizers and fillers;
wherein the transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer includes a
vinyl-based material;
wherein the top layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 3 millimeters;
wherein the floor panel has a thickness of 5 to 15 millimeters;
wherein the floor panel is rectangular and oblong and includes a pair
of long edges and a pair of short edges;
wherein the floor panel includes first mechanical coupling parts at the
pair of long edges and second mechanical coupling parts at the pair
of short edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts are arranged for horizontal
and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective long edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a
groove;
wherein the tongue and the groove are substantially responsible for the
vertical locking;

PUBLIC VERSION

wherein the tongue and the groove include locking parts substantially
responsible for the horizontal locking;

wherein the first mechanical coupling parts are substantially realized
in the substrate;

wherein the second mechanical coupling parts comprise a male
coupling part and a female coupling part arranged for horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a downward
movement along the respective short edges;

wherein the downward movement is automatically created by the
turning movement along the respective long edges; and

wherein the second mechanical coupling parts are substantially
realized in the substrate.

Ex. A-2 (‘490 Patent).
The parties agreed on the claim construction shown in the table below. See Mem.

at 45; Staff Resp. at 47-48.

Claim Term Agreed Construction
“arranged for horizontal and vertical “allowing for horizontal and vertical locking
locking of two of such floor panels of two of such floor panels by turning one

using a turning movement along the coupling part into the other coupling part at

respective long edges” (claims 1 and __| the respective long edges”
13)

As shown in the table above, the parties agreed that the claim term “arranged for
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective long edges” from claims 1 and 13 of the ‘490 patent should be
construed as “allowing for horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels by
turning one coupling part into the other coupling part at the respective long edges.” See
Mem. at 45; Staff Resp. at 47-48. The parties did not propose constructions for any other

terms. See Mem. at 45-47, 86-105; Ex. A (Scott Decl.) at [iP 52-55; 151-185.

102

PUBLIC VERSION
103
Thus, as proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construes the claim
term “arranged for horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a
turning movement along the respective long edges” as “allowing for horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels by turning one coupling part into the other
coupling part at the respective long edges .”
C. 	Infringement Analysis of the ‘490 patent
As noted, complainants assert claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18 of the ‘490
patent. Mem. at 11.
The ‘490 accused products include the following:
• 	Antigua WPC; and
• 	Quickstyle.17
As with the ‘460 patent, Dr. Scott conducted and directed a variety of extensive
technical tests and analyses of the accused Antigua WPC products to determine if those
products infringe the asserted claims of the ‘490 patent. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 130-137.
Dr. Scott also conducted and directed extensive testing of the accused Quickstyle
products from one or more non-respondents. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 146-149.
Dr. Scott determined that, in his opinion, the Antigua WPC and Quickstyle
products infringe certain asserted claims of the ‘490 patent. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶
59, 137, 149, 182-186; Ex. A-14 (Antigua WPC Chart); Ex. A-17 (Quickstyle Niagara
Chart). Similar to the ‘460 patent, claim charts that contain Dr. Scott’s detailed
infringement analyses and include annotated photographs and test results accompany Dr.
17 As discussed below, the Quickstyle product is an accused product imported, sold for
importation, or sold after importation into the United States by non-respondents. See Ex.
B, [ 	] Decl. ¶ 14.

PUBLIC VERSION

Scott’s declaration. See id. The claim charts provide an element by element explanation,

of how, in Dr. Scott’s opinion, the Antigua WPC and Quickstyle products meet every

limitation of certain asserted claims of the ‘490 patent. See id.; Mem. at 86-105. In

addition, Dr. Scott’s analysis explains how, in his opinion, those products infringe the

asserted claims when applying the agreed upon construction for the “arranged for

horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement

along the respective long edges” claim term See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), §§ 182-185; Ex. A-

14 (Antigua WPC Chart); Ex. A-17 (Quickstyle Niagara Chart); Mem. at 60-61.

The Staff argues that it “is not aware of any dispute as to the evidence offered by

Dr. Scott and Complainants. The Staff is therefore of the view that Complainants are

entitled to a summary determination that the accused Antigua WPC products infringe

claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 of the ‘490 Patent. In addition, Complainants are

entitled to rely on the Quickstyle products for additional support with respect to their

request for a General Exclusion Order.” Staff Resp. at 49.

The table below, provided by the Staff, summarizes the results of Dr. Scott’s

analysis and his opinions with respect to the ‘490 patent. See Staff Resp. at 49; Ex. A

(Scott Decl.), §§ 59, 137, 149, 182-186; Ex. 14 (Antigua WPC Chart); Ex. A-17

(Quickstyle Niagara Chart).

Defaulting < Claim Chart and

Accused Product bese 490 patent tt
Divine ; Ex A, § 130-137,

Antigua WPC Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 182-186:

Licheer 13-16, 18

Ex. A-14

Quickstyle Claim 1 Ex A, ff] 146-149,

104

PUBLIC VERSION
105
182-186;
Ex. A-17
An element by element infringement analysis for each of the products accused of
infringing the ‘490 patent is discussed below.
1. 	Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 of the ‘490 patent is directed to a “[f]loor panel.” See Ex. A-
2 (‘490 Patent) at 17:66. Visual inspection confirmed that the ‘490 accused products,
which include the Antigua WPC and Quicksatyle products are floor panels. See Ex. A-14
(Antigua WPC); Ex. A-17 (Quickstyle).
a. 	[1.a] a substrate; and
Antigua
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Antigua WPC products
include a substrate. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004. CT, FTIR, and SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that this
limitation is met. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-
0009; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0005.
Quickstyle
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Quickstyle products include
a substrate. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 SCOTT-A-3.2-048.
SEM testing further confirmed that this limitation is met. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent
claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0171.

PUBLIC VERSION
106
b. 	[1.b] a top layer located above the substrate;
Antigua
Visual inspection confirmed that the Antigua WPC products include a top layer
located above the substrate. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(b). OM, CT, FTIR and
SEM/EDS testing confirmed that this limitation is met. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0007-SCOTT-A-
4-0013; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0020.
Quickstyle
Visual inspection confirmed that the Quickstyle products include a top layer
located above the substrate. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(b). OM and SEM
testing confirmed that this limitation is met. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 SCOTT-A-3.2-048;
Ex. A, Appx. 5 SCOTT-A-5-0170.
c. 	[1.c] wherein the top layer is connected to the
substrate by means of glue;
Antigua
CT, SEM/EDS, and FTIR testing confirmed that the top layer of the Antigua
WPC products is connected to the substrate by means of glue. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490
patent claim 1(c); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0009; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-
00011-SCOTT-A-6-00012, SCOTT-A-6-00017; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0003.
Quickstyle
SEM testing confirmed that the top layer of the Quickstyle products is connected
to the substrate by means of glue. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(c); Ex., Appx. 5 at
SCOTT-A-5-0171.

PUBLIC VERSION
107
d. 	[1.d] wherein the substrate is single-layered and
includes a closed cell foamed PVC board having
a density of more than 450 kilograms per cubic
meter;
Antigua
Testing confirmed that the substrate of the Antigua WPC products is single-
layered and includes a closed cell foamed PVC board having a density of more than 450
kilograms per cubic meter. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(d). For example, gas
infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the Antigua WPC products includes a
closed cell foamed board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0002 (test results
demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell foamed board). FTIR and
SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that the substrate includes PVC and fillers such as
calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ). See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00018; Ex. A, Appx. 5
at SCOTT-A-5-0013. Density testing further confirmed that the substrate has a density of
891 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(d); Ex. A,
Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.
Quickstyle
Testing confirmed that the substrate of the Quickstyle products is single-layered
and includes a closed cell foamed PVC board having a density of more than 450
kilograms per cubic meter. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(d). For example, gas
infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the Quickstyle products includes a closed
cell foamed board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0013 (test results
demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell foamed board). FTIR testing
further confirmed that the substrate includes PVC and filers such as calcium carbonate

PUBLIC VERSION
108
(CaCO3 ). See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00104. Density testing further confirmed
that the substrate has a density of 871 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See id.; Ex A,
Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0002.
e. 	[1.e] wherein the substrate has a thickness of 2 to
10 millimeters;
Antigua
CT testing confirmed that the substrate of the Antigua WPC products has an
average thickness of 3.93mm. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(e); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0009.
Quickstyle
OM testing of the substrate of the Quickstyle products has a thickness of
approximately 4.84 millimeters. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3
at SCOTT-A-3.2-049.
f. 	[1.f] wherein the substrate forms at least half of
the thickness of the floor panel;
Antigua
CT testing confirmed that the substrate of the Antigua WPC products forms at
least 61% of the floor panel. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(f); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0009 (confirming that the substrate has an average thickness of 3.93 mm
and the floor panel has an average thickness between 6.22-6.34 mm; therefore the
substrate forms at least 61% of the thickness of the floor panel).

PUBLIC VERSION
109
Quickstyle
OM testing confirmed that the substrate of the Quickstyle products forms 73% of
the floor panel. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(f); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-
049 (confirming that the substrate has a thickness of approximately 4.84 mm and the
floor panel has a thickness of approximately 6.62 mm).
g. 	[1.g] wherein the top layer includes a back layer,
a printed synthetic film located above the back
layer and a transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer located above the printed
synthetic film;
Antigua
The top layer of the Antigua WPC products includes a back layer, a printed
synthetic material film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer located above the printed synthetic material film. See Ex. A-14 at
‘490 patent claim 1(g). OM, CT, and FTIR testing of the Antigua WPC products further
confirmed the presence of a back layer, a printed film, and a transparent or translucent
wear layer in the claimed configuration. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-003,
SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0007-SCOTT-A-
4-0013; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011.
FTIR testing confirmed that the printed film layer is synthetic, for example,
because it contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00015. FTIR testing
further confirmed that the transparent or translucent layer contains a thermoplastic
(PVC). See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00014.

PUBLIC VERSION
110
Quickstyle
The top layer of the Quickstyle products includes a back layer, a printed synthetic
material film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent thermoplastic
layer located above the printed synthetic material film. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim
1(g). OM and FTIR testing of the Quickstyle products further confirmed the presence of
a back layer, a printed film, and a transparent or translucent wear layer in the claimed
configuration. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-
A-6-00101-SCOTT-A-6-00103.
FTIR testing confirmed that the printed film layer is synthetic, for example,
because it contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00102. FTIR testing
further confirmed that the transparent or translucent layer contains a thermoplastic
(PVC). See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00101.
h. 	[1.h] wherein the transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer includes a vinyl-based
material;
Antigua
FTIR testing confirmed that the transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer of
the Antigua WPC products includes PVC (a vinyl-based material). See Ex. A-14 at ‘490
patent claim 1(h); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00014.
Quickstyle
FTIR testing confirmed that the transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer of
the Quickstyle products includes PVC (a vinyl-based material). See Ex. A-17 at ‘490
patent claim 1(h); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00101.

PUBLIC VERSION
111
i. 	[1.i] wherein the back layer includes PVC with
plasticizers and fillers;
Antigua
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing confirmed that the back layer of the Antigua WPC
products includes PVC and calcium carbonate (a filler). See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent
claim 1(i); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00012, SCOTT-A-6-00016; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at
SCOTT-A-5-0013. Gas chromatography – mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) testing
confirmed that the back layer includes plasticizers such as dioctyl terephthalate (DOTP).
See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(i); Ex. A, Appx. 9 at SCOTT-A-9-0002-SCOTT-A-
9-0005.
Quickstyle
FTIR testing confirmed that the back layer of the Quickstyle products includes
PVC, calcium carbonate (a filler), and BIS(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate (DOTP) (a
plasticizer). See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(i); Ex. A., Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-
00103.
j. 	[1.j] wherein the floor panel is rectangular and
oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a
pair of short edges;
Antigua
Visual inspection and OM testing of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the floor panels are rectangular and oblong and include a pair of long edges and a pair of
short edges. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(j); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-
003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004.

PUBLIC VERSION
112
Quickstyle
Visual inspection and OM testing of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
floor panels are rectangular and oblong and include a pair of long edges and pair of short
edges. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(j); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-046,
SCOTT-A-3.2-048.
k. 	[1.k] wherein the floor panel includes first
mechanical coupling parts at the pair of long
edges and second mechanical coupling parts at
the pair of short edges;
Antigua
OM testing of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the floor panels include
first mechanical coupling parts at the pair of long edges and second mechanical coupling
parts at the pair of short edges. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(k); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
Quickstyle
OM testing of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the floor panels include first
mechanical coupling parts at the pair of long edges and second mechanical coupling parts
at the pair of short edges. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(k); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-046, SCOTT-A-3.2-048.

PUBLIC VERSION
113
l. 	[1.l] wherein the first mechanical coupling parts
are arranged for horizontal and vertical locking
of two of such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective long edges;
Antigua
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC products are arranged for
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective long edges. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3
at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
As proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construesd the claim
term “arranged for horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a
turning movement along the respective long edges” as “allowing for horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels by turning one coupling part into the other
coupling part at the respective long edges .” As shown above, this construction is
satisfied. The mechanical coupling part shown above allows for horizontal and vertical
locking of the floor panel by turning one coupling part into the other coupling part, as
indicated.

PUBLIC VERSION
114
Quickstyle
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Quickstyle products are arranged for
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective long edges. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3
at SCOTT-A-3.2-046, SCOTT-A-3.2-048.
As proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construesd the claim
term “arranged for horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a
turning movement along the respective long edges” as “allowing for horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels by turning one coupling part into the other
coupling part at the respective long edges .” As shown above, this construction is
satisfied. The mechanical coupling part shown above allows for horizontal and vertical
locking of the floor panel by turning one coupling part into the other coupling part, as
indicated.

PUBLIC VERSION
115
m. 	[1.m] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a tongue and a groove;
Antigua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the first mechanic coupling parts include a tongue and a groove. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490
patent claim 1(m); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
first mechanic coupling parts include a tongue and a groove. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent
claim 1(m); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048.
n. 	[1.n] wherein the tongue and the groove are
substantially responsible for the vertical locking;
Antigua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the tongue and groove are substantially responsible for the vertical locking. See Ex. A-14
at ‘490 patent claim 1(n); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
tongue and groove are substantially responsible for the vertical locing. See Ex. A-17 at
‘490 patent claim 1(n); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048.

PUBLIC VERSION
116
o. 	[1.o] wherein the tongue and the groove include
locking parts substantially responsible for the
horizontal locking;
Antigua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the tongue and grove include locking parts that are substantially responsible for the
horizontal locking. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(o); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-003.
Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
tongue and grove include locking parts that are substantially responsible for the
horizontal locking. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(o); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-048.
p. 	[1.p] wherein the first mechanical coupling parts
are substantially realized in the substrate;
Antigua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts are substantially realized in the substrate. See Ex. A-
14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(p); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts are substantially realized in the substrate. See Ex. A-17 at
‘490 patent claim 1(p); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048.

PUBLIC VERSION
117
q. 	[1.q] wherein the second mechanical coupling
parts comprise a male coupling part and a
female coupling part arranged for horizontal
and vertical locking of two of such floor panels
using a downward movement along the
respective short edges;
Antigua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the second mechanical coupling parts comprise a male coupling part and a female
coupling part arranged for horizontal and vertical locking of two Antigua WPC floor
panels using a downward movement along the respective short edges. See Ex. A-14 at
‘490 patent claim 1(q); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
second mechanical coupling parts comprise a male coupling part and a female coupling
part arranged for horizontal and vertical locking of two Quickstyle floor panels using a
downward movement along the respective short edges. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent claim
1(q); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-046.
r. 	[1.r] wherein the downward movement is
automatically created by the turning movement
along the respective long edges; and
Antigua
The downward movement is automatically created by the turning movement
along the respective long edges of the Antigua WPC products. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490
patent claim 1(r). Dr. Scott installed the Antigua WPC products and confirmed that the
downward movement is automatically created by the turning movement along the

PUBLIC VERSION
118
respective long edges of the Antigua WPC products. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-
A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
Quickstyle
The downward movement is automatically created by the turning movement
along the respective long edges of the Quickstyle products. See Ex. A-17 at ‘490 patent
claim 1(r). Dr. Scott installed the Quickstyle products and confirmed that the downward
movement is automatically created by the turning movement along the respective long
edges of the Quickstyle products. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-046, SCOTT-
A-3.2-048.
s. 	[1.s] wherein the second mechanical coupling
parts are substantially realized in the substrate.
Antigua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the second mechanical coupling parts are substantially realized in the substrate. See Ex.
A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(s); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
second mechanical coupling parts are substantially realized in the substrate. See Ex. A-
17 at ‘490 patent claim 1(s); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-046.

PUBLIC VERSION
119
2. 	Dependent Claim 2: wherein the back layer is located
above the center line determined by the tongue-in-
groove coupling.
With respect to dependent claim 2 of the ‘490 patent, OM testing of the locking
sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the back layer is located above the
center line determined by the tongue-in-groove coupling. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent
claim 2; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
3. 	Dependent Claim 3: wherein the closed cell foamed
PVC board has a density of more than 650 kilograms
per cubic meter.
Density testing of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the substrate has a
density of 891 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 3;
Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.
4. 	Dependent Claim 4: wherein the transparent or
translucent thermoplastic layer has a thickness of 1
millimeter or less.
CT testing of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the transparent or
translucent wear layer has an average thickness between 0.28-0.29 mm. See Ex. A-14 at
‘490 patent claim 4; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0007-SCOTT-A-4-0013.
5. 	Dependent Claim 5: wherein the vinyl-based material of
the transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer is
PVC.
FTIR testing of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the transparent or
translucent wear layer includes PVC (a vinyl-based material). See Ex. A-14 at ‘490
patent claim 5; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00014.

PUBLIC VERSION
120
6. 	Dependent Claim 6: wherein the top layer has a
thickness of 0.5 to 3 millimeters.
CT testing of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the top layer has an
average thickness between 1.25-1.37 mm. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 6; Ex. A,
Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0009.
7. 	Dependent Claim 8: wherein the floor panel comprises a
backing layer located below the substrate.
Visual inspection confirmed that the Antigua WPC products include a backing
layer located below the substrate. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 8. OM, CT,
SEM/EDS, and FTIR testing further confirmed that the Antigua WPC products include a
backing layer below the substrate. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003-
SCOTT-A-3.2-004; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0007-SCOTT-A-4-0013; Ex. A,
Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0015; Ex. A. Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011.
8. 	Dependent Claim 10: wherein the floor panel has a
thickness of 5 to 15 millimeters.
CT testing confirmed that the Antigua WPC products have an average thickness
between 6.34-6.22 mm. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 10; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0009. Three measurements were also taken with calipers of the Antigua
WPC products, showing an average thickness of 6.60 mm. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent
claim 10; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001.
9. 	Dependent Claim 11: wherein the floor panel has a
length of more than 110 centimeters.
Measurement of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that they have a length of
over 119cm. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 11; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001.

PUBLIC VERSION
121
10. 	Independent Claim 13
Like claim 1, independent claim 13 of the ‘490 patent is directed to a “[f]loor
panel.” See Ex. A-2 (‘490 Patent) at 19:8. Visual inspection confirmed that the Antigua
WPC products are floor panels. See claim 1; Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13. As
discussed below, the Antigua WPC products meets each limitation of independent claim
13 of the ‘490 patent.
Asserted independent claim 13 is recited below:
13. A floor panel comprising:
a substrate;
a top layer located above the substrate; and
a backing layer located below the substrate;
wherein the top layer is connected to the substrate by means of glue;
wherein the substrate is single-layered and includes a closed cell
foamed PVC board having a density of more than 650 kilograms per
cubic meter;
wherein the substrate has a thickness of 2 to 10 millimeters;
wherein the substrate forms at least half of the thickness of the floor
panel;
wherein the top layer includes a back layer, a printed synthetic film
located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer located above the printed synthetic film;
wherein the back layer includes PVC with plasticizers and fillers;
wherein the transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer includes a
vinyl-based material;
wherein the top layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 3 millimeters;
wherein the floor panel has a thickness of 5 to 15 millimeters;
wherein the floor panel is rectangular and oblong and includes a pair
of long edges and a pair of short edges;
wherein the floor panel includes first mechanical coupling parts at the
pair of long edges and second mechanical coupling parts at the pair
of short edges;

PUBLIC VERSION
122
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts are arranged for horizontal
and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective long edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a
groove;
wherein the tongue and the groove are substantially responsible for the
vertical locking;
wherein the tongue and the groove include locking parts substantially
responsible for the horizontal locking;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts are substantially realized
in the substrate;
wherein the second mechanical coupling parts comprise a male
coupling part and a female coupling part arranged for horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a downward
movement along the respective short edges;
wherein the downward movement is automatically created by the
turning movement along the respective long edges; and
wherein the second mechanical coupling parts are substantially
realized in the substrate.
Ex. A-2 (‘490 Patent).
a. 	[13.a] a substrate;
The Antigua WPC products include a substrate. See claim 1(a); Ex. A-14 at ‘490
patent claim 13(a).
b. 	[13.b] a top layer located above the substrate;
and
The Antigua WPC products include a top layer located above the substrate. See
claim 1(b); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(b).
c. 	[13.c] a backing layer located below the
substrate;
The Antigua WPC products include a backing layer located below the substrate.
See claim 8; Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(c).

PUBLIC VERSION
123
d. 	[13.d] wherein the top layer is connected to the
substrate by means of a glue;
The top layer of the Antigua WPC products is connected to the substrate by
means of glue. See claim 1(c); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(d).
e. 	[13.e] wherein the substrate is single-layered and
includes a closed cell foamed PVC board having
a density of more than 650 kilograms per cubic
meter;
The substrate of the Antigua WPC products are single-layered and include a
closed cell foamed PVC board having a density of more than 650 kilograms per cubic
meter. See claim 1(d); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(e).
f. 	f[13.f] wherein the substrate has a thickness of 2
to 10 millimeters;
The substrate of the Antigua WPC products has a thickness of 2 to 10 millimeters.
See claim 1(e); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(f) (confirming that the substrate has an
average thickness of 3.93 mm).
g. 	[13.g] wherein the substrate forms at least half of
the thickness of the floor panel;
The substrate of the Antigua WPC products forms at least half of the thickness of
the floor panel. See claim 1(f); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(g) (confirming that the
substrate has an average thickness of 3.93 mm and the floor panel has an average
thickness between 6.22-6.34 mm; therefore the substrate forms at least 61% of the floor
panel).

PUBLIC VERSION
124
h. 	[13.h] wherein the top layer includes a back
layer, a printed synthetic film located above the
back layer and a transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer located above the printed
synthetic film;
The top layer of the Antigua WPC products includes a back layer, a printed
synthetic film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent thermoplastic
layer located above the printed synthetic film. See claim 1(g); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent
claim 13(h).
i. 	[13.i] wherein the back layer includes PVC with
plasticizers and fillers;
The back layer of the Antigua WPC products includes PVC with DOTP
plasticizers and fillers. See claim 1(i); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(i).
j. 	[13.j] wherein the transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer includes a vinyl-based
material;
The transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer of the Antigua WPC products
includes a vinyl-based material. See claim 1(h); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(j).
k. 	[13.k] wherein the top layer has a thickness of
0.5 to 3 millimeters;
The top layer of the Antigua WPC products has a thickness of 0.5 to 3
millimeters. See claim 6; Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(k).
l. 	[13.l] wherein the floor panel has a thickness of 5
to 15 millimeters;
The Antigua WPC products have a thickness of 5 to 15 millimeters. See claim 10;
Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(l).

PUBLIC VERSION
125
m. 	[13.m] wherein the floor panel is rectangular and
oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a
pair of short edges;
The Antigua WPC products are rectangular and oblong and include a pair of long
edges and a pair of short edges. See claim 1(j); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(m).
n. 	[13.n] wherein the floor panel includes first
mechanical coupling parts at the pair of long
edges and second mechanical coupling parts at
the pair of short edges;
The Antigua WPC products include first mechanical coupling parts at the pair of
long edges and second mechanical coupling parts at the pair of short edges. See claim
1(k); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(n).
o. 	[13.o] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts are arranged for horizontal and vertical
locking of two of such floor panels using a
turning movement along the respective long
edges;
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC products are arranged for
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective long edges. See claim 1(l); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(o).
p. 	[13.p] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a tongue and a groove;
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC products include a
tongue and a groove. See claim 1(m); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(p).
q. 	[13.q] wherein the tongue and the groove are
substantially responsible for the vertical locking;
The tongue and the groove are substantially responsible for the vertical locking.
See claim 1(n); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(q).

PUBLIC VERSION
126
r. 	[13.r] wherein the tongue and the groove include
locking parts substantially responsible for the
horizontal locking;
The tongue and the groove of the first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua
WPC products include locking parts substantially responsible for the horizontal locking.
See claim 1(o); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(r).
s. 	[13.s] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts are substantially realized in the substrate;
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC products are
substantially realized in the substrate. See claim 1(p); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim
13(s).
t. 	[13.t] wherein the second mechanical coupling
parts comprise a male coupling part and a
female coupling part arranged for horizontal
and vertical locking of two of such floor panels
using a downward movement along the
respective short edges;
The second mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC products comprise a
male coupling part and a female coupling part arranged for horizontal and vertical
locking of two of such floor panels using a downward movement along the respective
short edges. See claim 1(q); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(t).
u. 	[13.u] wherein the downward movement is
automatically created by the turning movement
along the respective long edges; and
The downward movement is automatically created by the turning movement
along the respective long edges of the Antigua WPC products. See claim 1(r); Ex. A-14
at ‘490 patent claim 13(u).

PUBLIC VERSION
127
v. 	[13.v] wherein the second mechanical coupling
parts are substantially realized in the substrate.
The second mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC products are
substantially realized in the substrate. See 1(s); Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 13(v).
11. 	Dependent Claim 14: wherein the back layer is located
above the center line determined by the tongue-in-
groove coupling.
The back layer of the Antigua WPC products is located above the center line
determined by the tongue-in-groove coupling. See claim 2; Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim
14.
12. 	Dependent Claim 15: wherein the transparent or
translucent thermoplastic layer has a thickness of 1
millimeter or less.
The transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer of the Antigua WPC products
has a thickness of 1 millimeter or less. See claim 4; Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 15.
13. 	Dependent Claim 16: wherein the vinyl-based material
of the transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer is
PVC.
The vinyl-based material of the transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer of
the Antigua WPC products is PVC. See claim 5; Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 16.
14. 	Dependent Claim 18: wherein the floor panel has a
length of more than 110 centimeters.
The Antigua WPC products have a length of more than 110 centimeters. See
claim 11; Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 18.
D. 	Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) – ‘490 Patent
“With respect to section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), the technical prong is the

PUBLIC VERSION
128
requirement that the investments in plant or equipment and employment in labor or
capital are actually related to ‘articles protected by’ the intellectual property right which
forms the basis of the complaint.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 13-14.
“The test for satisfying the ‘technical prong’ of the industry requirement is essentially
same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted
claims.” Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “With
respect to section 337(a)(3)(C), the technical prong is the requirement that the activities
of engineering, research and development, and licensing are actually related to the
asserted intellectual property right.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 13.
Complainants argue:
Complainants are currently developing and manufacturing rigid
LVT products using foaming (“IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products”) that
practice at least one claim of the ‘490 Patent. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode
Decl.), ¶¶ 2-4. First, Complainants performed tests on the IVC Foamed
Rigid LVT products in their Avelgem, Belgium facility. See id. ¶ 3.
Then, Complainants replicated those same tests in the United States at
their Dalton, Georgia facility 6-8 weeks later. See id..
Since then, Complainants have made significant investments and
refined their plan to produce the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products. See
id. ¶ 5. They have finalized the commercialization schedule of [ 	]
for the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products and received the final approval
needed to manufacture the VIC Foamed Rigid LVT. See id. ¶ 6. The
buildup of the IVC Foamed Rigid LCT products are [
], but will include [
] (collectively “the ‘490 Domestic Industry
Products”). See id. ¶ 7; see also Complainants Amended Disclosure of
Domestic Industry Products (Aug. 13, 2019).
Evidence confirming Complainants’ practice of the ‘490 Patent at
the time of the Complaint was submitted as Compl. Ex. 11 (claim chart
applying at least claim 22 of the ‘490 Patent to Complainants’ IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT products).

PUBLIC VERSION
129
Dr. Scott also conducted various tests on panels of the forthcoming
IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product, including the examination of cross-
sections using optical microscopy (“OM”), SEM and EDS, and FTIR. See
Ex. A, (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 162-164. Dr. Scott’s testing reveals that the IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT product practices claims 22-23, 25-29 of the ‘490
Patent.
Mem. at 174-75.
The Staff argues:
In the Staff’s view, there is no dispute as to any material fact that
Complainant IVC’s forthcoming Foamed Rigid LVT domestic industry
products, which will be domestically manufactured in the state of Georgia,
will practice claims 22, 23, and 25-29 of the ‘490 Patent and claims 28 and
29 of the ‘655 Patent, satisfying the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement related to both patents.
The declaration from Dr. Scott, Complainants’ expert, supports
finding that IVC’s forthcoming Foamed Rigid LVT products will practice
claims from both the ‘490 and ‘655 Patents. Based upon the technical
information provided by Complainants and their declarants, as well as on
the testing and analysis of samples of the forthcoming Foamed Rigid LVT
products18 that he conducted or directed, Dr. Scott performed a limitation-
by-limitation analysis and opined that the Foamed Rigid LVT domestic
industry products will claims 22, 23, and 25-29 of the ‘490 Patent and
claims 28 and 29 of the ‘655 Patent. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.) at ¶¶ 187,
194-197, 205-208, 221-224; Ex. A-19 (Foamed Rigid LVT Claim Chart).
Dr. Scott’s analysis also explains how, in his opinion, the Foamed Rigid
LVT products practice the claims of the ‘490 Patent when the parties’
agreed to claim constructions for the “arranged for horizontal and vertical
locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement along the
respective long edges” claim term is applied. Id.
The Staff is not aware of any dispute as to the evidence offered by
Complainants or Dr. Scott’s technical prong analysis of the IVC Foamed
Rigid LVT products. The Staff is therefore of the view that Complainants
18 In October 2019, Dr. Scott received from Complainant IVC’s parent company finished
samples of products resulting from the foaming test runs performed in Belgium in
September 2019. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 14; Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 197. In
his declaration, Mr. Kristof Van Vlassenrode, who is the a Research and Development
Director at IVC’s parent company, IVC Group, stated that he directed these samples to be
sent to Dr. Scott for testing and that the samples “are representative of the IVC Foamed
Rigid LVT product that will be made in the Dalton IVC facility in the United States.” Id.

PUBLIC VERSION
130
are is entitled to a summary determination that the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement as to the ‘490 and ‘655 Patents is satisfied.
Staff Resp. at 57-58.
To support the technical prong domestic industry allegations, complainants’
motion includes, inter alia, declarations from: (1) Joren Knockaert, the Vice President
Manufacturing, Operations at IVC US, Inc. (Ex. H); (2) Kristoff Van Vlassenrode, a
Research and Development Director at IVC Group (Ex. I); and (3) Jonathan Young, the
Director of Quality at Mohawk Industries (Ex. J). Complainants also rely on documents,
including technical documents, related to the domestic industry products. Furthermore,
as he did for infringement, complainants’ expert Dr. Scott provided a declaration and
claim charts that include his expert analysis and opinion, on an element by element basis,
as to how the domestic industry products practice one or more claims from the asserted
patents.
Complainants are currently developing and manufacturing rigid LVT products
using foaming (“IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products”) that practice at least one claim of
the ‘490 patent. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 2-4. First, complainants
performed tests on the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products in their Avelgem, Belgium
facility. See id. ¶ 3. Then, complainants replicated those same tests in the United States
at their Dalton, Georgia facility 6-8 weeks later. See id.
Complainants refined their plan to produce the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products.
See id. ¶ 5. They have finalized the commercialization schedule of [ 	] for the
IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products and received the final approval needed to manufacture
the VIC Foamed Rigid LVT. See id. ¶ 6. The buildup of the IVC Foamed Rigid LCT

PUBLIC VERSION
131
products are [
] (collectively “the ‘490 domestic industry products”). See id. ¶ 7;
Complainants Amended Disclosure of Domestic Industry Products (Aug. 13, 2019).
Evidence showing complainants’ practice of the ‘490 patent at the time of the
complaint was submitted as Compl. Ex. 11 (claim chart applying at least claim 22 of the
‘490 patent to complainants’ IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products).
As noted, Dr. Scott conducted various tests on panels of the forthcoming IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT product, including the examination of cross-sections using optical
microscopy (“OM”), SEM and EDS, and FTIR. See Ex. A, (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 162-164.
As discussed below, Dr. Scott’s testing demonstrates that the IVC Foamed Rigid
LVT product practices claims 22-23, 25-29 of the ‘490 patent. An element by element
technical prong analysis for the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products is discussed below.
1. 	Independent Claim 22
Independent claim 22 is directed to a “[f]loor panel comprising” various floor
elements. See Ex. A-2 (‘490 Patent) at 20:16. Visual inspection confirmed that the
forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products are floor panels comprising various floor
elements. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0180-
SCOTT-A-1-0188; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 2. As discussed below, the
forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products meet each limitation of independent claim
22 of the ‘490 patent.

PUBLIC VERSION
132
a. 	[22.a] a substrate
Visual inspection, OM testing, and SEM and EDS analysis confirmed that the
forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products contain a substrate. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490
patent claim 22(a); Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 8-
9; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-012; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0156-SCOTT-
A-5-163.
b. 	[22.b] a top layer located above the substrate;
Visual inspection, OM testing, and SEM and EDS analysis confirmed that the top
layer of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products is located above the substrate.
See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(b); Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I (Van
Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 8-9; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-012; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at
SCOTT-A-5-0152, SCOTT-A-5-0168-SCOTT-A-5-0169.
c. 	[22.c] wherein the substrate is multi-layered and
includes a closed cell foamed PVC board having
a density of more than 450 kilograms per cubic
meter;
The substrate of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products is multi-
layered and includes a closed cell foamed PVC board having a density between [
] kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(c); Ex. I-2
at MOH1155_00141596 (showing multi-layered foamed substrate); Ex. I (Van
Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 7-8, 11 (noting that the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products will include a multi-layer foamed PVC substrate). Gas infiltration tests
confirmed that the substrate of the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products includes a closed
cell foamed board. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(c); Ex. A, Appx. 11 at SCOTT-

PUBLIC VERSION
133
A-11-0007 - 0010 (test results demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell
foamed board).
SEM and EDS analysis confirmed that the substrate of the forthcoming IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT products is multi-layered. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0151-
SCOTT-A-5-0169. SEM testing also confirmed that the substrate includes closed cell
foam with an open cell content of [ 	]. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0154-
SCOTT-A-5-0156. FTIR analysis also confirmed that the substrate contains PVC. See
Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00084.
d. 	[22.d] wherein the substrate has a thickness of 2
to 10 millimeters;
The substrate of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products will be
approximately [ 	] thick. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(d); Ex. I-2 at
MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I-1 at MOH1155_00092482 ([ 	] IVC US Buildup
showing [ 	] rigid core); Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 7.
e. 	[22.e] wherein the substrate forms at least half of
the thickness of the floor panel;
The substrate of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product forms
approximately [ 	] of the panel thickness. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(e); Ex.
I-2 at MOH1155_00141596 (showing approximately [ 	] thick floor panel with [ 	]
substrate); Ex. I-1 at MOH1155_00092482; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 7.
f. 	[22.f] wherein the substrate includes a plurality
of embedded glass fiber layers situated on both
sides of the center line of the substrate;
The forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product includes a plurality of
embedded glass fiber layers situated above and below the center line of the substrate. See

PUBLIC VERSION
134
Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(f); Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I-1 at
MOH1155_00092482 (([ ] IVC US Buildup showing a plurality of glass fiber layers);
Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 7, 11). SEM and EDS analysis further confirmed that
the substrate of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products includes glass fiber
layers on both sides of the center line. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0155, SCOTT-
A-5-0162.
g. 	[22.g] wherein the top layer includes a back
layer, a printed synthetic film located above the
back layer and a transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer located above the printed
synthetic film;
The top layer of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products will include a
back layer, a printed synthetic film above the back layer, and a transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer above the printed film. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(g); Ex.
I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 8-9 (describing the wear
layer (transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer), print layer (printed film), and an
upper back ([ 	]) layer (back layer)). SEM and EDS analysis further confirmed that the
top layer includes a back layer, a printed film above the back layer, and a transparent
layer above the printed film. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0168-SCOTT-A-5-169.
FTIR testing confirmed that the printed film layer is synthetic, for example,
because it contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-0079-SCOTT-A-6-0083.
FTIR testing further confirmed that the transparent or translucent layer contains a
thermoplastic (PVC). See id.

PUBLIC VERSION
135
h. 	[22.h] wherein the back layer includes PVC with
plasticizers and fillers;
The forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product line has a back layer that will
include PVC with plasticizers and fillers. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(h). For
example, the back layer (upper back ([ 	]) layer) will include PVC with [
] (plasticizers) and calcium carbonate (fillers). See id; Ex. I (Van
Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 9-10; Ex. I-1 (referencing plasticizers in [ 	] layer).
FTIR testing further confirmed that the back layer includes PVC and filler
(calcium carbonate). See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-0083. Gas chromatography –
mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) testing also confirmed that the back layer includes [ 	]
(plasticizers). See Ex. A, Appx. 9 at SCOTT-A-9-0007.
i. 	[22.i] wherein the transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer includes PVC;
The transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer (wear layer) of the forthcoming
IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products will include PVC. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim
22(i); Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 9-10 (“The wear layer is a protective transparent
layer made primarly of PVC resin.”); Ex. I-1 at MOH1155_00092482. FTIR testing
further confirmed the transparent or translucent layer contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6
at SCOTT-A-6-0081.
j. 	[22.j] wherein the transparent or translucent
thermoplastic layer has a thickness of 1
millimeter or less;
The transparent or translucent thermoplastic layer of the forthcoming IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT product has a thickness of [ 	]. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim

PUBLIC VERSION
136
22(j); Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 9; Ex. I-1 at MOH1155_00092482 ([ 	] IVC
US buildup with [ 	] wear layer).
k. 	[22.k] wherein the top layer has a thickness of
0.5 to 3 millimeters;
The top layer of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product has a total
thickness of [ 	]. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(k); Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode
Decl.), ¶¶ 7-9; Ex. I-1 at MOH1155_00092482 ([ 	] IVC US buildup with [ 	] top
layer).
l. 	[22.l] wherein the floor panel is rectangular and
oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a
pair of short edges;
Visual inspection of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products confirmed
that the floor panels are rectangular and oblong and include a pair of long edges and a
pair of short edges. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(l); Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-
A-1-0183; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001 (overall length and width of ‘490
domestic industry products).
m. 	[22.m] wherein the floor panel includes first
mechanical coupling parts at the pair of long
edges and second mechanical coupling parts at
the pair of short edges;
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed first mechanical coupling parts at the pair of long edges and second
mechanical coupling parts at the pair of short edges. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim
22(m); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013-SCOTT-A-3.2-014.

PUBLIC VERSION
137
n. 	[22.n] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts are arranged for horizontal and vertical
locking of two of such floor panels using a
turning movement along the respective long
edges;
As proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construesd the claim
term “arranged for horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a
turning movement along the respective long edges” as “allowing for horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels by turning one coupling part into the other
coupling part at the respective long edges .” Claim 22 contains this limitation. The
forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products satisfy this limitation. See Ex. A-19 at
‘490 patent claim 22(n). For instance, OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming
IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products confirmed that this limitation is met. See Ex. A, Appx.
3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013.
When the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid products are connected using a turning
movement along the long sides, the coupling parts are locked in the vertical and
horizontal directions such that the coupling parts resist separation in those directions. See
Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(n). In other words, once connected, the coupling parts
are not easily separated along the long sides using a force in the horizontal and vertical
direction. See id.
o. 	[22.o] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a tongue and a groove;
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed that the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and groove.
See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(o); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013.

PUBLIC VERSION
138
p. 	[22.p] wherein the tongue and the groove are
substantially responsible for the vertical locking;
and wherein the tongue and the groove include
locking parts substantially responsible for the
horizontal locking.
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed that the tongue and groove are substantially responsible for the
vertical locking and include locking parts substantially responsible for the horizontal
locking. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 22(p); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013.
2. 	Dependent Claim 23: wherein the first mechanical
coupling parts are substantially realized in the
substrate.
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed that the first mechanical coupling parts are substantially realized in
the substrate. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 23; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-
013.
3. 	Dependent Claim 25: wherein the back layer is located
above the center line determined by the tongue-in-
groove coupling.
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed that the back layer is located above the center line determined by the
tongue-in-groove coupling. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 25; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-013.
4. 	Dependent Claim 26: wherein the closed cell foamed
PVC board has a density of more than 650 kilograms
per cubic meter.
The substrate of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products includes a
closed cell foamed PVC board having a density between [ 	] kilograms per cubic

PUBLIC VERSION
139
meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 26; Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596;
Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 7, 11.
5. 	Dependent Claim 27: wherein the floor panel comprises
a backing layer located below the substrate.
OM testing of the locking sections of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed a backing layer located below the substrate. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490
patent claim 27; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶
12 (“The forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT will also include an optional backing
layer located below the substrate.”).
6. 	Dependent Claim 28: wherein the floor panel has a
thickness of 5 to 15 millimeters.
The forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products will have the thickness of
either [ 	], depending on whether the product includes the optional backing
layer. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 28; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrod Decl.), ¶¶ 9,12 (“The
optional backing layer will have a thickness of approximately [ 	], such that the IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT product will have a total thickness of [ 	], depending on
whether the optional backing layer is included.”); Ex. I-1 at MOH1155_00092482.
Three measurements were also taken with calipers to determine the thickness of
the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products with the optional backing layer, each
of which was between [ 	]. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490 patent claim 28; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at
SCOTT-A-2-0001. The average thickness was [ 	]. See id.

PUBLIC VERSION
140
7. 	Dependent Claim 29: wherein the floor panel has a
length of more than 110 centimeters.
Dimensional analysis with a tap measure confirms that the length of the IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT products is approximately [ 	] centimeters. See Ex. A-19 at ‘490
patent claim 29; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001.
E. 	Validity of the ‘490 Patent
The patent at issue is presumed valid as a matter of law. 35 U.S.C. § 282. This
resumption of validity may be overcome only by “clear and convincing evidence.”
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Complainant Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl owns by assignment the entire right,
title, and interest in and to the ‘490 patent. See Complaint Ex. 5 (certified assignment
record).
No party has challenged the validity or enforceability of the ‘490 patent. Thus,
there is no issue of material fact as to the validity or enforceability of the ‘490 patent.
See Lannom Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 799 F.2d 1572, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(Commission did not have authority to redetermine patent validity when no defense of
invalidity had been raised).
VII. 	U.S. Patent No. 9,200,655
The ‘655 patent, entitled “Floor Panel,” issued on March 19, 2019 to inventors
Laurent Meersseman, Martin Segaert, Bernard Thiers, Benjamin Clement, and
Christophe Maesen.19 The ‘655 patent issued from U.S. patent Application Serial No.
19 A certificate of correction issued from the USPTO on May 14, 2019 to correct
inventorship of this patent. The certificate of correction lists Laurent Meersseman and

PUBLIC VERSION
141
16/158,612, filed on October 12, 2018, and expires on April 28, 2031. The ‘655 patent
has 30 claims, 3 of which are independent claims. See Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent).
Complainant Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl owns by assignment the entire right, title, and
interest in and to the ‘655 patent. See Complaint Ex. 6 (certified assignment record).
Complainants assert claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the ‘655 patent. Mem. at
12.
A. 	Dr. Scott’s Testing Methods
As noted, Dr. Scott, complainants’ technical expert, conducted numerous tests on
the accused products and domestic industry products. See Mem. at 41-45; Ex. A (Scott
Decl.), ¶¶ 60-86. Complainants provided a summary of the various tests Dr. Scott
conducted. See Mem. at 41-45; Section V.A, supra.
B. 	Claim Construction
1. 	A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Complainants, the Staff, and terminated respondents proposed very similar
education and experience levels for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
claimed invention. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.) at 19-21. The differences are not significant
for purposes of deciding the issues on the merits in this investigation.
Thus, as proposed by complainants, the administrative law judge has determined
that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have
either (i) an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, materials science or
engineering, polymer science, engineering arts, or an equivalent field, and a minimum
Martin Segaert as inventors. See Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at 18 (‘655 Patent Cert. of
Correction).

PUBLIC VERSION
142
two years of practical experience in the design, development, analysis or manufacturing
of polymer-based structures, or (ii) a minimum of four years of practical experience in
polymer-based floor covering design, development, analysis, or manufacturing. See id. at
19-20.
2. 	Claim Construction
As noted, complainants assert claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the ‘655 patent.
Mem. at 12.
Asserted independent claims 1 and 18 are recited below:
1. A floor panel comprising:
a substrate; and
a top layer located above and glued to the substrate;
wherein the substrate includes a closed cell foamed PVC board with
fillers;
wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has an average density of
more than 300 kilograms per cubic meter;
wherein the top layer includes a back layer, a printed synthetic
material film located above the back layer and a transparent or
translucent synthetic material wear layer located above the printed
synthetic material film;
wherein the back layer includes a vinyl compound with fillers;
wherein the back layer has a thickness of at least 45 percent of the
thickness of the top layer;
wherein the floor panel includes a first pair of edges and a second pair
of edges;
wherein the floor panel includes first mechanical coupling parts at the
first pair of edges and second mechanical coupling parts at the
second pair of edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts allow a horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a
groove;

PUBLIC VERSION
143
wherein the groove is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking
mechanism having a vertically active locking surface at the upper
side of the tongue and a vertically active locking surface at the lower
side of the upper lip;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal
locking mechanism having a horizontally active locking surface at
the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally active locking surface
at the upper side of the lower lip; and
wherein both said horizontally active locking surfaces and both said
vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board.
18. A floor panel comprising:
a substrate;
a top layer located above and glued to the substrate; and
a backing layer located below the substrate;
wherein the substrate includes a closed cell foamed PVC board with
fillers;
wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has an average density of
more than 300 kilograms per cubic meter;
wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a top flat side and a
bottom flat side;
wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a local density on the
top flat side and the bottom flat side which is higher than in a central
layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board;
wherein the top layer includes a back layer, a printed synthetic
material film located above the back layer, a transparent or
translucent synthetic material wear layer located above the printed
synthetic material film and a surface layer located above the
transparent or translucent synthetic material wear layer;
wherein the back layer comprises a vinyl compound with fillers;
wherein the back layer has a thickness of at least 45 percent of the
thickness of the top layer;
wherein the transparent or translucent synthetic material wear layer
includes a vinyl layer;
wherein the surface layer includes a UV hardened substance;

PUBLIC VERSION
144
wherein the floor panel includes a first pair of edges and a second pair
of edges;
wherein the floor panel includes first mechanical coupling parts at the
first pair of edges and second mechanical coupling parts at the
second pair of edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts allow a horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a
groove;
wherein the groove is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking
mechanism having a vertically active locking surface at the upper
side of the tongue and a vertically active locking surface at the lower
side of the upper lip;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal
locking mechanism having a horizontally active locking surface at
the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally active locking surface
at the upper side of the lower lip; and
wherein both said horizontally active locking surfaces and both said
vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board.
Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent).
a. 	“the first mechanical coupling parts allow a
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such
floor panels using a turning movement along the
respective edges” (Claims 1 and 18)
The parties agreed on the claim construction shown in the table below. See Mem.
at 45; Staff Resp. at 49.

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim Term

Agreed Construction

“the first mechanical coupling parts allow
a horizontal and vertical locking of two of
such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective edges”
(claims 1 and 18)

“the first mechanical coupling parts allow
for horizontal and vertical locking of two
of such floor panels by turning one
coupling part into the other coupling part at
the respective edges”

As proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construes the claim term

“the first mechanical coupling parts allow a horizontal and vertical locking of two of such

floor panels using a turning movement along the respective edge” as “the first mechanical

coupling parts allow for horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels by

turning one coupling part into the other coupling part at the respective edges.”

b.

“the closed cell foamed PVC board....” (Claims
6, 7, and 18)

The proposed constructions for the related disputed claim terms are set forth in

the table below. See Mem. at 45-47; Staff Resp. at 50.

145

PUBLIC VERSION

. Complainants’ Terminated .
Claim Term . Respondents’ Staff's Construction
Construction .
Construction

“the closed cell Plain and ordinary “the closed cell “the closed cell
foamed PVC board meaning: “the closed | foamed PVC board foamed PVC board
has a top flat side and | cell foamed PVC has a top flat side and | has a top flat side and
a bottom flat side... | board has a top flat a bottom flat side... | a bottom flat side. . .
[and] a central layer | side anda bottom flat | and a separate central | and a separate central
of the closed cell side... andacentral | layer located between | layer located between
foamed PVC board” | thickness located the top and bottom the top and bottom
(claim 6) between the top and | flat sides” flat sides”

“the closed cell
foamed PVC board
has a... top flat side
and [a] bottom flat
side... [and] a
central layer of the
closed cell foamed
PVC board” (claim 7)

“the closed cell
foamed PVC board
has a top flat side and
a bottom flat side .. .
[and] a central layer
of the closed cell
foamed PVC board”
(claim 18)

bottom flat sides”

Claim 6 of the ‘655 Patent recites:

The floor panel of claim 1, wherein the closed cell foamed
PVC board has a top flat side and a bottom flat side; and

wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a local
density on the top flat side which is higher than in a central
layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board.

Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at claim 6 (emphasis added). Claims 7 and 18 similarly recite a

floor panel wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a (1) “top flat side,” (11)

146

PUBLIC VERSION
147
“bottom flat side,” and (iii) “central layer.” Id. at claims 7 and 18.
Each of the claims 6, 7 and 18 recites the location of the central layer and its
characteristics. See, e.g., id. at claim 6 (“local density on the top flat side [] is higher than
in a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board”). The claim language itself thus
requires a closed cell foamed PVC board having a non-uniform density down its vertical
axis, with density being higher at one (or both) distal ends of the axis (i.e., at the bottom
and/or top flat sides). In other words, the closed cell foamed PVC board has a lower-
density region – or “thickness” – in the center area of its vertical axis (i.e., between the
top and bottom flat sides). See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 171.
The specification describes a foamed synthetic material board having “a local
density on one or both flat sides which is higher than in a central layer of the foamed
synthetic material board.” Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at 3:3-5; id. at 11:13-18 (describing a
foamed synthetic material board having a local density on the flat sides “which is higher
than the density of a central layer”). This concept of a foamed synthetic material board
having a non-uniform density down its vertical axis is illustrated in the annotated version
of Figure 2 of the ‘655 patent below:

PUBLIC VERSION
148
Figure 2 – 655 Patent
Annotated Figure 2 shows that the foamed synthetic material board has lower-
density layer – or “thickness” – located between flat sides 24 and 25 (highlighted in red).
Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at Fig. 2; id. at 11:13-18. As illustrated in Figure 2, the central
layer is not required to be a uniform structure, but is rather distinguished by the fact that
it has a different density than that of the top and bottom sides. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶
173; Staff’s Claim Construction Brief (EDIS Doc. ID No. 688498) at 23-24 (stating that
“the ‘central layer’ must be a separate layer in the sense that it must have distinct or
different properties from the top and bottom flat sides of the substrate”). Thus, the claims
and specification support complainants’ proposed construction that the “central layer” of
the closed cell foamed PVC board is a “central thickness located between the top and
bottom flat sides.” Id.
In describing the “particularity of the present invention,” the specification
discloses that the central layer is distinct from the substrate’s flat sides, explaining:

PUBLIC VERSION
149
The particularity of the present invention, at least according
to its first aspect, consists in that said substrate 2
substantially consists of a foamed synthetic material board.
In the example, the substrate 2 relates to a foamed PVC
board of the closed cell type. The board 2 concerned has an
average density of 450 kilograms per cubic meter, however,
also has a local density on both flat sides 24-25, namely, a
density of 500 kilograms per cubic meter or more, which is
higher than the density of a central layer 26 of the synthetic
material board 2. Moreover, the substrate 2 comprises
separate layers 27, in this case layers of glass fiber, which
increase the bending stiffness thereof. In the example, these
separate layers 27 are situated on both flat sides 24-25 of
the substrate 2.
Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at 11:9-22; 3:3-18 (“said synthetic material board has a
local density on one or both flat sides which is higher than in a central layer of the
foamed synthetic material board”).
Accordingly, as proposed by complainants, the administrative law judge construes
the claim term “the closed cell foamed PVC board has a top flat side and a bottom flat
side . . . [and] a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board” as “the closed cell
foamed PVC board has a top flat side and a bottom flat side . . . and a central thickness
located between the top and bottom flat sides .”
C. 	Infringement Analysis of the ‘655 Patent
As noted, complainants assert claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-26 of the ‘655 patent.
Mem. at 12.
The ‘655 accused products include the following:
• 	Antigua WPC;
• 	EZ Go;
• 	WaterGuard;
• 	Ultra SPC;

PUBLIC VERSION
150
• 	Top Flooring;
• 	Uniflor Aqua;
• 	Quickstyle.
As with the ‘460 and ‘490 patents, Dr. Scott conducted and directed a variety of
extensive technical tests and analyses of the accused EZ Go, Top Flooring, WaterGuard,
Ultra SPC, and Antigua WPC products to determine if those products infringed the
asserted claims of the ‘655 patent. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 87-92, 100-109, 117-122, 130-
137. Likewise, Dr. Scott conducted and directed extensive testing of the Uniflor Aqua
and Quickstyle products from one or more non-respondents to provide additional support
for complainants’ request for a general exclusion order. Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 142-149.
Dr. Scott determined that, in his opinion, the EZ Go, Top Flooring, WaterGuard,
Ultra SPC, Antigua WPC, Uniflor Aqua, and Quickstyle products infringe certain
asserted claims of the ‘655 patent. Claim charts that contain Dr. Scott’s detailed
infringement analyses and include annotated photographs and test results accompany Dr.
Scott’s declaration. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 59, 92, 103, 109, 122, 137, 145, 149,
169-181, 186; Suppl. Ex. A (Scott Suppl. Decl.), ¶¶ 4-11; Ex. A-7 (EZ Go Chart); Ex. A-
9 (Top Flooring Chart); Ex. A-10 (WaterGuard Chart); Ex. A-12 (Ultra SPC Chart); Ex.
A-14 (Antigua WPC Chart); Ex. A-16 (Uniflor Aqua Chart); Ex. A-17 (Quickstyle
Niagara Chart).
The claim charts provide an element by element explanation, of how, in Dr.
Scott’s opinion, the EZ Go, Top Flooring, WaterGuard, Ultra SPC, Antigua WPC,
Uniflor Aqua, and Quickstyle products meet every limitation of certain asserted claims of
the ‘655 patent. See id.; Mem. at 105-63. Furthermore, Dr. Scott’s analysis explains

PUBLIC VERSION
151
how, in his opinion, those products infringe the asserted claims under each of the agreed
upon and proposed claim constructions offered by the parties in the claim construction
phase. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 169-181; Ex. A-7 (EZ Go Chart); Ex. A-9 (Top
Flooring Chart); Ex. A-10 (WaterGuard Chart); Ex. A-12 (Ultra SPC Chart); Ex. A-14
(Antigua WPC Chart); Ex. A-16 (Uniflor Aqua Chart); Ex. A-17 (Quickstyle Niagara
Chart); Mem. at 54-60.
The Staff argues that it “is not aware of any dispute as to the evidence offered by
Dr. Scott and Complainants. The Staff is therefore of the view that Complainants are
entitled to a summary determination that the accused EZ Go, Top Flooring, WaterGuard,
Ultra SPC, and Antigua WPC products infringe the asserted claims of the ‘655 Patent.
Similarly, Complainants are entitled to rely on the Uniflor Aqua and Quickstyle products
as additional support in connection with their request for a General Exclusion Order.”
Staff at 52-53.
The table below, provided by the Staff, summarizes the results of Dr. Scott’s
analysis and his opinions with respect to the ‘655 patent. See Staff Resp. at 52; Ex. A
(Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 59, 92, 103, 109, 122, 137, 145, 149, 169-181, 186; Suppl. Ex. A (Scott
Suppl. Decl.), ¶¶ 4-11; Ex. A-7 (EZ Go Chart); Ex. A-9 (Top Flooring Chart); Ex. A-10
(WaterGuard Chart); Ex. A-12 (Ultra SPC Chart); Ex. A-14 (Antigua WPC Chart); Ex.
A-16 (Uniflor Aqua Chart); Ex. A-17 (Quickstyle Niagara Chart).

PUBLIC VERSION

Defaulting ‘ Claim Chart and
Accused Product Respondents 655 patent Opinion
ABK Ex A, 99 87-92; 169-
EZ Go Sam Houston Clams 1-4, 6-12, 15- 181, 186;
16
Maxwell Flooring Ex. A-7
Ex A, ¥§ 100-103,
; ABK ; 169-181, 186; Suppl.
Top Flooring Sam Houston Claim 1 Ex. A, 99 4-6
Maxwell Flooring Ex. A-9
Ex A, § 104-109,
Aurora Claims 1-4. 6-16. 18. | 169-181, 186; Suppl.
WaterGuard ? oo _
Mr. Hardwood 20-26 Ex. A, ff 7-11
Ex. A-10
Runchang Ex A, §§ 117-122,
Ultra SPC Lejia Claims 1-4, 6, 8-16 169-181, 186;
Go-Higher Ex. A-12
Ex A, §§ 130-137,
; Divine Claims 1-4. 6-16. 18. | 169-181, 186; Suppl.
Antigua WPC ? a _
ew Licheer 20-26 Ex. A, 7-11
Ex. A-14
Uniflor Aqua Claim 1 Ex A, f§ 142-145,
169-181, 186; Suppl.
Ex. A, 9 4-6
Ex. A-16
Quickstyle Claim 1 Ex A, f§ 156-149,

169-181, 186; Suppl.
Ex. A, ff 4-6

Ex. A-17

An element by element infringement analysis for each of the products accused of

infringing the ‘655 patent is discussed below.

152

PUBLIC VERSION
153
1. 	Independent Claim 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to a “[f]loor panel.” See Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at
14:59. Visual inspection confirmed that the ‘655 accused products, which include the
Antigua WPC, EZ Go, WaterGuard, and Ultra SPC products, are floor panels. See Ex.
A-14 (Antigua WPC), Ex. A-7 (EZ Go), Ex. A-10 (WaterGuard), Ex. A-12 (Ultra SPC);
Ex. A-9 (Top Flooring); Ex. A-16 (Uniflor Aqua); Ex. A-17 (Quickstyle).
a. 	[1.a] a substrate; and
i. 	Antigua WPC
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Antigua WPC products
include a substrate. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004. CT, FTIR, and SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that this
limitation is met. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-
0009; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0005.
ii. 	EZ Go
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the EZ Go products include a
substrate. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012,
SCOTT-A-3.2-033. CT, FTIR, and SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that this
limitation is met. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-
0023; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00066; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0085.
iii. 	WaterGuard
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the WaterGuard products
include a substrate. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-

PUBLIC VERSION
154
3.2-025-SCOTT-A-3.2-026. CT, FTIR, and SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that this
limitation is met. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-
0058; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00056; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0122.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Ultra SPC products include a
substrate. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023-
SCOTT-A-3.2-024. CT, FTIR, and SEM/EDS testing confirmed that this limitation is
met. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0051; Ex. A,
Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00047; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0102.
v. 	Top Flooring
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Top Flooring products
include a substrate. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-036. SEM testing further confirmed this limitation is met. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at
SCOTT-A-5-0183.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Uniflor Aqua products
include a substrate. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-044. SEM testing further confirmed this limitation is met. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at
SCOTT-A-5-0187.
vii. 	Quickstyle
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Quickstyle products include
a substrate. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim 1(a); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-

PUBLIC VERSION
155
048. SEM testing further confirmed this limitation is met. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at
SCOTT-A-5-0171.
b. 	[1.b] a top layer located above and glued to the
substrate;
i. 	Antigua WPC
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Antigua WPC products
include a top layer located above the substrate. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004. CT, SEM/EDS, and FTIR
testing confirmed that the top layer of the Antigua WPC products is glued to the
substrate. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0007-
SCOTT-A-4-0013; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0020; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-
00011-SCOTT-A-6-00012, SCOTT-A-6-00017.
ii. 	EZ Go
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the EZ Go products include a
top layer located above the substrate. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012, SCOTT-A-3.2-033. CT, SEM/EDS, and FTIR testing
confirmed that the top layer of the EZ Go products is glued to the substrate. See Ex. A-7
at ‘655 patent claim 1(b); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0021-SCOTT-A-4-0027; Ex. A,
Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0079; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00066-SCOTT-A-6-00067,
SCOTT-A-6-00072.
iii. 	WaterGuard
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the WaterGuard products
include a top layer located above the substrate. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025- SCOTT-A-3.2-025. CT, SEM/EDS, and FTIR

PUBLIC VERSION
156
testing confirmed that the top layer of the WaterGuard products is glued to the substrate.
See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0056-SCOTT-A-
4-0062; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0118; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00056-
SCOTT-A-6-00057, SCOTT-A-6-00063.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Ultra SPC products include a
top layer located above the substrate. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023-SCOTT-A-3.2-024. CT, SEM/EDS, and FTIR testing
confirmed that the top layer of the Ultra SPC products is glued to the substrate. See Ex.
A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0049-SCOTT-A-4-0055;
Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0098; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00047-SCOTT-A-
6-00048, SCOTT-A-6-00053.
v. 	Top Flooring
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Top Flooring products
include a top layer located above the substrate. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-036. SEM testing further confirmed a top layer located
above and glued to the substrate. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0182-SCOTT-A-5-
0183.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Uniflor Aqua products
include a top layer located above the substrate. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-044. SEM testing further confirmed a top layer located

PUBLIC VERSION
157
above and glued to the substrate. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0185, SCOTT-A-5-
0187.
vii. 	Quickstyle
Visual inspection and OM testing confirmed that the Quickstyle products include
a top layer located above the substrate. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim 1(b); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048. SEM testing further confirmed a top layer located above
and glued to the substrate. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0170-SCOTT-A-5-0171.
c. 	[1.c] wherein the substrate includes a closed cell
foamed PVC board with fillers;
i. 	Antigua WPC
Testing confirmed that the substrate of the Antigua WPC products includes a
closed cell foamed PVC board with fillers. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(c). For
example, gas infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the Antigua WPC products
includes a closed cell foamed board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0002 (test
results demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell foamed board). FTIR and
SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that the substrate includes PVC and fillers such as
calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ). See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00018; Ex. A, Appx.
5 at SCOTT-A-5-0013.
ii. 	EZ Go
Testing confirmed that the substrate of the EZ Go products includes a closed cell
foamed PVC board with fillers. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(c). For example, gas
infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the EZ Go products includes a closed cell
foamed board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0003 - 4 (test results
demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell foamed board). FTIR and

PUBLIC VERSION
158
SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that the substrate includes PVC and fillers such as
calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ). See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0085; Ex. A, Appx.
6 at SCOTT-A-6-00067, SCOTT-A-6-00073.
iii. 	WaterGuard
Testing confirmed that the substrate of the WaterGuard products includes a closed
cell foamed PVC board with fillers. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(c). For
example, gas infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the WaterGuard products
includes a closed cell foamed board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0001 (test
results demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell foamed board). FTIR and
SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that the substrate includes PVC and fillers such as
calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ). See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0122; Ex. A, Appx.
6 at SCOTT-A-6-00057, SCOTT-A-6-00064.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
Testing confirmed that the substrate of the Ultra SPC products includes a closed
cell foamed PVC board with fillers. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(c). For
example, gas infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the Antigua WPC products
includes a closed cell foamed board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0005 - 6
(test results demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell foamed board). FTIR
and SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that the substrate includes PVC and fillers such
as calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ). See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(c); Ex. A, Appx. 5 at
SCOTT-A-5-0102; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00055.

PUBLIC VERSION
159
v. 	Top Flooring
Testing confirmed that the substrate of the Top Flooring products includes a
closed cell foamed PVC board with fillers. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(c). For
example, gas infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the Top Flooring products
includes a closed foamed board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0011 (test
results demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell foamed board). FTIR
testing further confirmed that the substrate includes PVC and filers such as calcium
carbonate (CaCO3 ). See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00110.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
Testing confirmed that the substance of the Uniflor Aqua products includes a
closed cell foamed PVC board with fillers. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim 1(c). For
example, gas infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the Uniflor Aqua products
includes a closed foamed board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0012 (test
results demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell foamed board). FTIR
testing further confirmed that the substrate includes PVC and filers such as calcium
carbonate (CaCO3 ). See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00094.
vii. 	Quickstyle
Testing confirmed that the substance of the Quickstyle products includes a closed
cell foamed PVC board with fillers. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim 1(c). For
example, gas infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the Quickstyle products
includes a closed foamed board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0013 (test
results demonstrating that the substrate includes a closed cell foamed board). FTIR

PUBLIC VERSION
160
testing further confirmed that the substrate includes PVC and filers such as calcium
carbonate (CaCO3 ). See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00104.
d. 	[1.d] wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board
has an average density of more than 300
kilograms per cubic meter;
i. 	Antigua WPC
Density testing confirmed that the substrate of the Antigua WPC products has a
density of 891 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim
1(d); Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.
ii. 	EZ Go
Density testing confirmed that the substrate of the EZ Go products has a density
of 870 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(d); Ex. A,
Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.
iii. 	WaterGuard
Density testing confirmed that the substrate of the WaterGuard products has a
density of 983 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim
1(d); Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
Density testing confirmed that the substrate of the Ultra SPC products has a
density of 891 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim
1(d); Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.

PUBLIC VERSION
161
v. 	Top Flooring
Density testing confirmed that the substrate of the Top Flooring products has a
density of 955 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(d);
Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0002.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
Density testing confirmed that the substrate of the Uniflor Aqua products has a
density of 979 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim
1(d); Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0002.
vii. 	Quickstyle
Density testing confirmed that the substrate of the Quickstyle products has a
density of 871 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim
1(d); Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0002.
e. 	[1.e] wherein the top layer includes a back layer,
a printed synthetic material film located above
the back layer and a transparent or translucent
synthetic material wear layer located above the
printed synthetic material film;
i. 	Antigua WPC
The top layer of the Antigua WPC products includes a back layer, a printed
synthetic material film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent
synthetic material wear layer located above the printed synthetic material film. See Ex.
A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(e). OM, CT, and FTIR testing of the Antigua WPC products
further confirmed the presence of a back layer, a printed film, and a transparent or
translucent wear layer. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-003, SCOTT-A-3.2-

PUBLIC VERSION
162
003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0007-SCOTT-A-4-0013; Ex. A,
Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011.
FTIR testing confirmed that the printed film layer is synthetic, for example,
because it contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00015. FTIR testing
further confirmed that the transparent or translucent layer contains PVC. See Ex. A,
Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00014.
ii. 	EZ Go
The top layer of the EZ Go products includes a back layer, a printed synthetic
material film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent synthetic
material wear layer located above the printed synthetic material film. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655
patent claim 1(e). OM, CT, and FTIR testing of the EZ Go products further confirmed
the presence of a back layer, a printed film, and a transparent or translucent wear layer.
See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-011, SCOTT-A-
3.2-012, SCOTT-A-3.2-033; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0021-SCOTT-A-4-0027;
Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00066.
FTIR testing confirmed that the printed film layer is synthetic, for example,
because it contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00070. FTIR testing
further confirmed that the transparent or translucent layer contains PVC. See Ex. A,
Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00069.
iii. 	WaterGuard
The top layer of the WaterGuard products includes a back layer, a printed
synthetic material film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent
synthetic material wear layer located above the printed synthetic material film. See Ex.

PUBLIC VERSION
163
A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(e). OM, CT, and FTIR testing of the WaterGuard products
further confirmed the presence of a back layer, a printed film, and a transparent or
translucent wear layer. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.1-021, SCOTT-A-3.2-025-SCOTT-A-3.2-026; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-
A-4-0056-SCOTT-A-4-0062; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00056, SCOTT-A-6-
00059-SCOTT-A-6-00060.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
The top layer of the Ultra SPC products includes a back layer, a printed synthetic
material film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent synthetic
material wear layer located above the printed synthetic material film. See Ex. A-12 at
‘655 patent claim 1(e). OM, CT, and FTIR testing of the Ultra SPC products further
confirmed the presence of a back layer, a printed film, and a transparent or translucent
wear layer. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(e); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-
023-SCOTT-A-3.2-024; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0049-SCOTT-A-4-0055; Ex. A,
Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00047.
FTIR testing confirmed that the printed film layer is synthetic, for example,
because it contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00051. FTIR testing
further confirmed that the transparent or translucent layer contains PVC. See Ex. A,
Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00050.
v. 	Top Flooring
The top layer of the Top Flooring products includes a back layer, a printed
synthetic material film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent
synthetic material wear layer located above the printed synthetic material film. See Ex.

PUBLIC VERSION
164
A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(e). OM and FTIR testing of the Top Flooring products further
confirmed the presence of a back layer, a printed film, and transparent or translucent wear
layer. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-036; Ex. A, Appx. 6 SCOTT-A-6-00107-
SCOTT-A-6-00108.
FTIR testing confirmed that the printed layer is synthetic, for example, because it
contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx 6 SCOTT-A-6-00107. FTIR testing further confirmed
that the transparent or translucent layer contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-
6-00108.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
The top layer of the Uniflor Aqua products includes a back layer, a printed
synthetic material film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent
synthetic material wear layer located above the printed synthetic material film. See Ex.
A-16 at ‘655 patent claim 1(e). OM and FTIR testing of the Uniflor Aqua products
further confirmed the presence of a back layer, a printed film, and transparent and
translucent wear layer. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-044; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at
SCOTT-A-6-00091-SCOTT-A-6-00092.
FTIR testing confirmed that the printed layer is synthetic, for example, because it
contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00092. FTIR testing further
confirmed that the transparent or translucent layer contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at
SCOTT-A-6-00091.
vii. 	Quickstyle
The top layer of the Quickstyle products includes a back layer, a printed synthetic
material film located above the back layer and a transparent or translucent synthetic

PUBLIC VERSION
165
material wear layer located above the printed synthetic material film. See Ex. A-17 at
‘655 patent claim 1(e). OM and FTIR testing of the Quickstyle products further
confirmed the presence of a back layer, a printed film, and a transparent and translucent
wear layer. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-
6-00101-SCOTT-A-6-00102.
FTIR testing confirmed that the printed layer is synthetic, for example, because it
contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00102. FTIR testing further
confirmed that the transparent or translucent layer contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at
SCOTT-A-6-00101.
f. 	[1.f] wherein the back layer includes a vinyl
compound with fillers;
i. 	Antigua WPC
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing confirmed that the back layer of the Antigua WPC
products includes PVC (a vinyl compound) and calcium carbonate (a filler). See Ex. A-
14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(f); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00012, SCOTT-A-6-00016;
Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0013.
ii. 	EZ Go
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing confirmed that the back layer of the EZ Go products
includes PVC (a vinyl compound) and calcium carbonate (a filler). See Ex. A-7 at ‘655
patent claim 1(f); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00067, SCOTT-A-5-00071; Ex. A,
Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0091.
iii. 	WaterGuard
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing confirmed that the back layer of the WaterGuard
products includes PVC (a vinyl compound) and a calcium carbonate (a filler). See Ex. A-

PUBLIC VERSION
166
10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(f); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00057, SCOTT-A-6-00062;
Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0130.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
FTIR and SEM/EDS testing confirmed that the back layer of the Ultra SPC
products includes PVC (a vinyl compound) and a calcium carbonate (a filler). See Ex. A-
12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(f); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00048, SCOTT-A-6-00052;
Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0111.
v. 	Top Flooring
FTIR testing confirmed that the back layer of the Top Flooring products includes
PVC (a vinyl compound) and calcium carbonate (a filler). See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(f); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00109.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
FTIR testing confirmed that the back layer of the Uniflor Aqua products includes
PVC (a vinyl compound) and calcium carbonate (a filler). See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(f); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00093.
vii. 	Quickstyle
FTIR testing confirmed that the back layer of the Quickstyle products includes
PVC (a vinyl compound) and calcium carbonate (a filler). See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(f); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00103.
g. 	[1.g] wherein the back layer has a thickness of at
least 45 percent of the thickness of the top layer;
i. 	Antigua WPC
CT testing confirmed that the top layer of the Antigua Products has an average
thickness between 1.25-1.37 mm and the back layer has an average thickness between

PUBLIC VERSION
167
0.91-1.01 mm. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(g); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-
0009. Therefore, the back layer has a thickness of at least 66% of the thickness of the top
layer, i.e., 0.91 mm (the average minimum of the back later) / 1.37 mm (the average
maximum of the top layer). See id.
ii. 	EZ Go
CT testing confirmed that the top layer has an average thickness between 1.89-
2.01 mm and the back layer has an average thickness between 1.66-1.77 mm. See Ex. A-
7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(g); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0023. Therefore, the back
layer has a thickness of at least 82% of the thickness of the top layer, i.e., 1.66 mm mm
(the average minimum of the back later) / 2.01 mm (the average maximum of the top
layer). See id.
iii. 	WaterGuard
CT testing confirmed that the top layer has an average thickness between 0.84-
0.88 mm and the back layer has an average thickness between 0.84-0.88 mm. See Ex. A-
10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(g); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0058. Therefore, the back
layer has a thickness of at least 58% of the thickness of the top layer, i.e., 0.84 mm (the
average minimum of the back later) / 1.43 mm (the average maximum of the top layer).
See id.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
CT testing confirmed that the top layer has an average thickness between 1.71-
1.78 mm and the back layer has an average thickness between 1.13-1.17 mm. See Ex. A-
12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(g); Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0051. Therefore, the back
layer has a thickness of at least 66% of the thickness of the top layer, i.e., 1.13 mm (the

PUBLIC VERSION
168
average minimum of the back later) / 1.78 mm (the average maximum of the top layer).
See id.
v. 	Top Flooring
OM testing of the locking sections of the Top Flooring products confirmed that
the top layer has a thickness of approximately 2.03 millimeters and the back layer has a
thickness of approximately 1.79 millimeters. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(g); Ex.
A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-037. Therefore, the back layer has a thickness of
approximately 88% of the thickness of the top layer. See id.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Uniflor Aqua products confirmed that
the top layer has a thickness of approximately 1.47 millimeters and the back layer has a
thickness of approximately 1.00 millimeters. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim 1(g); Ex.
A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-043. Therefore, the back layer has a thickness of
approximately 68% of the thickness of the top layer. See id.
vii. 	Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
top layer has a thickness of approximately 1.79 millimeters and the back layer has a
thickness of 1.20 millimeters. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim 1(g); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-049. Therefore, the back layer has a thickness of approximately 67% of
the thickness of the top layer. See id.

PUBLIC VERSION
169
h. 	[1.h] wherein the floor panel includes a first pair
of edges and a second pair of edges;
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the floor panels include a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See Ex. A-14 at
‘655 patent claim 1(h); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT A 3.2-004.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that the floor
panels include a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(h); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012, SCOTT-A-3.2-033.
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the
floor panels include a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655
patent claim 1(h); Ex. A, Appx. 3, SCOTT-A-3.2-025-SCOTT A 3.2-026.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the
floor panels include a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655
patent claim 1(h); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023-SCOTT-A 3.2-024.
v. 	Top Flooring
Visual inspection and OM testing of the locking sections of the Top Flooring
products confirmed that the floor panels include a pair of long edges and a pair of short
edges. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(h); Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0209-
SCOTT-A-1-0210; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-034, SCOTT-A-3.2-036.

PUBLIC VERSION
170
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
Visual inspection and OM testing of the locking sections of the Uniflor Aqua
products confirmed that the floor panels include a pair of long edges and a pair of short
edges. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim 1(h); Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0217-
SCOTT-A-1-0218; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-042, SCOTT-A-3.2-044.
vii. 	Quickstyle
Visual inspection and OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle
products confirmed that the floor panels include a pair of long edges and a pair of short
edges. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim 1(h); Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0221-
SCOTT-A-1-0222; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-046, SCOTT-A-3.2-048.
i. 	[1.i] wherein the floor panel includes first
mechanical coupling parts at the first pair of
edges and second mechanical coupling parts at
the second pair of edges;
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the floor panels include first mechanical coupling parts at the first pair of edges and
second mechanical coupling parts at the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655
patent claim 1(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that the floor
panels include first mechanical coupling parts at the first pair of edges and second
mechanical coupling parts at the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim
1(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012, SCOTT-A-3.2-033.

PUBLIC VERSION
171
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the
floor panels include first mechanical coupling parts at the first pair of edges and second
mechanical coupling parts at the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim
1(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3, SCOTT-A-3.2-025-SCOTT A 3.2-026.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the
floor panels include first mechanical coupling parts at the first pair of edges and second
mechanical coupling parts at the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim
1(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023-SCOTT-A 3.2-024.
v. 	Top Flooring
OM testing of the locking sections of the Top Flooring products confirmed that
the floor panels include first mechanical coupling parts at the first pair of edges and
second mechanical coupling parts at the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-034, SCOTT-A-3.2-036.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Uniflor Aqua products confirmed that
the floor panels include mechanical coupling parts at the first pair of edges and second
mechanical coupling parts at the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim
1(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-042, SCOTT-A-3.2-044.
vii. 	Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
floor panels include mechanical coupling parts at the first pair of edges and second

PUBLIC VERSION
172
mechanical coupling parts at the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim
1(i); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-046, SCOTT-A-3.2-048.
j. 	[1.j] wherein the first mechanical coupling parts
allow a horizontal and vertical locking of two of
such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective edges;
As proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construed the claim term
“the first mechanical coupling parts allow a horizontal and vertical locking of two of such
floor panels using a turning movement along the respective edge” as “the first mechanical
coupling parts allow for horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels by
turning one coupling part into the other coupling part at the respective edges.” As
discussed below, this construction is satisfied by all of the ‘655 accused products.
i. 	Antigua WPC
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC products allow a
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective edges. See Ex. A-14 at ‘490 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-003.

PUBLIC VERSION
173
The mechanical coupling part shown above allows for horizontal and vertical
locking of the floor panel by turning one coupling part into the other coupling part, as
indicated.
ii. 	EZ Go
The first mechanical coupling parts of the EZ Go products allow a horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement along the
respective edges. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(j); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-
012.
The mechanical coupling part shown above allows for horizontal and vertical
locking of the floor panel by turning one coupling part into the other coupling part, as
indicated.
iii. 	WaterGuard
The first mechanical coupling parts of the WaterGuard products allow a
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective edges. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(j); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-025.

PUBLIC VERSION
174
The mechanical coupling part shown above allows for horizontal and vertical
locking of the floor panel by turning one coupling part into the other coupling part, as
indicated.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Ultra SPC products allow a horizontal
and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement along the
respective edges. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(j); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-023.
The mechanical coupling part shown above allows for horizontal and vertical
locking of the floor panel by turning one coupling part into the other coupling part, as
indicated.

PUBLIC VERSION
175
v. 	Top Flooring
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Top Flooring products allow a
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective edges. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(j); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-034, SCOTT-A-3.2-036.
The mechanical coupling part shown above allows for horizontal and vertical
locking of the floor panel by turning one coupling part in the other coupling part, as
indicated.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Uniflor Aqua products allow a
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective edges. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim 1(j); Ex. A, Appx.3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-044.

PUBLIC VERSION
176
The mechanical coupling parts shown above allows for horizontal and vertical
locking of the floor panel by turning one coupling part in the other coupling part, as
indicated.
vii. 	Quickstyle
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Quickstyle products allow a horizontal
and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement along the
respective edges. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim 1(j); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-
3.2-048.

PUBLIC VERSION
177
The mechanical coupling parts shown above allows for horizontal and vertical
locking of the floor panel by turning one coupling part in the other coupling part, as
indicated.
k. 	[1.k] wherein the first mechanical coupling parts
include a tongue and a groove;
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a groove. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655
patent claim 1(k); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that the first
mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a groove. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(k); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012.

PUBLIC VERSION
178
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a groove. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655
patent claim 1(k); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a groove. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655
patent claim 1(k); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023.
v. 	Top Flooring
OM testing of the locking sections of the Top Flooring products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a groove. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655
patent claim 1(k); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-036.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Uniflor Aqua products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a groove. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655
patent claim 1(k); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-044.
vii. 	Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a groove. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655
patent claim 1(k); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048.

PUBLIC VERSION
179
l. 	[1.l] wherein the groove is flanked by an upper
lip and a lower lip;
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the groove of the first mechanical coupling parts is flanked by an upper lip and a lower
lip. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that the
groove of the first mechanical coupling parts is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip.
See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012.
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the
groove of the first mechanical coupling parts is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip.
See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the
groove of the first mechanical coupling parts is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip.
See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023.
v. 	Top Flooring
OM testing of the locking sections of the Top Flooring products confirmed that
the groove of the first mechanical coupling parts is flanked by an upper lip and a lower
lip. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-036.

PUBLIC VERSION
180
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Uniflor Aqua products confirmed that
the groove of the first mechanical coupling parts is flanked by an upper lip and a lower
lip. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-044.
vii. 	Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
groove of the first mechanical coupling parts is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip.
See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim 1(l); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048.
m. 	[1.m] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a vertical locking mechanism
having a vertically active locking surface at the
upper side of the tongue and a vertically active
locking surface at the lower side of the upper lip;
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking mechanism having a
vertically active locking surface at the upper side of the tongue and a vertically active
locking surface at the lower side of the upper lip. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim
1(m); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that the first
mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking mechanism having a vertically
active locking surface at the upper side of the tongue and a vertically active locking
surface at the lower side of the upper lip. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(m); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012.

PUBLIC VERSION
181
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking mechanism having a vertically
active locking surface at the upper side of the tongue and a vertically active locking
surface at the lower side of the upper lip. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(m); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking mechanism having a vertically
active locking surface at the upper side of the tongue and a vertically active locking
surface at the lower side of the upper lip. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(m); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023.
v. 	Top Flooring
OM testing of the locking sections of the Top Flooring products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking mechanism having a
vertically active locking surface at the upper side of the tongue and a vertically active
locking surface at the lower side of the upper lip. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(m);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-036.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Uniflor Aqua products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking mechanism having a
vertically active locking surface at the upper side of the tongue and a vertically active

PUBLIC VERSION
182
locking surface at the lower side of the upper lip. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim
1(m); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-044.
vii. 	Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking mechanism having a vertically
active locking surface at the upper side of the tongue and a vertically active locking
surface at the lower side of the upper lip. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim 1(m); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048.
n. 	[1.n] wherein the first mechanical coupling parts
include a horizontal locking mechanism having a
horizontally active locking surface at the lower
side of the tongue and a horizontally active
locking surface at the upper side of the lower lip;
and
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal locking mechanism having a
horizontally active locking surface at the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally
active locking surface at the upper side of the lower lip. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(n); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that the first
mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal locking mechanism having a horizontally
active locking surface at the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally active locking
surface at the upper side of the lower lip. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(n); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012.

PUBLIC VERSION
183
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal locking mechanism having a
horizontally active locking surface at the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally
active locking surface at the upper side of the lower lip. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(n); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal locking mechanism having a
horizontally active locking surface at the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally
active locking surface at the upper side of the lower lip. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(n); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023.
v. 	Top Flooring
OM testing of the locking sections of the Top Flooring products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal locking mechanism having a
horizontally active locking surface at the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally
active locking surface at the upper side of the lower lip. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim
1(n); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-036.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Uniflor Aqua products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal locking mechanism having a
horizontally active locking surface at the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally

PUBLIC VERSION
184
active locking surface at the upper side of the lower lip. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(n); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-044.
vii. 	Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal locking mechanism having a
horizontally active locking surface at the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally
active locking surface at the upper side of the lower lip. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent
claim 1(n); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048.
o. 	[1.o] wherein both said horizontally active
locking surfaces and both said vertically active
locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell PVC board.
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
both the horizontally and vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 1(o);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that both the
horizontally and vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the material
of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 1(o); Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012.
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that
both the horizontally and vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the

PUBLIC VERSION
185
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 1(o);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that both
the horizontally and vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 1(o);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023.
v. 	Top Flooring
OM testing of the locking sections of the Top Flooring products confirmed that
both the horizontally and vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-9 at ‘655 patent claim 1(o); Ex.
A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-036.
vi. 	Uniflor Aqua
OM testing of the locking sections of the Uniflor Aqua products confirmed that
both the horizontally and vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-16 at ‘655 patent claim 1(o);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-044.
vii. 	Quickstyle
OM testing of the locking sections of the Quickstyle products confirmed that both
the horizontally and vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-17 at ‘655 patent claim 1(o);
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-048.

PUBLIC VERSION
186
2. 	Claim 2: wherein at least 70 percent of the
circumference of the first mechanical coupling parts is
formed in the material of the closed cell foamed PVC
board.
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
89% of the circumference of the first mechanical coupling parts is formed in the material
of closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 2; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-003; Ex. A, Appx. 10 at SCOTT-A-10-003-SCOTT-A-10-004.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that 85% of
the circumference of the first mechanical coupling parts is formed in the material of
closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 2; Ex., A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-012; Ex. A, Appx. 10 at SCOTT-A-10-005-SCOTT-A-10-006.
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that
92% of the circumference of the first mechanical coupling parts is formed in the material
of closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 2; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-025; Ex. A, Appx. 10 at SCOTT-A-10-009-SCOTT-A-10-010.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that 87%
of the circumference of the first mechanical coupling parts is formed in the material of
closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 2; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-023; Ex. A, Appx. 10 at SCOTT-A-10-011-SCOTT-A-10-012.

PUBLIC VERSION
187
3. 	Claim 3: wherein the first mechanical coupling parts
comprise additional horizontally active locking surfaces
situated at the height of the location where the top
layers of two of such floor panels in coupled condition
are flanking each other; and wherein the additional
horizontally active locking surfaces are formed
substantially in the material of the top layer.
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts comprises horizontally active locking surfaces situated
at the height of the location where the top layers of two of such floor panels in coupled
condition are flanking each other. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 3; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products further
confirmed that the additional horizontally active locking surface are formed substantially
in the material of the top layer. See id. The additional horizontally active locking
surfaces effect a locking in a horizontal direction because they mutually prevent
movement in the horizontal direction by the adjacent floor element. See id.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that the first
mechanical coupling parts comprises horizontally active locking surfaces situated at the
height of the location where the top layers of two of such floor panels in coupled
condition are flanking each other. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 3; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-012.
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products further confirmed that
the additional horizontally active locking surface are formed substantially in the material

PUBLIC VERSION
188
of the top layer. See id. The additional horizontally active locking surfaces effect a
locking in a horizontal direction because they mutually prevent movement in the
horizontal direction by the adjacent floor element. See id.
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts comprises horizontally active locking surfaces situated at
the height of the location where the top layers of two of such floor panels in coupled
condition are flanking each other. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 3; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-025.
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products further confirmed
that the additional horizontally active locking surface are formed substantially in the
material of the top layer. See id. The additional horizontally active locking surfaces
effect a locking in a horizontal direction because they mutually prevent movement in the
horizontal direction by the adjacent floor element. See id.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts comprises horizontally active locking surfaces situated at
the height of the location where the top layers of two of such floor panels in coupled
condition are flanking each other. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 3; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at
SCOTT-A-3.2-023.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the
additional horizontally active locking surface are formed substantially in the material of
the top layer. See id. The additional horizontally active locking surfaces effect a locking

PUBLIC VERSION
189
in a horizontal direction because they mutually prevent movement in the horizontal
direction by the adjacent floor element. See id.
4. 	Claim 4: wherein the first mechanical coupling parts
comprise additional vertically active locking surfaces at
the lower side of the tongue and the upper side of the
lower lip, respectively; and wherein the additional
vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely
in the material of the closed cell foamed PVC board.
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts comprise additional vertically active locking surfaces
at the lower side of the tongue and the upper side of the lower lip, respectively. See Ex.
A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 4; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products further
confirmed that the additional vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in
the material of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See id.
ii. 	EZ Go
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that the first
mechanical coupling parts comprise additional vertically active locking surfaces at the
lower side of the tongue and the upper side of the lower lip, respectively. See Ex. A-7 at
‘655 patent claim 4; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012.
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products confirmed that the
additional vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the material of the
closed cell foamed PVC board. See id.

PUBLIC VERSION
190
iii. 	WaterGuard
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the
first mechanical coupling parts comprise additional vertically active locking surfaces at
the lower side of the tongue and the upper side of the lower lip, respectively. See Ex. A-
10 at ‘655 patent claim 4; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025.
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the
additional vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the material of the
closed cell foamed PVC board. See id.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the first mechanical coupling parts comprise additional vertically active locking surfaces
at the lower side of the tongue and the upper side of the lower lip, respectively. See Ex.
A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 4; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that
the additional vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the material of
the closed cell foamed PVC board. See id.
5. 	Claim 6: wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has
a top flat side and a bottom flat side; and wherein the
closed cell foamed PVC board has a local density on the
top flat side which is higher than in a central layer of
the closed cell foamed PVC board.
As proposed by complainants, the administrative law judge construed the claim
term “the closed cell foamed PVC board has a top flat side and a bottom flat side . . .
[and] a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board” as “the closed cell foamed

PUBLIC VERSION
191
PVC board has a top flat side and a bottom flat side . . . and a central thickness located
between the top and bottom flat sides .”
i. 	Antigua WPC
The closed cell foamed PVC board of the Antigua WPC products has a top flat
side and a bottom flat side, and wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a local
density on the top flat side and the bottom flat side which is higher than in a central layer
of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 6. As shown
below, the Antigua WPC products have a top flat side, a bottom flat size, and a closed
cell foamed PVC Board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
CT testing confirmed that the remaining elements of the claim are met. See id.;
Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0013 (explaining that the testing results show a top zone
with 55% solids (45% voids), a bottom zone with 48% solids (52% voids), and central
zone with 40% solids (60% voids)). Thus, the local density on the top flat side is higher
than in a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board.
ii. 	EZ Go
The closed cell foamed PVC board of the EZ Go products has a top flat side and a
bottom flat side, and wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a local density on the
top flat side and the bottom flat side which is higher than in a central layer of the closed

PUBLIC VERSION
192
cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 6. As shown below, the EZ
Go products have a top flat side, a bottom flat size, and a closed cell foamed PVC Board.
See id; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012.
CT testing confirmed that the remaining elements of the claim are met. See Ex.
A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 6; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0027 (explaining that the
testing results show a top zone with 65% solids (35% voids), a bottom zone with 38%
solids (62% voids), and central zone with 63% solids (37% voids)). Thus, the local
density on the top flat side is higher than in a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC
board.
iii. 	WaterGuard
The closed cell foamed PVC board of the WaterGuard products has a top flat side
and a bottom flat side, and wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a local density
on the top flat side and the bottom flat side which is higher than in a central layer of the
closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 6. As shown below,
the WaterGuard products have a top flat side, a bottom flat size, and a closed cell foamed
PVC Board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025.

PUBLIC VERSION
193
CT testing confirmed that the remaining elements of the claim are met. See Ex.
A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 6; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0062 (explaining that the
testing results show a top zone with 53% solids (47% voids), a bottom zone with 48%
solids (52% voids), and central zone with 44% solids (56% voids)). Thus, the local
density on the top flat side is higher than in a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC
board.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
The closed cell foamed PVC board of the Ultra SPC products has a top flat side
and a bottom flat side, and wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a local density
on the top flat side which is higher than in a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC
board. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 6. As shown below, the Ultra SPC products
have a top flat side, a bottom flat size, and a closed cell foamed PVC Board. See id.; Ex.
A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-023.

PUBLIC VERSION
194
CT testing confirmed that the remaining elements of the claim are met. See Ex.
A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 6; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0055 (explaining that the
testing results show a top zone with 55% solids (45% voids), central zone with 50%
solids (50% voids), and bottom zone with 44% solids (56% voids). Thus, the local
density on the top flat side is higher than in a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC
board.
6. 	Claim 7: wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has
a local density on the top flat side and the bottom flat
side which is higher than in a central layer of the closed
cell foamed PVC board.
As proposed by complainants, the administrative law judge construed the claim
term “the closed cell foamed PVC board has a top flat side and a bottom flat side . . .
[and] a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board” as “the closed cell foamed
PVC board has a top flat side and a bottom flat side . . . and a central thickness located
between the top and bottom flat sides .”
i. 	Antigua WPC
The closed cell foamed PVC board of the Antigua WPC products has a local
density on the top flat side and the bottom flat side which is higher than the central layer
of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 7. As shown

PUBLIC VERSION
195
below, the Antigua WPC products have a top flat side, a bottom flat size, and a closed
cell foamed PVC Board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
CT testing confirmed that the remaining elements of the claim are met. See id.;
Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0013 (explaining that the testing results show a top zone
with 55% solids (45% voids), a bottom zone with 48% solids (52% voids), and central
zone with 40% solids (60% voids)). Thus, the local density on the top flat side and the
bottom flat side is higher than in a central layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board.
ii. 	EZ Go
The closed cell foamed PVC board of the EZ Go products has a local density on
the top flat side and the bottom flat side which is higher than the central layer of the
closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 7. As shown below, the
EZ Go products have a top flat side, a bottom flat size, and a closed cell foamed PVC
Board. See id; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012.

PUBLIC VERSION
196
CT testing confirmed that the remaining elements of the claim are met. See Ex.
A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 7; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0027 (explaining that the
testing results show a top zone with 65% solids (35% voids), central zone with 38%
solids (62% voids), and bottom zone with 63% solids (37% voids)). Thus, the local
density on the top flat side and the bottom flat side is higher than the central layer of the
closed cell foamed PVC board.
iii. 	WaterGuard
The closed cell foamed PVC board of the WaterGuard products has a local
density on the top flat side and the bottom flat side which is higher than the central layer
of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 7. As shown
below, the WaterGuard products have a top flat side, a bottom flat size, and a closed cell
foamed PVC Board. See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025.
CT testing confirmed that the remaining elements of the claim are met. See Ex.
A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 7; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0062) (explaining that the
testing results show a top zone with 53% solids (47% voids), a bottom zone with 48%
solids (52% voids), and central zone with 44% solids (56% voids)). Thus, the local
density on the top flat side and the bottom flat side is higher than in a central layer of the
closed cell foamed PVC board. See id.

PUBLIC VERSION
197
7. 	Claim 8: wherein the transparent or translucent
synthetic material wear layer comprises a vinyl layer.
i. 	Antigua WPC
FTIR testing confirmed that the transparent layer of the Antigua WPC products
includes PVC (a vinyl). See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 8; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-
A-6-00014.
ii. 	EZ Go
FTIR testing confirmed that the transparent layer includes PVC (a vinyl). See Ex.
A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 8; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00067, SCOTT-A-6-00069.
iii. 	WaterGuard
FTIR testing confirmed that the transparent layer includes PVC (a vinyl). See Ex.
A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 8; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00057, SCOTT-A-6-00059.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
FTIR testing confirmed that the transparent layer includes PVC (a vinyl). See Ex.
A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 8; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00048, SCOTT-A-6-00050.
8. 	Claim 9: wherein the back layer is the thickest and
densest layer of the top layer.
i. 	Antigua WPC
CT testing confirmed that the top layer of the Antigua WPC products has an
average thickness between 1.25-1.37 and the back layer has an average thickness between
0.91-1.01. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 9; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0009.
Therefore, the back layer is the thickest layer of the top layer. See id. FTIR testing
confirmed that the back layer contains the most filler among the top layers, and this is
indicative of the relative densities as explained in Dr. Scott’s declaration. See Ex. A-14

PUBLIC VERSION
198
at ‘655 patent claim 9; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011-SCOTT-A-6-00019.
SEM/EDS testing further confirmed that the back layer is the thickest layer of the top
layer. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 9; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0001.
ii. 	EZ Go
CT testing confirmed that the top layer of the EZ Go products has an average
thickness between 1.89-2.01 mm and the back layer has an average thickness between
1.66-1.77. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 9; Ex., A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0023.
Therefore, the back layer is the thickest layer of the top layer. See id. FTIR testing
confirmed that the back layer contains the most filler among the top layers, and this is
indicative of the relative densities as explained in Dr. Scott’s declaration. See Ex. A-7 at
‘655 patent claim 9; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00066-SCOTT-A-6-00073.
SEM/EDS testing confirms that back layer is the thickest layer of the top layer. See Ex.
A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 9; Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0079.
iii. 	WaterGuard
CT testing confirm that the top layer of the WaterGuard products has an average
thickness between 1.34-1.43 and the back layer has an average thickness between 0.84-
0.88. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 9; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0058.
Therefore, the back layer is the thickest layer of the top layer. See id. FTIR testing
confirmed that the back layer contains the most filler among the top layers, and this is
indicative of the relative densities as explained in Dr. Scott’s declaration. See Ex. A-10
at ‘655 patent claim 9; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00056-SCOTT-A-6-00065.
SEM/EDS testing confirms that back layer is the thickest layer of the top layer. See Ex.
A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 9; Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0118.

PUBLIC VERSION
199
iv. 	Ultra SPC
CT testing confirm that the top layer of the Ultra SPC products has an average
thickness between 1.71-1.78 and the back layer has an average thickness between 1.13-
1.17. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 9; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0051.
Therefore, the back layer is the thickest layer of the top layer. See id. FTIR testing
confirmed that the back layer contains the most filler among the top layers, and this is
indicative of the relative densities as explained in Dr. Scott’s declaration. See Ex. A-12
at ‘655 patent claim 9; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00047-SCOTT-A-6-00055. SEM
testing further confirmed that the back layer is the thickest. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent
claim 9; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0098.
9. 	Claim 10: wherein the top layer has a thickness of 0.5 to
3 millimeters.
i. 	Antigua WPC
CT testing confirmed that the top layer of the Antigua WPC products has an
average thickness between 1.25-1.37 mm. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 10; Ex. A,
Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0009.
ii. 	EZ Go
CT testing confirmed that the top layer of the EZ Go products has an average
thickness between 1.25-1.37 mm. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 10; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0023.

PUBLIC VERSION
200
iii. 	WaterGuard
CT testing confirmed that the top layer of the WaterGuard products has an
average thickness between 1.34-1.43 mm. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 10; Ex. A,
Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0058.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
CT testing confirmed that the top layer of the Ultra SPC products has an average
thickness between 1.71-1.78 mm. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 10; Ex. A, Appx. 4
at SCOTT-A-4-0051.
10. 	Claim 11: wherein the top layer has a density of more
than 500 kilograms per cubic meter.
Dr. Scott’s method for calculating the density of the top layer is described in his
Declaration. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 77-79.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Density testing of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the top layer has a
density of 1568 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim
11; Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.
ii. 	EZ Go
Density testing of the EZ Go products confirmed that the top layer has a density
of 2045 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 11; Ex. A,
Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.

PUBLIC VERSION
201
iii. 	WaterGuard
Density testing of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the top layer has a
density of 1711 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim
11; Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
Density testing of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the top layer has a
density of 1836 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim
11; Ex. A, Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001.
11. 	Claim 12: wherein the top layer has a higher density
than the substrate.
Dr. Scott’s method for calculating the density of the top layer is described in his
Declaration. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 77-79.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Density testing of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the top layer has a
density of 1568 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ) and that the substrate has a density of
891 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 12; Ex. A,
Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001. Thus, the top layer has a higher density than the substrate.
See id.
ii. 	EZ Go
Density testing of the EZ Go products confirmed that the top layer has a density
of 2045 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ) and that the substrate has a density of 870
kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 12; Ex. A, Appx. 7
at SCOTT-A-7-0001. Thus, the top layer has a higher density than the substrate. See id.

PUBLIC VERSION
202
iii. 	WaterGuard
Density testing of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the top layer has a
density of 1711 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ) and that the substrate has a density of
983 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 12; Ex. A,
Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001. Thus, the top layer has a higher density than the substrate.
See id.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
Density testing of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the top layer has a
density of 1836 kilograms per cubic meter and that the substrate has a density of 962
kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 12; Ex. A, Appx. 7
at SCOTT-A-7-0001. Thus, the top layer has a higher density than the substrate. See id.
12. 	Claim 13: wherein the floor panel comprises a backing
layer below the substrate.
i. 	Antigua WPC
OM, CT, FTIR, and SEM/EDS testing confirmed that the Antigua WPC products
include a backing layer below the substrate. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 13; Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0007-
SCOTT-A-4-0013; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0015; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-
00011.
ii. 	WaterGuard
OM, CT, and FTIR, testing confirmed that the WaterGuard products include a
backing layer below the substrate. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 13; Ex. A, Appx. 3

PUBLIC VERSION
203
at SCOTT-A-3.2-025; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0058; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-
A-6-00056.
iii. 	Ultra SPC
OM, CT, and FTIR, testing confirmed that the Ultra SPC products include a
backing layer below the substrate. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 13; Ex. A, Appx. 3
at SCOTT-A-3.2-023; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-0051; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-
A-6-00047.
13. 	Claim 14: wherein the backing layer has a lower density
than the back layer.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Density testing of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the back layer has a
density of 1677 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ) and the backing layer has a density of
576 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 14; Ex. A,
Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001. Therefore, the backing layer has a lower density than the
back layer. See id.
ii. 	WaterGuard
Density testing of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the back layer has a
density of 1845 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) and the backing layer has a density of
416 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3). See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 14; Ex. A,
Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001. Therefore, the backing layer has a lower density than the
back layer. See id.

PUBLIC VERSION
204
iii. 	Ultra SPC
Density testing of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the back layer has a
density of 1970 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) and the backing layer has a density of
186 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3). See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 14; Ex. A,
Appx. 7 at SCOTT-A-7-0001. Therefore, the backing layer has a lower density than the
back layer. See id.
14. 	Claim 15: wherein the floor panel has a thickness of 5 to
10 millimeters.
i. 	Antigua WPC
CT testing confimed that the Antigua WPC products have an average thickness
between 6.22-6.34 mm. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0009. Three measurements were also taken with calipers, showing an
average thickness of 6.60mm. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at
SCOTT-A-2-0001.
ii. 	EZ Go
CT testing confirmed that the EZ Go products have an average thickness between
6.67-6.63 mm. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at SCOTT-A-4-
0023. Three measurements were also taken with calipers, showing an average thickness
of 6.79 mm. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001.
iii. 	WaterGuard
CT testing confrimed that the WaterGuard products have an average thickness
between 7.35-7.28 mm. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0058. Three measurements were also taken with calipers, showing an

PUBLIC VERSION
205
average thickness of 7.48 mm. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at
SCOTT-A-2-0001.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
CT testing confirmed that the Ultra SPC products have an average thickness
between 7.50-7.22 mm. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0051. Three measurements were also taken with calipers, showing an
average thickness of 7.77 mm. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 15; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at
SCOTT-A-2-0001.
15. 	Claim 16: wherein the floor panel is rectangular and
oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a pair of
short edges; wherein the pair of long edges is formed by
the first pair of edges; and wherein the pair of short
edges is formed by the second pair of edges.
i. 	Antigua WPC
Visual inspection of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that the floor panels
are rectangular and oblong and include a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See
Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 16. Measurements confirmed that the Antigua WPC panels
are rectangular and oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges.
See id.; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products further
confirmed that the long edges is formed by the first pair of edges. See Ex. A-14 at ‘655
patent claim 16; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-003.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products further
confirmed that the pair of short edges is formed by the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-
14 ‘655 patent claim 16; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-004.

PUBLIC VERSION
206
ii. 	EZ Go
Visual inspection of the EZ Go products confirmed that floor panels are
rectangular and oblong and include a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See
Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 16. Measurements confirmed that the EZ Go panels are
rectangular and oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See
Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 16; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001.
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products further confirmed that
the long edges is formed by the first pair of edges. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent claim 16;
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-012.
OM testing of the locking sections of the EZ Go products further confirmed that
the pair of short edges is formed by the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-7 at ‘655 patent
claim 16; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-033.
iii. 	WaterGuard
Visual inspection of the WaterGuard products confirmed that the floor panels are
rectangular and oblong and include a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See
Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 16. Measurements confirmed that the WaterGuard panels
are rectangular and oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges.
See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 16; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001.
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products further confirmed
that the long edges is formed by the first pair of edges. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim
16; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-025.

PUBLIC VERSION
207
OM testing of the locking sections of the WaterGuard products further confirmed
that the pair of short edges is formed by the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-10 at ‘655
patent claim 16; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-026.
iv. 	Ultra SPC
Visual inspection of the Ultra SPC products confirmed that the floor panels are
rectangular and oblong and include a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See
Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim 16. Measurements confirmed that the Ultra SPC panels are
rectangular and oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges. See
id.; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Ultra SPC products further confirmed
that the long edges is formed by the first pair of edges. See Ex. A-12 at ‘655 patent claim
16; Ex. A, Appx. at SCOTT-A-3.2-023.
OM testing of the locking sections of the Antigua WPC products further
confirmed that the pair of short edges is formed by the second pair of edges. See Ex. A-
12 at ‘655 patent claim 16; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-024.
16. 	Independent Claim 18
Like independent claim 1, independent claim 18 is directed to a “[f]loor panel.”
See Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at 16:26. Visual inspection confirmed that the Antigua WPC
and WaterGuard products are floor panels. See claim 1; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim
18; Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18.
Asserted independent claim 18 is recited below:
18. A floor panel comprising:
a substrate;

PUBLIC VERSION
208
a top layer located above and glued to the substrate; and
a backing layer located below the substrate;
wherein the substrate includes a closed cell foamed PVC board with
fillers;
wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has an average density of
more than 300 kilograms per cubic meter;
wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a top flat side and a
bottom flat side;
wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board has a local density on the
top flat side and the bottom flat side which is higher than in a central
layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board;
wherein the top layer includes a back layer, a printed synthetic
material film located above the back layer, a transparent or
translucent synthetic material wear layer located above the printed
synthetic material film and a surface layer located above the
transparent or translucent synthetic material wear layer;
wherein the back layer comprises a vinyl compound with fillers;
wherein the back layer has a thickness of at least 45 percent of the
thickness of the top layer;
wherein the transparent or translucent synthetic material wear layer
includes a vinyl layer;
wherein the surface layer includes a UV hardened substance;
wherein the floor panel includes a first pair of edges and a second pair
of edges;
wherein the floor panel includes first mechanical coupling parts at the
first pair of edges and second mechanical coupling parts at the
second pair of edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts allow a horizontal and
vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective edges;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a
groove;
wherein the groove is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip;
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking
mechanism having a vertically active locking surface at the upper
side of the tongue and a vertically active locking surface at the lower
side of the upper lip;

PUBLIC VERSION
209
wherein the first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal
locking mechanism having a horizontally active locking surface at
the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally active locking surface
at the upper side of the lower lip; and
wherein both said horizontally active locking surfaces and both said
vertically active locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board.
Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent).
a. 	[18.a] a substrate;
The Antigua WPC and WaterGuard include a substrate. See claim 1(a); Ex. A-14
at ‘655 patent claim 18(a); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18(a).
b. 	[18.b] a top layer located above and glued to the
substrate; and
The Antigua WPC and WaterGuard include a top layer located above the
substrate. See claim 1(b); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(b); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent
claim 18(b).
c. 	[18.c] a backing layer located below the
substrate;
The Antigua WPC and WaterGuard include a backing layer located below the
substrate. See claim 13; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(c); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent
claim 18(c).
d. 	[18.d] wherein the substrate includes a closed cell
foamed PVC board with fillers;
The substrates of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard include a closed cell foamed
PVC board with fillers. See claim 1(c); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(d); Ex. A-10 at
‘655 patent claim 18(d).

PUBLIC VERSION
210
e. 	[18.e] wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board
has an average density of more than 300
kilograms per cubic meter;
The closed cell foamed PVC boards of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard have
an average density of more than 300 kilograms per cubic meter. See claim 1(d); Ex. A-14
at ‘655 patent claim 18(e); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18(e).
f. 	[18.f] wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board
has a top flat side and a bottom flat side;
The closed cell foamed PVC boards of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard have a
top flat side and a bottom flat side. See claim 6; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(f); Ex.
A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18(f).
g. 	[18.g] wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board
has a local density on the top flat side and the
bottom flat side which is higher than in a central
layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board;
The closed cell foamed PVC boards of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard have a
local density on the top flat side and the bottom flat side which is higher than in a central
layer of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See claim 7; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim
18(g); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18(g).
h. 	[18.h] wherein the top layer includes a back
layer, a printed synthetic material film located
above the back layer, a transparent or
translucent synthetic material wear layer located
above the printed synthetic material film and a
surface layer located above the transparent or
translucent synthetic material wear layer;
i. 	Antigua WPC
The top layer of the Antigua WPC products includes a back layer, a printed
synthetic material film located above the back layer, a transparent or translucent synthetic

PUBLIC VERSION
211
material wear layer located above the printed synthetic material film and a surface layer
located above the transparent or translucent synthetic material wear layer. See Ex. A-14
at ‘655 patent claim 18(h). OM, CT, and FTIR testing of the locking sections and cross
sections of the Antigua WPC products confirmed that these products include a back layer,
printed film, transparent or translucent wear layer, and a surface layer. See id.; Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-003, SCOTT-A-3.2-003-SCOTT-A-3.2-004; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0007-SCOTT-A-4-0013; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011, SCOTT-A-
6-00013-SCOTT-A-6-00015.
ii. 	WaterGuard
The top layer of the WaterGuard products includes a back layer, a printed
synthetic material film located above the back layer, a transparent or translucent synthetic
material wear layer located above the printed synthetic material film and a surface layer
located above the transparent or translucent synthetic material wear layer. See Ex. A-10
at ‘655 patent claim 18(h). OM, CT, and FTIR testing of the locking sections and cross
sections of the WaterGuard products confirmed that these products include a back layer,
printed film, transparent or translucent wear layer, and a surface layer. See id.; Ex. A,
Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-021, SCOTT-A-3.2-025-SCOTT-A-3.2-026; Ex. A, Appx. 4 at
SCOTT-A-4-0056-SCOTT-A-4-0062; Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00056-SCOTT-A-
6-00065.

PUBLIC VERSION
212
i. 	[18.i] wherein the back layer comprises a vinyl
compound with fillers;
The back layers of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard includes a vinyl compound
with fillers. See claim 1(f); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(i); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent
claim 18(i).
j. 	[18.j] wherein the back layer has a thickness of
at least 45 percent of the thickness of the top
layer;
The back layers of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard have a thickness of at least
45 percent of the thickness of the top layer. See claim 1(g); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim
18(j); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18(j).
k. 	[18.k] wherein the transparent or translucent
synthetic material wear layer includes a vinyl
layer;
The transparent or translucent synthetic material wear layers of the Antigua WPC
and WaterGuard include a vinyl layer. See claim 8; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(k);
Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18(k).
l. 	[18.l] wherein the surface layer includes a UV
hardened substance;
i. 	Antigua WPC
FTIR testing confirmed that the Antigua WPC product include a surface layer.
See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(l); Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-00011-SCOTT-
A-6-00013. Based on the FTIR results for the surface layer, and Dr. Scott’s experience
with LVT products, Dr. Scott expects that the surface layer is UV cured (or UV
hardened). See Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(l).

PUBLIC VERSION
213
ii. 	WaterGuard
FTIR testing confirmed that the WaterGuard products include a surface layer. See
Ex. A-10, Appx. 17 at ‘655 patent claim 18(l); Ex. A, Appx. At SCOTT-A-6-00056-
SCOTT-A-6-00058. Based on the FTIR results for the surface layer, and Dr. Scott’s
experience with LVT products, Dr. Scott expects that the surface layer is UV cured (or
UV hardened). See Ex. A-10, Appx. 17 at ‘655 patent claim 18(l).
m. 	[18.m] wherein the floor panel includes a first
pair of edges and a second pair of edges;
The Antigua WPC and WaterGuard include a first pair of edges and a second pair
of edges. See claim 1(h); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(m); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent
claim 18(m).
n. 	[18.n] wherein the floor panel includes first
mechanical coupling parts at the first pair of
edges and second mechanical coupling parts at
the second pair of edges;
The Antigua WPC and WaterGuard Products include first mechanical coupling
parts at the first pair of edges and second mechanical coupling parts at the second pair of
edges. See claim 1(i); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(n); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim
18(n).
o. 	[18.o] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts allow a horizontal and vertical locking of
two of such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective edges;
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard allow a
horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement
along the respective edges. See claim 1(j); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(o); Ex. A-10
at ‘655 patent claim 18(o).

PUBLIC VERSION
214
p. 	[18.p] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a tongue and a groove;
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard include
a tongue and a groove. See claim 1(k); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(p); Ex. A-10 at
‘655 patent claim 18(p).
q. 	[18.q] wherein the groove is flanked by an upper
lip and a lower lip;
The grooves of the first mechanical parts of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard
are flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip. See claim 1(l); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim
18(q); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18(q).
r. 	[18.r] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a vertical locking mechanism
having a vertically active locking surface at the
upper side of the tongue and a vertically active
locking surface at the lower side of the upper lip;
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard include
a vertical locking mechanism having a vertically active locking surface at the upper side
of the tongue and a vertically active locking surface at the lower side of the upper lip.
See claim 1(m); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(r); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18(r).
s. 	[18.s] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a horizontal locking mechanism
having a horizontally active locking surface at
the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally
active locking surface at the upper side of the
lower lip; and
The first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard include
a horizontal locking mechanism having a horizontally active locking surface at the lower
side of the tongue and a horizontally active locking surface at the upper side of the lower

PUBLIC VERSION
215
lip. See claim 1(n); Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(s); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim
18(s).
t. 	[18.t] wherein both said horizontally active
locking surfaces and both said vertically active
locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board.
Both the horizontally active locking surfaces and the vertically active locking
surfaces of the first mechanical coupling parts of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard are
formed completely in the material of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See claim 1(o);
Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 18(t); Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 18(t).
17. 	Claim 20: wherein the back layer is the thickest and
densest layer of the top layer.
The back layers of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard are the thickest and densest
layer of the top layer. See claim 9; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 20; Ex. A-10 at ‘655
patent claim 20).
18. 	Claim 21: wherein the top layer has a thickness of 0.5 to
3 millimeters.
The top layers of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard have a thickness between 0.5
and 3 millimeters. See claim 10; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 21; Ex. A-10 at ‘655
patent claim 21.
19. 	Claim 22: wherein the top layer has a higher density
than the substrate.
The top layers of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard have a higher density than
the substrate. See claim 12; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 22; Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent
claim 22.

PUBLIC VERSION
216
20. 	Claim 23: wherein the top layer has a density of more
than 500 kilograms per cubic meter.
The top layers of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard have a density of more than
500 kilograms per cubic meter. See claim 11; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 23; Ex. A-10
at ‘655 patent claim 23.
21. 	Claim 24: wherein the backing layer has a lower density
than the back layer.
The backing layers of the Antigua WPC and WaterGuard have a lower density
than the back layer. See claim 14; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 24; Ex. A-10 at ‘655
patent claim 24.
22. 	Claim 25: wherein the floor panel has a thickness of 5 to
10 millimeters.
The Antigua WPC and WaterGuard have a thickness of 5 to 10 millimeters. See
claim 15; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 25; Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 25.
23. 	Claim 26: wherein the floor panel is rectangular and
oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a pair of
short edges; wherein the pair of long edges is formed by
the first pair of edges; and wherein the pair of short
edges is formed by the second pair of edges.
The Antigua WPC and WaterGuard are rectangular and oblong and includes a
pair of long edges and a pair of short edges; wherein the pair of long edges is formed by
the first pair of edges; and wherein the pair of short edges is formed by the second pair of
edges. See claim 16; Ex. A-14 at ‘655 patent claim 26; Ex. A-10 at ‘655 patent claim 26.
D. 	Domestic Industry (Technical Prong) – ‘655 Patent
“With respect to section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B), the technical prong is the
requirement that the investments in plant or equipment and employment in labor or

PUBLIC VERSION
217
capital are actually related to ‘articles protected by’ the intellectual property right which
forms the basis of the complaint.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 13-14.
“The test for satisfying the ‘technical prong’ of the industry requirement is essentially
same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted
claims.” Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “With
respect to section 337(a)(3)(C), the technical prong is the requirement that the activities
of engineering, research and development, and licensing are actually related to the
asserted intellectual property right.” Stringed Musical Instruments, Comm’n Op. at 13.
Complainants argue:
Complainants are currently developing and manufacturing rigid
LVT products using foaming (“IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products”) that
practice at least one claim of the ‘655 Patent. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode
Decl.), ¶¶ 2-4). First, Complainants performed tests on the IVC Foamed
Rigid LVT products in their Avelgem, Belgium facility. See id. ¶ 3).
Then, Complainants replicated those same tests in the United States at
their Dalton, Georgia facility 6-8 weeks later. See id.
Since then, Complainants have made significant investments and
refined their plan to produce the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products. See
id. ¶ 5. They have finalized the commercialization schedule of [ 	]
for the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products and received the final approval
needed to manufacture the VIC Foamed Rigid LVT. See id. ¶ 6. The
buildup of the IVC Foamed Rigid LCT products are [
] (collectively “the ‘655 Domestic Industry Products”).
See id. ¶ 7; see also Complainants Amended Disclosure of Domestic
Industry Products (Aug. 13, 2019).
Evidence confirming Complainants’ practice of the ‘655 Patent at
the time of the Complaint was submitted as Compl. Ex. 12 (claim charts
applying at least claim 28 of the ‘655 Patent to Complainants’ IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT products).
Dr. Scott also conducted various tests on panels of the forthcoming

PUBLIC VERSION
218
IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product, including the examination of cross-
sections using optical microscopy (“OM”), SEM and EDS, and FTIR. See
Ex. A, (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 162-164. Dr. Scott’s testing reveals that the IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT product practices claims 28-29 of the ‘655 Patent.
Mem. at 182-83.
The Staff argues:
In the Staff’s view, there is no dispute as to any material fact that
Complainant IVC’s forthcoming Foamed Rigid LVT domestic industry
products, which will be domestically manufactured in the state of Georgia,
will practice claims 22, 23, and 25-29 of the ‘490 Patent and claims 28 and
29 of the ‘655 Patent, satisfying the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement related to both patents.
The declaration from Dr. Scott, Complainants’ expert, supports
finding that IVC’s forthcoming Foamed Rigid LVT products will practice
claims from both the ‘490 and ‘655 Patents. Based upon the technical
information provided by Complainants and their declarants, as well as on
the testing and analysis of samples of the forthcoming Foamed Rigid LVT
products20 that he conducted or directed, Dr. Scott performed a limitation-
by-limitation analysis and opined that the Foamed Rigid LVT domestic
industry products will claims 22, 23, and 25-29 of the ‘490 Patent and
claims 28 and 29 of the ‘655 Patent. See Ex. A (Scott Decl.) at ¶¶ 187,
194-197, 205-208, 221-224; Ex. A-19 (Foamed Rigid LVT Claim Chart).
Dr. Scott’s analysis also explains how, in his opinion, the Foamed Rigid
LVT products practice the claims of the ‘490 Patent when the parties’
agreed to claim constructions for the “arranged for horizontal and vertical
locking of two of such floor panels using a turning movement along the
respective long edges” claim term is applied. Id.
The Staff is not aware of any dispute as to the evidence offered by
Complainants or Dr. Scott’s technical prong analysis of the IVC Foamed
Rigid LVT products. The Staff is therefore of the view that Complainants
are is entitled to a summary determination that the technical prong of the
domestic industry requirement as to the ‘490 and ‘655 Patents is satisfied.
20 In October 2019, Dr. Scott received from Complainant IVC’s parent company finished
samples of products resulting from the foaming test runs performed in Belgium in
September 2019. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 14; Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 197. In
his declaration, Mr. Kristof Van Vlassenrode, who is the a Research and Development
Director at IVC’s parent company, IVC Group, stated that he directed these samples to be
sent to Dr. Scott for testing and that the samples “are representative of the IVC Foamed
Rigid LVT product that will be made in the Dalton IVC facility in the United States.” Id.

PUBLIC VERSION
219
Staff Resp. at 57-58.
To support the technical prong domestic industry allegations, complainants’
motion includes, inter alia, declarations from: (1) Joren Knockaert, the Vice President
Manufacturing, Operations at IVC US, Inc. (Ex. H); (2) Kristoff Van Vlassenrode, a
Research and Development Director at IVC Group (Ex. I); and (3) Jonathan Young, the
Director of Quality at Mohawk Industries (Ex. J). Complainants also rely on documents,
including technical documents, related to the domestic industry products. Furthermore,
as he did for infringement, complainants’ expert Dr. Scott provided a declaration and
claim charts that include his expert analysis and opinion, on an element by element basis,
as to how the domestic industry products practice one or more claims from the asserted
patents.
Complainants are currently developing and manufacturing rigid LVT products
using foaming (“IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products”) that practice at least one claim of
the ‘655 patent. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 2-4). First, complainants
performed tests on the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products in their Avelgem, Belgium
facility. See id. ¶ 3). Then, complainants replicated those same tests in the United States
at their Dalton, Georgia facility 6-8 weeks later. See id.
Since then, complainants have made significant investments and refined their plan
to produce the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products. See id. ¶ 5. They have finalized the
commercialization schedule of [ 	] for the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products and
received the final approval needed to manufacture the VIC Foamed Rigid LVT. See id. ¶
6. The buildup of the IVC Foamed Rigid LCT products are [

PUBLIC VERSION
220
] (collectively “the ‘655 domestic
industry products”). See id. ¶ 7; Complainants Amended Disclosure of Domestic
Industry Products (Aug. 13, 2019).
Evidence confirming complainants’ practice of the ‘655 patent at the time of the
complaint was submitted as Compl. Ex. 12 (claim charts applying at least claim 28 of the
‘655 patent to complainants’ IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products).
As noted, Dr. Scott conducted various tests on panels of the forthcoming IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT product, including the examination of cross-sections using optical
microscopy (“OM”), SEM and EDS, and FTIR. See Ex. A, (Scott Decl.), ¶¶ 162-164.
As discussed below, Dr. Scott’s testing demonstrates that the IVC Foamed Rigid
LVT product practices claims 28-29 of the ‘655 patent. An element by element technical
prong analysis for the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products is discussed below.
1. 	Independent Claim 28
Independent claim 28 is directed to a “[f]loor panel comprising” various floor
elements. See Ex. A-3 (‘655 Patent) at 17:38. Visual inspection confirmed that the
forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products are floor panels comprising various floor
elements. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28; Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-A-1-0180-
SCOTT-A-1-0188; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 2. As discussed below, the
forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products meet each limitation of independent claim
28 of the ‘655 patent.

PUBLIC VERSION
221
a. 	[28.a] a substrate; and
Visual inspection, OM testing, and SEM and EDS analysis confirmed that the
forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products contain a substrate. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655
patent claim 28(a); Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 8-
9; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.1-012; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0156-SCOTT-
A-5-0163.
b. 	[28.b] a top layer located above and welded to
the substrate;
Visual inspection, OM testing, and SEM and EDS analysis confirmed that the
forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products contain a top layer located above the
substrate and welded to the substrate. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(b); Ex. I-2 at
MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 8-9; Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-
A-3.1-012; Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0152, SCOTT-A-5-0168-SCOTT-A-5-0169.
c. 	[28.c] wherein the substrate includes a closed cell
foamed PVC board with fillers;
The substrate of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products includes a
closed cell foam PVC board with fillers. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(c); Ex. I-2
(MOH1155_00141596) (showing a foamed substrate); Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶
8-9 (noting that the IVC Foamed Rigid Products will include a foamed PVC substrate).
Gas infiltration tests confirmed that the substrate of the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products
includes a closed cell foamed board. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(c); Ex. A,
Appx. 11 at SCOTT-A-11-0007 - 0010 (test results demonstrating that the substrate
includes a closed cell foamed board).

PUBLIC VERSION
222
SEM testing confirmed that the substrate includes closed cell foam with an open
cell content of [ 	]. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0154-SCOTT-A-5-0156.
FTIR testing further confirmed that the substrate contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at
SCOTT-A-6-00084.
d. 	[28.d] wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board
has an average density of more than 300
kilograms per cubic meter;
The closed cell foamed PVC board of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products will have a density between [ 	] kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ).
See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(d); Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I (Van
Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 7, 11.
e. 	[28.e] wherein the top layer includes a back
layer, a printed synthetic material film located
above the back layer and a transparent or
translucent synthetic material wear layer located
above the printed synthetic material film;
The top layer of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products will include a
back layer, a printed synthetic material film above the back layer, and a transparent or
translucent synthetic material wear layer above the printed film. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655
patent claim 28(e); Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 8-
9 (describing the wear layer (transparent or translucent synthetic material wear layer),
print layer (printed film), and an upper back ([ 	]) layer (back layer)). SEM and EDS
analysis further confirmed that the top layer includes a back layer, a printed film above
the back layer, and a transparent layer above the printed film. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at
SCOTT-A-5-0168-SCOTT-A-5-0169. FTIR testing confirmed that the printed film layer

PUBLIC VERSION
223
is synthetic, for example, because it contains PVC. See Ex. A, Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-
0079-SCOTT-A-6-0083.
f. 	[28.f] wherein the top layer has a thickness of 0.5
to 3 millimeters;
The top layer of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product will have a
total thickness of [ 	]. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(f); Ex. I (Van
Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 7-9; Ex. I-1 at MOH1155_00092482 ([ 	] IVC US buildup
with [ 	] top layer).
g. 	[28.g] wherein the top layer has a density of
more than 500 kilograms per cubic meter;
The top layer of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product will have a
density between [ 	] kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-19 at ‘655
patent claim 28(g); Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 7,
11.
h. 	[28.h] wherein the back layer comprises a vinyl
compound with fillers;
The back layer of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product line will
comprise a vinyl compound with fillers. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(h). For
example, the back layer (upper back ([ 	]) layer) will include PVC with calcium
carbonate (fillers). See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 9-10. FTIR testing further
confirmed that the back layer includes PVC and filler (calcium carbonate). See Ex. A,
Appx. 6 at SCOTT-A-6-0083.

PUBLIC VERSION
224
i. 	[28.i] wherein the back layer has a thickness of at
least 45 percent of the thickness of the top layer;
The back layer of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products will form
approximately [ 	] of the panel thickness. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(i); Ex.
I-2 at MOH1155_00141596 (showing approximately [ 	] thick top layer with [ 	]
back layer (upper back [ 	])); Ex. I-1 at MOH1155_00092482; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode
Decl.), ¶ 7.
j. 	[28.j] wherein the back layer has a higher
density than the transparent or translucent
synthetic material wear layer;
The back layer of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products will have a
density of [ 	] kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m 3 ), which is higher than the transparent
or translucent synthetic material wear layer density of [ 	] kilograms per cubic meter
(kg/m 3 ). See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(j); Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I
(Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 7, 11.
k. 	[28.k] wherein the transparent or translucent
synthetic material wear layer has a thickness of 1
millimeter or less;
The transparent or translucent synthetic material wear layer of the forthcoming
IVC Foamed Rigid LVT product has a thickness [ 	]. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent
claim 28(k); Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 7; Ex. I-1 at MOH1155_00092482 ([ 	]
IVC US buildup with [ 	] wear layer).
l. 	[28.l] wherein the floor panel is rectangular and
oblong and includes a pair of long edges and a
pair of short edges;
Visual inspection of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products confirmed
that the floor panels are rectangular and oblong and include a pair of long edges and a

PUBLIC VERSION
225
pair of short edges. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(l); Ex. A, Appx. 1 at SCOTT-
A-1-0183; Ex. A, Appx. 2 at SCOTT-A-2-0001 (overall length and width of ‘655
domestic industry products).
m. 	[28.m] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts at the pair of long edges and second
mechanical coupling parts at the pair of short
edges;
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed first mechanical coupling parts at the pair of long edges and second
mechanical coupling parts at the pair of short edges. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim
28(m); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013-SCOTT-A-3.2-014.
n. 	[28.n] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts allow a horizontal and vertical locking of
two of such floor panels using a turning
movement along the respective edges;
As proposed by the parties, the administrative law judge construed the claim term
“the first mechanical coupling parts allow a horizontal and vertical locking of two of such
floor panels using a turning movement along the respective edge” as “the first mechanical
coupling parts allow for horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels by
turning one coupling part into the other coupling part at the respective edges.”
Claim 28 contains this limitation. The forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products satisfy this limitation. For instance, OM testing of the locking parts of the
forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products confirmed that this limitation is met. See
Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(n); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013).

PUBLIC VERSION
226
When the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid products are connected using a turning
movement along the long sides, the coupling parts are locked in the vertical and
horizontal direction such that the coupling parts resist separation in those directions. See
Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(n). In other words, once connected, the coupling parts
are not easily separated along the long sides using a force in the horizontal and vertical
direction. See id.
o. 	[28.o] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a tongue and a groove;
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed that the first mechanical coupling parts include a tongue and a
groove. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(o); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013.
p. 	[28.p] wherein the groove is flanked by an upper
lip and a lower lip;
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed that the groove is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip. See Ex. A-
19 at ‘655 patent claim 28(p); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013.
q. 	[28.q] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a vertical locking mechanism
having a vertically active locking surface at the
upper side of the tongue and a vertically active
locking surface at the lower side of the upper lip;
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed that the first mechanical coupling parts include a vertical locking
mechanism having a vertically active locking surface at the upper side of the tongue and
a vertically active locking surface at the lower side of the upper lip. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655
patent claim 28(q); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013.

PUBLIC VERSION
227
r. 	[28.r] wherein the first mechanical coupling
parts include a horizontal locking mechanism
having a horizontally active locking surface at
the lower side of the tongue and a horizontally
active locking surface at the upper side of the
lower lip; and
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed that the first mechanical coupling parts include a horizontal locking
mechanism having a horizontally active locking surface at the lower side of the tongue
and a horizontally active locking surface at the upper side of the lower lip. See Ex. A-19
at ‘655 patent claim 28(r); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013.
s. 	[28.s] wherein both said horizontally active
locking surfaces are formed completely in the
material of the closed cell foamed PVC board.
OM testing of the locking parts of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products confirmed that both said horizontally active locking surfaces are formed
completely in the material of the closed cell foamed PVC board. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655
patent claim 28(s); Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013.
2. 	Claim 29: wherein the closed cell foamed PVC board
has a top flat side and a bottom flat side; and wherein
the closed cell foamed PVC board comprises a first
glass fiber layer situated on the top flat side and a
second glass fiber layer situated on the bottom flat side.
The closed cell foamed PVC board of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
products has a top flat side and a bottom flat side; and wherein the closed cell foamed
PVC board comprises a first glass fiber layer situated on the top flat side and a second
glass fiber layer situated on the bottom flat side. See Ex. A-19 at ‘655 patent claim 29;
Ex. A, Appx. 3 at SCOTT-A-3.2-013; Ex. I-2 at MOH1155_00141596; Ex. I-1 at

PUBLIC VERSION
228
MOH1155_00092482 ([ 	] IVC US Buildup showing a plurality of glass fiber layers);
Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 7, 11. SEM and EDS analysis further confirmed that
the substrate of the forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products includes glass fiber
layers on the top flat side and bottom flat side. See Ex. A, Appx. 5 at SCOTT-A-5-0155,
SCOTT-A-5-0162.
E. 	Validity of the ‘655 Patent
The patent at issue is presumed valid as a matter of law. 35 U.S.C. § 282. This
resumption of validity may be overcome only by “clear and convincing evidence.”
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Complainant Flooring Industries Ltd. Sarl owns by assignment the entire right,
title, and interest in and to the ‘655 patent. See Complaint Ex. 6 (certified assignment
record).
No party has challenged the validity or enforceability of the ‘655 patent. Thus,
there is no issue of material fact as to the validity or enforceability of the ‘655 patent.
See Lannom Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 799 F.2d 1572, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(Commission did not have authority to redetermine patent validity when no defense of
invalidity had been raised).
VIII. 	Domestic Industry (Economic Prong)
A violation of section 337(a)(1)(B), (C), (D), or (E) can be found “only if an
industry in the United States, with respect to the articles protected by the patent,
copyright, trademark, mask work, or design concerned, exists or is in the process of being
established.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). Section 337(a) further provides:

PUBLIC VERSION
229
(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), an industry in the United States
shall be considered to exist if there is in the United States, with
respect to the articles protected by the patent, copyright, trademark,
mask work, or design concerned—
(A) significant investment in plant and equipment;
(B) significant employment of labor or capital; or
(C) substantial investment in its exploitation, including
engineering, research and development, or licensing.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3).
With respect to the economic prong, and whether or not section 337(a)(3)(A) or
(B) is satisfied, the Commission has held that “whether a complainant has established that
its investment and/or employment activities are significant with respect to the articles
protected by the intellectual property right concerned is not evaluated according to any
rigid mathematical formula.” Printing and Imaging Devices, Comm’n Op. at 27 (Feb.
17, 2011) (citing Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337 TA-546, Comm’n Op.
at 39 (Aug. 1, 2007)). Rather, the Commission examines “the facts in each investigation,
the article of commerce, and the realities of the marketplace.” Id. “The determination
takes into account the nature of the investment and/or employment activities, ‘the
industry in question, and the complainant’s relative size.’” Id. (citing Stringed Musical
Instruments at 26).
The Commission has rejected a finding of quantitative significance based solely
on the absolute value of the domestic industry investments devoid of any context. A
contextual analysis is required. The analysis may include a discussion of the value of
domestic investments in the context of the relevant marketplace, such as by comparing a
complainant’s domestic expenditures to its foreign expenditures or considering the value

PUBLIC VERSION
230
added to the product from a complainant’s activities in the United States. See Certain
Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123,
Comm’n Op. at 18 (Oct. 28, 2019).
Complainants argue:
Complainants satisfy the domestic industry requirement of Section
337 through the activities of Complainant IVC, which holds a non-
exclusive license to the Asserted Patents. Compl., ¶ 12; Compl. Ex. 9. At
its facility in Dalton, GA, IVC manufactures flexible LVT products with
locking profiles along the long and short edges (“IVC Click Flex LVT
products”) which practice at least one claim of the ‘460 patent. Ex. J
(Young Decl.), ¶¶ 2–3. IVC is also currently establishing the domestic
manufacture of its rigid LVT products using foaming (“IVC Foamed Rigid
LVT products”) that practice at least one claim of the ‘490 Patent and at
least one claim of the ‘655 Patent, and will begin commercial production
of these products at its Dalton, Georgia facility in 2020. Ex. I (Van
Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 2–4. As explained in the detailed analysis below,
IVC’s domestic investments in plant, equipment, labor, and capital are
significant and directly attributable to IVC’s products practicing the
Asserted Patents.
Mem. at 190-91.
The Staff agrees. See Staff at 58-69.
Background of IVC’s Investments
IVC is located in Dalton, Georgia. See Ex. F-23. Since 2015, IVC has spent
hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading its 900,000 square foot Dalton, GA facility to
manufacture an expansive, premium selection of flooring products. Moreover, IVC has
over 500 employees dedicated to engineering, production, and maintenance at this
facility.

PUBLIC VERSION

IVC Factory in Dalton, Georgia — Exterior Views. Ex. F-162.

231

PUBLIC VERSION
232
[
]
IVC Factory – Interior Views. Ex. F-162.
When IVC first opened its Dalton, Georgia facility in 2010, the facility produced
only sheet vinyl flooring. See Ex. H (Knockaert 2nd Decl.), ¶ 4. In 2015, IVC was
acquired by complainant Mohawk, with the express purpose for Mohawk “to enter the
LVT category.” See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 4; Ex. F-131 at 3. This acquisition
positioned IVC to capitalize on the growth of LVT in the U.S. by “exploiting Mohawk’s
extensive customer relationships, marketing expertise and distribution channels in North
America.” Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 4; Ex. F-131 at 3. To that end, in 2015, IVC
commissioned a new production line, LVT1, exclusively for the production of two
products: IVC CL Flex LVT and glue-down flexible LVT. Id. In 2018, IVC
commissioned a second production line, LVT2, designed to produce IVC Foamed Rigid
LVT. See Ex. H (Knockaert 2nd Decl.), ¶ 5.

PUBLIC VERSION
[
]
233

PUBLIC VERSION
234
[
]
Portions of IVC LVT Production Lines in Dalton, Georgia. Ex. F-162.
Currently, while IVC has been developing its Foamed Rigid LVT product, IVC is using
LVT2 to produce flexible LVT (including IVC CL Flex LVT and glue-down flexible
LVT) and non-foamed rigid LVT, with the expectation that LVT2 will ultimately be
primarily dedicated to producing IVC Foamed Rigid LVT. See id. In total, IVC spent
approximately [ 	] for the equipment used in LVT1 and LVT2. The two
lines comprise over 135,000 square feet of IVC’s 900,000 square-foot facility:

PUBLIC VERSION
235
[
]
See Ex. T; Ex. H (Knockaert 2nd Decl.), ¶ 6. In addition, the region of the facility
enclosed in the red box above, comprising approximately two-thirds of the facility, is
dedicated to manufacturing or warehousing IVC’s flexible LVT and rigid LVT product
lines, including IVC CL Flex LVT. See id. It is expected that IVC Foamed Rigid LVT
will also be manufactured within this space. See Ex. H (Knockaert 2nd Decl.), ¶¶ 3, 6.
From 2015 to the time of the complaint, IVC capitalized approximately [
] in plant and equipment for LVT1, with a current book value of approximately
[ 	] and recognized depreciation of approximately [ 	]. See Ex. F
(Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 8–9. Since December 31, 2018 through the date of the complaint,
IVC capitalized approximately [ 	] in equipment for LVT2, with a current
book value of approximately [ 	] and recognized depreciation of
approximately [ 	]. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 9. In addition, IVC’s two
production lines, LVT1 and LVT2, incurred utilities costs totaling approximately [

PUBLIC VERSION
236
] from October 2015 through December 2018. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 10.
IVC also incurred at least [ 	] in labor expenditures for its more than 500
employees dedicated to engineering, manufacturing, and technical maintenance at its
Dalton facility. See id. In total, IVC has spent at least [ 	] on facility-wide
labor and utilities expenditures since 2015 for LVT1 and LVT2. See id.
A. 	The ‘460 Patent
IVC manufactures all IVC CL Flex LVT products in the United States. See Ex. G
(Clear Decl.), ¶ 2. Complainants rely on IVC’s investments and expenditures with
respect to those products at its Dalton, GA facility to establish a domestic industry as to
the ‘460 patent. IVC does not track actual manufacturing costs at this granular level in
the ordinary course of its business. See Ex. G (Clear Decl.), ¶ 3. However, in the normal
course of business, IVC uses standard costing to track the cost of goods sold for each of
the products it sells on a product-by-product basis. See id. Each product that IVC
manufactures has a “standard cost,” which is an estimate of the cost per square foot to
manufacture that product that IVC calculates at the end of each year based on input from
IVC’s engineers, manufacturing team, and cost accountants.
The standard cost is broken into categories, including (1) Raw, (2) Pack, (3)
Royalties; (4) Fixed, (5) Salaries, and (6) Energy.21 See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 13–22;
21 “Raw” is the raw materials that are needed to manufacture IVC’s products. Ex. G
(Clear Decl.), ¶ 6. “Pack” is the raw materials used to package IVC’s products. Id.
“Royalties” includes the amount IVC pays for licensed technology. Ex. F (Prowse
Decl.), ¶ 16. “Fixed” includes fixed costs for running the manufacturing facility,
including building and machines repair and maintenance, indirect labor that supports the
manufacturing process, insurance, office supplies, property taxes, safety, and
environmental. Ex. G. (Clear Decl.), ¶ 6. “Salaries” is the direct labor to manufacture

PUBLIC VERSION
237
Ex. G, (Clear Decl.), ¶¶ 5–6; Ex. F-33 (standard costing for flexible LVT from 2016–
2018); Ex. F-13 (standard costing for flexible LVT for 2019). The standard cost is used
to determine expected total manufacturing costs for the following year. See Ex. G (Clear
Decl.), ¶ 4. Inasmuch as IVC does not track actual manufacturing costs at this granular
level in the ordinary course of its business, the standard cost for a given year is the most
reliable method for determining IVC’s expenditures to manufacture a particular product
in that year. See Ex. G (Clear Decl.), ¶ 3. The methodology is a conservative measure of
the actual costs incurred by IVC in that particular year, [
]. See Ex. G (Clear Decl.), ¶ 5; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.),
¶¶ 34–38.
Complainants’ expert, Dr. Prowse used the standard cost for each of the domestic
industry products to allocate IVC’s investments to the domestic industry products. See
Certain Mobile Device Holders & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1028, Comm’n
Op. at 18-19 (Mar. 22, 2018) (finding that complainant’s allocation methodology used in
the ordinary course of its business was a reasonable allocation methodology for purposes
of domestic industry); Certain Digital Video Receivers and Related Hardware and
Software Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-1103, ID at 296 (June 4, 2019), not reviewed in
relevant part, Notice (Aug. 15, 2019) (same). At a high level, Dr. Prowse analyzed the
cost categories included in the standard cost for each domestic industry product and
determined whether each category was properly attributable to the domestic industry as
either plant & equipment or labor. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 13–22.
the product. Id. Energy is the electricity, gas, and water expenditures necessary for
manufacturing the products. Id.; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 22.

PUBLIC VERSION
238
To arrive at his quantification, Dr. Prowse performed the following calculations.
For sub-prong (A), Dr. Prowse totaled the amount for plant and equipment in a particular
year and multiplied that amount by the total number of square feet of that product
produced in that year. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 23–28; Ex. F-6. For sub-prong (B),
Dr. Prowse totaled the amount for capital and labor, in a particular year, and he
multiplied that amount by the total number of square feet of that product produced in that
year. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 31. To get the total investment for sub-prong (A), Dr.
Prowse performed the sub-prong (A) calculation for each domestic industry product and
each time-period and summed them. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 29. Likewise, to get the
total investment for sub-prong (B), Dr. Prowse performed the sub-prong (B) calculation
for each domestic industry product and each time-period and summed them. See Ex. F
(Prowse Decl.), ¶ 31.
Using the standard cost methodology described above, Dr. Prowse quantified the
following investments attributable IVC’s manufacture of the IVC CL Flex LVT at its
Dalton, Georgia facility:22
Total Sub-Prong (A) 	[ 	]
Total Sub-Prong (B) 	[ 	]
22 As pointed out by the Staff, the amounts that Dr. Prowse has quantified under sub-
prong (A) and sub-prong (B) are not additive and are offered in the alternative. In
particular, Dr. Prowse noted that, in his opinion and from an economic perspective, each
of the plant and equipment categories could also be properly classified as capital. See Ex.
F (Prowse Decl.). ¶ 30. Accordingly, Dr. Prowse included the plant and equipment
investments he calculated for sub-prong (A) in the totals of investments under sub-prong
(B). See id.

PUBLIC VERSION
239
See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 29, 32–33.
Plant and Equipment
The record evidence shows that IVC has made significant investments and
expenditures to manufacture IVC CL Flex LVT, including investments in plant and
equipment quantifiable under sub-prong (A). See Mem. at 199-201. As discussed above,
IVC’s standard cost is broken into categories, including (1) Raw, (2) Pack, (3) Royalties;
(4) Fixed, (5) Salaries, and (6) Energy. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 13–22; Ex. G,
(Clear Decl.), ¶¶ 5–6; Ex. F-33 (standard costing for flexible LVT from 2016–2018); Ex.
F-13 (standard costing for flexible LVT for 2019). Complainants’ expert attributed a
portion of the “Fixed” cost category and the “Energy” cost category to investments in
plant and equipment. The portion of the “Fixed” cost category attributed to plant and
equipment included expenditures for building and equipment maintenance costs, gas lift
trucks, waste/water treatment, environmental/safety costs, fire insurance, fixed asset
depreciation, office supplies, computer costs, forklift rental, property tax, and cost quality
lab expenses, all for the Dalton, GA facility. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 17–20. The
Energy category in IVC’s standard costing model comprises energy/utility costs
associated with electricity, gas, and water for IVC’s Dalton, GA facility. See Ex. F
(Prowse Decl.), ¶ 22.
In total, the evidence shows that IVC incurred at least [ 	] in plant and
equipment expenditures from October 2015 to March 2019 that can be quantified under
sub-prong (A):

PUBLIC VERSION

Total for Sub-Prong (A) Plant & Equipment
Fixed (Plant & Equipment) [ ]
Energy [ ]
Total [ ]

See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), § 29; Ex. F-15.

Contextual Analysis

IVC’s investments in plant and equipment, which total several millions of dollars,
are quantitatively and qualitatively significant. See Mem. at 204-08. First, 100% of the
manufacture of [VC CL Flex LVT occurs domestically at IVC’s facility in Dalton,
Georgia. See Ex. G (Clear Decl.), § 2; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), § 40. In other words, 100%
of the value-add for the product will be in the United States. See, e.g., Certain
Carburetors & Prods. Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Comm’n
Op. at 18-19 (Oct. 28, 2019) (noting that one method the Commission uses to assess
quantitative significance is to “consider[] . . . the value added to the product from a
complainant’s activities in the United States by the domestic activities.”). Thus, absent
IVC’s domestic investitures [VC’s CL Flex LVT products would not exist. Second,
nearly{ —_| of the total production volume of LVT at IVC during the relevant time
(October 2015-March 2019) was of IVC CL Flex LVT. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), § 37.

Third, approximately two-thirds of IVC’s Dalton facility is dedicated to the
production of IVC’s LVT product line, and therefore the majority of IVC’s facility is
dedicated to producing the domestic industry products, which shows the significance of

IVC’s domestic investments. See Ex. T; Ex. H (Knockaert 2nd Decl.), § 6; Ex. F (Prowse

240

PUBLIC VERSION
241
Decl.), ¶ 40. Fourth, IVC’s domestic industry investments are quantitatively significant
when compared against comparable investments for all LVT products and all products
(including LVT and sheet vinyl) manufactured during the relevant time frame at IVC’s
Dalton facility. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 41; ¶¶ 42, 43. Fifth, IVC’s domestic
industry investments are also quantitatively significant as a percentage of the sales of the
domestic industry products. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 44.
Accordingly, it is found that there is no dispute as to any material fact that IVC’s
investments with respect to the ‘460 patent satisfy the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(A).
Labor and Capital
The evidence establishes that IVC has made significant investments in labor and
capital with respect to the IVC CL Flex LVT products and therefore the ‘460 patent. See
Mem. at 201-03. Complainants’ expert attributed a portion of the “Fixed” cost category
and the “Salaries” cost category from IVC’s standard costing model to investments in
labor. The portion of the “Fixed” cost category attributed to labor included expenditures
for indirect labor from administrative and executive workers to support the manufacture
of IVC CL Flex LVT. See Ex. G (Clear Decl.), ¶ 6. The salaries category in IVC’s
standard costing model includes the direct labor to manufacture the product. See Ex. G
(Clear Decl.), ¶ 6; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 21.
In total, IVC incurred at least [ 	] in expenditures from October 2015
to March 2019 that can be quantified under sub-prong (B) as labor:

PUBLIC VERSION

Total for Sub-Prong (B) Labor
Salaries (Direct Labor) [ ]
Fixed (Overhead Labor) [ ]
Total [ ]

See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), 32; Ex. F-16. As noted above, Dr. Prowse opined that each
of the expenditures that can be allocated to plant and equipment under sub-prong (A) can
also be properly classified as capital under sub-prong (B). See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), §
30. Thus, complainants argue that the total expenditures allocable to sub-prong (B) can

alternatively be quantified as follows:

Total for Sub-Prong (B) Labor and Capital
Salaries (Direct Labor) [ ]
Fixed (Overhead Labor) [ ]
Fixed (Capital) [ ]
Energy [ ]
Total [ ]

See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), § 33; Ex. F-16.

In view of the methodology used by complainants’ expert, discussed above, the
admunistrative law judge finds that the [ ] for plant and equipment should
only be counted once, for either sub-prong (A) or sub-prong (B). Thus, with respect to
sub-prong (B), the administrative law judge finds complainants’ arguments and evidence

persuasive only in the alternative.

242

PUBLIC VERSION
243
Contextual Analysis
The evidence shows that IVC’s investments in labor and capital for the IVC CL
Flex LVT products ([ 	]) are both quantitatively and qualitatively significant.
Indeed, the reasons discussed in the previous section (as to why IVC’s investments in
plant and equipment are significant) equally apply for IVC’s investments in labor and
capital. See Mem. at 204-08; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 39-46.
* 	* 	*
Accordingly, it is determined that there is no dispute as to any material fact that
IVC’s investments with respect to the ‘460 patent satisfy the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(B).
B. 	The ‘490 and ‘655 Patents
Complainants rely on IVC’s activities, investments and expenditures directed
toward its manufacture of its forthcoming IVC Foamed Rigid LVT at its Dalton facility
in order to demonstrate a domestic industry in the process of being established as to ‘490
and ‘655 patents. The evidence shows that IVC has taken and will continue to take
necessary, tangible steps to establish a domestic industry manufacturing of IVC Foamed
Rigid LVT in the United States, and that there is a substantial likelihood that this
manufacturing—and therefore a domestic industry in the ‘490 and ‘655 patents—will be
established in the future. Thus, complainants have established that a domestic industry is
in the process of being established with respect to the ‘490 and ‘655 patents.

PUBLIC VERSION
244
Tangible Steps to Establish a Domestic Industry
The evidence at the time of the complaint demonstrates that IVC will mass-
manufacture IVC Foamed Rigid LVT in IVC’s Dalton factory starting in [ 	], and that
it began taking tangible steps towards that goal as of [ 	]. See Ex. I
(Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 2. In [ 	], IVC began constructing LVT2, a second LVT
production line, specifically to manufacture significant quantities of IVC Foamed Rigid
LVT efficiently. See Ex. H (Knockaert Decl.), ¶ 5; Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 4.
By [ 	], IVC had purchased and installed the vast majority of the equipment
required to manufacture Foamed Rigid LVT, amounting to approximately [
] in equipment, with a current book value of [ 	] and approximately
[ 	] in depreciation. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 4; Ex. F (Prowse
Decl.), ¶ 48.
LVT2 contains equipment that IVC purchased and installed exclusively for the
purpose of manufacturing rigid LVT, including equipment to be exclusively used to
manufacture IVC Foamed Rigid LVT that is not used for current production of non-
foamed product. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶¶ 4–5. At the time of the
complaint, IVC had committed approximately [ 	] to purchasing equipment in
2018 and 2019 for LVT2 that will be used exclusively for the production of IVC Foamed
Rigid LVT. See id.; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 49. This equipment includes [
], as well as planned expenditures for [ 	]:

PUBLIC VERSION

Total Expenditures for Rigid
Manufacturing Equipment
Mixing Tower [ ]
Finishing Line [ ]

Double Belt Press [ ]
Isochoric Unit [ ]
(foam-specific)

Dosing Equipment [ ]
(foam-specific)

Total (rigid) [ ]
Total (foam-specific) [ ]
Id. While the [ ] and [ ] equipment will be used exclusively to

manufacture the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT, IVC purchased and installed all of the
equipment on LVT2 for the production of [VC Foamed Rigid LVT. Complainants argue
that all of the expenditures on LVT2—totaling | | in capitalized assets and
[ ] in depreciation as of the date of the complaint—are therefore attributable
to IVC Foamed Rigid LVT. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), § 48.
In addition, evidence from after the filing of the complaint corroborates that IVC

is continuing to progress towards producing IVC Foamed Rigid LVT by [

|. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), § 6. Specifically, IVC has confirmed a
commercialization schedule, received final approval to purchase the [| ]
necessary to manufacture IVC Foamed Rigid LVT, and conducted manual trials were
conducted in Dalton in October and November 2019 based on IVC’s manufacturing runs

in Belgium. See id.

245

PUBLIC VERSION
246
Thus, it is determined that there is no dispute of material fact that IVC has taken
and continues to take the necessary steps towards establishing a domestic industry in IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT, and therefore the ‘490 and ‘655 patents.
Satisfying the Domestic Industry Requirement in the Future
As discussed above, IVC’s confirmed commercialization schedule provides that
IVC will begin commercial manufacture of the Foamed Rigid LVT products in [
]. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 6. IVC is particularly incentivized to adhere
to this timeline because the primary reason IVC planned to produce IVC Foamed Rigid
LVT was to create cost savings as compared to non-foamed rigid LVT by reducing
[ 	], and the forthcoming product is expected to have a cumulative cost
savings of approximately [ 	] as compared to rigid LVT currently on the
market. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 4.
Moreover, the evidence shows that once IVC begins producing IVC Foamed
Rigid LVT, IVC’s expenditures in plant, equipment, labor, and capital attributable to IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT will be sufficient to prove a domestic industry in existence at that
particular time. The evidence shows that IVC expects that the standard costs for IVC
Foamed Rigid LVT will be broadly similar to those incurred for non-foamed rigid LVT,
save for [ 	]. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 2; Ex. F-25
(standard costing for rigid LVT for 2019). IVC also expects to manufacture at least [
] of IVC Foamed Rigid LVT during its first full year of production
in [ 	], or approximately [ 	]. See Ex. I (Van
Vlassenrode Decl.), ¶ 4.
Using this information, complainants’ expert, Dr. Prowse, performed the same

PUBLIC VERSION

analysis he conducted with respect to the IVC CL Flex LVT products and estimated

IVC’s investments and expenditures in IVC Foamed Rigid LVT for plant and equipment

attributable to sub-prong (A), or labor and capital attributable to sub-prong (B) will be at

least [ ], respectively for the first full year of production of
IVC Foamed Rigid LVT:
Total Expenditures for Total Expenditures for
Sub-Prong (A) Plant and | Sub-Prong (B) Labor and
Equipment Capital
Fixed (Plant & [ ] [ ]
Equipment or Capital)

Energy [ ] [ ]
Salaried (Direct Labor) N/A [ ]
Fixed (Overhead Labor) N/A [ ]
Total [ ] [ ]

See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), 51. Thus, the evidence shows that IVC will invest significant

resources in the production of IVC Foamed Rigid LVT once production begins. These

investments will also be quantitatively and qualitatively significant, at least because, like

the IVC CL Flex LVT, 100% of the manufacture of IVC Foamed Rigid LVT will occur

domestically at IVC’s facility in Dalton, Georgia, and without IVC’s investments the

products would not exist. See Ex. I (Van Vlassenrode Decl.), §§ 3-4; Ex. F (Prowse

Decl.), § 58.

Accordingly, it is determined that complainants have established that there is a

247

PUBLIC VERSION
248
significant likelihood that the domestic industry requirement will be satisfied in the future
by IVC’s investments in the IVC Foamed Rigid LVT products, and thus the ‘490 and
‘655 patents. There is no genuine dispute of material fact and complainants are entitled
to a summary determination that IVC is in the process of establishing a domestic industry
with respect to the ‘490 and ‘655 patents, satisfying the domestic industry requirement
for those patents.
IX. 	Remedy and Bonding
The Commission has broad discretion in selecting the form of the remedy in a
section 337 proceeding. See Fuji Photo Film v. International Trade Comm’n, 386 F.3d
1095, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Certain Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof,
Inv. No. 337-TA-582, Comm’n Op. at 15 (Feb. 3, 2009), USITC Pub. No. 4115 (Dec.
2009). Where a violation is found, the Commission generally issues a limited exclusion
order (“LEO”) directed against products imported by persons found in violation of the
statute. In certain circumstances, however, the Commission may issue a general
exclusion order (“GEO”) directed against all infringing products. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2).
Complainants request the following:
….a determination recommending that the Commission issue a general
exclusion order pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2), and in no event less
than a limited exclusion order against Defaulting Respondents under 19
U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1); issue cease and desist orders pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §
1337(f)(1) directed to the domestic Defaulting Respondents; and set a
bond during the Presidential Review Period at $0.08 per square foot for
any Accused Product imported during the Presidential Review Period.
Mot. at 1-2; Mem. at 217-54.
As discussed below, the Staff supports complainants’ request. See Staff Resp. at
69-70, 72-82, 84-85; Staff Supp. Resp. (EDIS Doc. ID No. 710376).

PUBLIC VERSION
249
A. 	General Exclusion Order
Under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2), “a general exclusion from entry of articles,
regardless of the source or importer of the articles, may be issued if --- (A) no person
appears to contest an investigation concerning a violation of the provisions of this
section, (B) such a violation is established by substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence, and (C) the requirements of subsection (d)(2) are met.” 19 U.S.C. §
1337(g)(2).
Section 337(d)(2) states in relevant part:
(d) Exclusion of articles from entry . . .
(2) The authority of the Commission to order an exclusion from
entry of articles shall be limited to persons determined by the
Commission to be violating this section unless the Commission
determines that –
(A) a general exclusion from entry of articles is necessary
to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited
to products of named persons; or
(B) there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is
difficult to identify the source of infringing products.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2).
Thus, a GEO is warranted when “a general exclusion from entry of articles is
necessary to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named
persons” or “there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to identify the
source of infringing products.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(A); 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B).
Satisfaction of either criterion is sufficient for imposition of a GEO. Certain Cigarettes
and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-643, Comm’n Op. at 24 (Oct. 1, 2009). The
Commission “now focus[es] principally on the statutory language itself” when

PUBLIC VERSION
250
determining whether a GEO is warranted. Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and
Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-615, Comm’n Op. at 25 (Mar. 27, 2009).
The Commission may look not only to the activities of active respondents, but also to
those of non-respondents as well as respondents who have defaulted or been terminated
from an investigation. See, e.g., Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and Components
Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-650, Comm’n Op. at 59 (Apr.
14, 2010).
As discussed above, in this investigation, ten respondents (ABK; Aurora;
Runchang; Go-Higher; Divine; Lejia; Licheer; Maxwell Flooring; Mr. Hardwood; and
Sam Houston) have defaulted, and a violation has been shown for the asserted patents.
A GEO is warranted in this investigation both to prevent circumvention of an
exclusion order limited to products of named entities, and because there is a pattern of
violation of section 337 and it is difficult if not impossible to identify the source of
infringing products, as discussed below.
In the event the Commission does not issue a GEO, the administrative law judge
finds that the default determination is sufficient to establish a violation for the purpose of
issuing limited exclusion orders directed to the defaulting respondents.23 See 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.16(c)(1).
23 “After a respondent has been found in default by the Commission, the complainant
may file with the Commission a declaration that it is seeking immediate entry of relief
against the respondent in default. The facts alleged in the complaint will be presumed to
be true with respect to the defaulting respondent. The Commission may issue an
exclusion order, a cease and desist order, or both, affecting the defaulting respondent only
after considering the effect of such order(s) upon the public [interest.]” 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.16(c)(1).

PUBLIC VERSION
251
Necessary to Prevent Circumvention of LEO
As discussed below, the evidence establishes that a GEO is necessary for the three
asserted patents to prevent circumvention of an order limited to the products of the named
respondents.
* 	* 	*
In its response to the pending motion, the Staff agreed that a GEO is necessary
with respect to the ‘460 and 655 patents. With respect to the ‘490 patent, however, the
Staff argued in its response:
The Staff, however, disagrees that the remedy is appropriate with
respect to the ‘490 Patent. Relying on accused products from the
Terminated Respondents, the Complainants argue that they have identified
at least 42 products that infringe the ‘490 Patent. Memo at 226, 248. The
infringement evidence that accompanies the motion, in its current form,
however, only supports a finding of infringement by two products. More
specifically, Complainants’ motion provides detailed evidence of
infringement of the ‘490 Patent for only two products—the Antigua WPC
products from Defaulting Respondents Divine and Licheer and Quickstyle
products from non-Respondents. Although in some instances it can easily
be determined that a product likely infringes a patent’s claims by, for
example, simply looking at or operating the product, that is not the case
here. And, Complainants have failed to provide sufficient, or any,
information with respect to the other “identified” products and their
testing. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that any
products other than the Antigua WPC and Quickstyle products infringe
any claim of the ‘490 Patent. Given that Complainants have provided
sufficient infringement evidence for less than a handful of infringing
goods, the Staff is not convinced that there is sufficient motivation in the
market to even produce products that infringe the ‘490 Patent, let alone to
circumvent a limited exclusion order. See Certain Ground Fault Circuit
Interrupters and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-615,
Commission Opinion at 26-27 (March 26, 2009).
Staff Resp. at 77-78 (footnotes omitted).
However, the Staff also expained:

PUBLIC VERSION
252
The Staff’s position on the appropriateness of a general exclusion order
directed to the ‘490 Patent may change, however, if Complainants were to
supplement their motion to include additional evidence about the Aspecta
Ten products from the Terminated Respondent Halstead and Engage
Genesis products from Terminated Respondent Metroflor, including more
information about the testing and analysis of these products by
Complainants’ expert. This is because such supplemental analysis and
evidence may provide support for suggesting that at least seven products
infringe certain claims of the ‘490 Patent.
Id. at 77 n.15.
In response to the Staff’s position concerning the ‘490 patent, on February 19,
2020, complainants filed a supplement addressing the Staff’s concerns. See Second
Supplement to Complainants’ Motion for Summary Determination (“Second
Supplement”) (EDIS Doc. ID No. 702940).

PUBLIC VERSION
253
Complainants argue:
[
]
Second Supplement at 2.
Indeed, this extensive supplement provides the additional evidence requested by
the Staff concerning the testing and analysis of the Aspecta Ten and Engage Genesis
products.24 This supplement includes (1) a second supplemental declaration of Dr. Scott;
24 Engage Genesis and Aspecta Ten products are each representative of: the Engage

PUBLIC VERSION
254
(2) seven exhibits; and (3) eleven appendices. See id.; Exs. A-25 to A-31; Appxs. 1-11.
As requested by the administrative law judge, on May 14, 2020, the Staff filed a
supplemental response stating that “a general exclusion order would also be an
appropriate remedy in this investigation as to the ‘490 Patent under 19 U.S.C. §
1337(d)(2)(A) and 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B).” See Staff Supp. Resp. (EDIS Doc. ID
No. 710376) at 5.
The Staff argues:
Dr. Scott determined that, in his opinion, the Aspecta Ten and
Engage Genesis products do infringe certain asserted claims of the ’490
Patent. See Scott 2nd Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 14, 21-25; Ex. A-25 (Engage
Genesis Chart); Ex. A-26 (Aspecta Ten Chart). As he did for the Antigua
WPC and Quickstyle products, Dr. Scott provided claim charts that
contain his detailed infringement analyses and his second supplemental
declaration was accompanied by annotated photographs and test results as
well. Scott 2nd Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 7-25; see also Scott 2 nd Supp. Decl.
Appendices 1-11. The claim charts provide a limitation-by-limitation
explanation of how, in Dr. Scott’s opinion, the Aspecta Ten and Engage
Genesis products meet every limitation of certain asserted claims of
the ’490 Patent. See Scott 2nd Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 14, 21-25; Ex. A-25
(Engage Genesis Chart); Ex. A-26 (Aspecta Ten Chart). In addition, Dr.
Scott’s analysis explains how, in his opinion, those products infringe the
asserted claims when applying the agreed upon construction for the
“arranged for horizontal and vertical locking of two of such floor panels
using a turning movement along the respective long edges” claim term
See Scott 2nd Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 22-24; Ex. A-25 (Engage Genesis Chart);
Ex. A-26 (Aspecta Ten Chart).
Furthermore, Dr. Scott explains that, based upon representations
about representative products made by the terminated Halstead
Respondents, his testing and analysis of the Aspecta Ten and Engage
Genesis products apply equally to three additional products, namely the
[ 	] products. See
Scott 2 nd Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 5-7; Ex. A-27….
Genesis; Aspecta Ten; ISOCore; Lifeproof; and Aspecta Elemental ISOCore products.
See Sec. Supp. Scott Decl. at 2 (citing ¶ Ex. A-27, Parties’ August 29, 2019, Joint
Stipulation Regarding Representative Accused Products at 2).

PUBLIC VERSION
255
The Staff is not aware of any dispute as to the supplemental
evidence offered by Dr. Scott and Complainants. The Staff is therefore of
the view that Complainants are entitled to rely on the Asptecta Ten,
Engage Genesis, [
] products for additional support with respect to their request for
a general exclusion order. Thus, based upon the supplemental testing,
analysis, and evidence from Complainants’ expert, Complainants’ Second
Supplement provides support for suggesting that at least seven products
infringe certain claims of the ’490 Patent.
Staff Supp. Resp. at 3-4.
* 	* 	*
The evidence shows that common business practices by both respondents and
non-respondents in the flooring industry include a variety of methods by which
manufacturers and sellers of accused products, including the defaulting respondents,
could circumvent an LEO directed only to named respondents.
For example, there is direct evidence that defaulting respondents have altered
their corporate structures, changed their names or addresses, created new entities, or
operated under multiple names. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 85-86. Defaulting
respondent Aurora Flooring is associated with, operates under the names of, and/or
operates out of the same address as non-respondents Aurora Hardwood, Nova
Hardwoods, LLC (“Nova Hardwoods”), Worldwide Flooring Inc. (“Worldwide
Flooring”), and JXZ Hardwood Inc. (“JXZ Hardwood”). See Compl. Ex. 54 (Schuster
1st Decl.), ¶ 7; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 11; Ex. B-15; Ex. B-10; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶
86; Ex. F-147. Aurora Flooring changed its address in 2017, and currently operates at the
same address as non-respondents Nova Hardwood, Worldwide Flooring Inc., Aurora
Hardwood, and JXZ Hardwood Inc. See Compl. Ex. 54 (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 7; Ex. B
(Schuster Decl.), ¶ 11; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 86; Ex. F-147 (2017 Aurora Flooring

PUBLIC VERSION
256
Annual Registration); Ex. B-15 (Better Business Bureau Listing for Aurora Hardwood).
Similarly, defaulting respondents ABK Trading, Sam Houston, and Maxwell
Flooring are associated with and/or operate interchangeably with one another. See Ex. F
(Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 86, 113; Ex. F-137 (ABK Certificate of Formation); Ex. F-136
(Maxwell Flooring Accurint); Ex. UU (Sam Houston Certificate of Formation); Ex. F-
135 (ABK Sales Tax Permit). For example, Maxwell Flooring is an associated entity of
ABK Trading. See Ex. F-136. ABK Trading also has sales tax permits for a location
called Ivy’s Flooring which operates out of the same suite from which Sam Houston
operates. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 86, 113; Ex. B-9; Ex. D-8; Ex. F-135.
Furthermore, Maxwell Flooring appears to operate under the name Houston Maxwell
Flooring Distribution, which is listed on its website, as well as Maxwell Flooring and
Cabinetry Distributors, which operates from the same address. See Ex. B-14 (Maxwell
Flooring website); Ex. VV (Maxwell Cabinet website). Another similarly named store,
Maxwell Flooring Cabinets, is located in the same distribution center as Maxwell
Flooring, but operates from a different suite. See Ex. D-9.
Defaulting respondents Licheer and Divine are owned by the same individual and
are related entities, with Licheer listing Divine’s contact information in its product
brochures. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 86; Ex. F-142 at 24 (Orbis Report for Divine);
Ex. WW at 28 (Orbis Report for Licheer); Compl. Ex. 54A (Schuster 2nd Decl.), ¶ 11.
Divine changed its address in 2017 as well as its name from Jiangsu Dafu Building
Technology Development Co. Ltd. See Ex. F-142 (Orbis Report for Divine). Licheer
also changed its address in 2017, but currently operates from the same address as Divine.
See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 86; compare Ex. F-143 (Licheer website Dec. 2017) with Ex.

PUBLIC VERSION
257
F-144 (Licheer website Nov. 2017); Ex. F-142 at 5 (Divine address); Compl. Ex. 54A
(Schuster Decl.) Attachment G at 1 (Licheer address).
Defaulting respondent Mr. Hardwood Inc. has also changed its address in the past.
See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 86; compare Ex. F-145 (Mr. Hardwood Georgia Registration
Records) with Ex. F-146 (Mr. Hardwood 2009 Registration).
Furthermore, defaulting respondents utilize generic and non-descript packaging
that omits their names, which facilitates their ability to circumvent an LEO directed only
to the named respondents. Specifically, the defaulting respondents’ accused products are
sold in product packaging, such as plain white boxes, that does not identify the
manufacturer of that product. See Ex. HHH (Summary of Accused Product Packaging);
Ex. C-2; Ex. C-4; Ex. C-6; Ex. C-8; Ex. C-10; Ex. C-11; Ex. E-2; Ex. D-4. Five of the
nine defaulting respondents’ accused products fail to identify the country of origin,
increasing the difficulty in identifying the source or manufacturer of that product. See,
e.g., Compl. Ex. 54, ¶¶ 7, 10; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶¶ 21-22. It is also difficult to
identify the source of the defaulting respondents’ accused products because the
manufacturers do not sell the accused products under their own names. See Ex. F
(Prowse Decl.), ¶ 87.
In addition, the defaulting respondents’ accused products were available for sale
online. For example, the WaterGuard, Adventure II, Antigua WPC, and EZ Go products
were available for sale on various websites. See Compl. Ex. 54 Attachment B1, D1; Ex.
QQQ; Ex. D (Kiepura Decl.), ¶ 2; Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 24. Moreover, the websites
on which the products are available change frequently. See Ex. B (Schuster Decl.), ¶ 25.
The Maxwell Flooring website was deactivated and then reactivated, and an additional

PUBLIC VERSION
258
website was created to advertise Maxwell’s’ flooring products. See Ex. B (Schuster
Decl.), ¶ 25. Antigua WPC was available for sale on the iMaxx Exchange website as
well as House Depot USA at the start of the investigation, but since then, these websites
have been deactivated and new websites have appeared. See Compl. Ex. 54 Attachment
D1 at 3-10; Ex. D (Kiepura Decl,), ¶¶ 7-8; Ex. RRR (Cambridge Cabinets website
showing same address as House Depot and iMaxx). Maxwell Flooring and the iDeal
Floors websites, which sold EZ-Go, did not accurately identify the seller or manufacturer
of EZ Go. See Compl. Ex. 54 Attachment C1; Ex. L. In addition, defaulting respondent
Runchang operates its own page on Alibaba which sells various LVT products. See Ex. F
(Prowse Decl.), ¶ 99; Ex. F-64.
It is common practice to sell LVT on online platforms such as Alibaba and other
websites. A simple search of “LVT Click” on Alibaba under the “Construction and Real
Estate” category provides around 18,000 results, with a vast majority of those products
coming from suppliers in Asia. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 98. A similar search on
eBay.com for “LVT Click” in the “Vinyl Flooring” product category provides over 400
results for items in “new” condition. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 99; Ex. F-49. Inasmuch
as it is relatively easy to create an online profile with self-furnished information on
platforms like Alibaba and eBay, defaulting respondents could create multiple online
accounts to sell the accused products anonymously and thus circumvent and LEO. See
Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 96-97, 102.
The Commission has issued GEOs in similar factual circumstances. See, e.g.,
Certain Toner Cartridges, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-918, Comm’n Op.
at 6 (Oct. 1, 2015) (finding a GEO appropriate under subparagraph (A) based on practices

PUBLIC VERSION
259
including “(i) replication of operations; (ii) sourcing imported accused products from
domestic suppliers outside the reach of an LEO; (iii) facilitating circumvention through
Internet operations; (iv) masking of identities and product sources; and (v) use of
unmarked, generic, and/or reseller-branded packaging”); Certain Toner Cartridges and
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-829, Comm’n. Op. at 6-7 (July 29, 2013) (GEO
issued under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(A) to prevent likely circumvention because
respondents “do business under multiple names, and create an array of subsidiaries and
changing corporate profiles” and because their accused products “are often labeled under
other brand names or packaged in unmarked, generic packaging”); Certain Toner
Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-740, Comm’n Op. at 5 (Oct. 5,
2011) (GEO issued under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(A) because “respondents do business
under multiple names” and “an LEO could be circumvented because Lexmark-
compatible laser toner cartridges are often labeled under other original equipment
manufacturer brand names, making it easier . . . to evade enforcement.”).
Furthermore, complainants have also produced evidence of other practices and
industry conditions that increase the likelihood of circumvention of an exclusion order
limited to the named respondents, including the following: (1) low barriers of entry and
ease of replication of operations (see Mem. at 219-23; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 89-95);
(2) high demand for accused products (see Mem. at 223-28; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶
104-111); (3) practices that maintain anonymity of importation, such as exclusion of
manufacturers or imports from bills of lading (see Mem. at 228-29); (4) complex
corporate structures and expansive supply chains (see Mem. at 233-39; Ex. F (Prowse
Decl.), ¶¶ 112-125); and (5) requiring minimum order sizes and using third parties to

PUBLIC VERSION
260
import and source the products (see Mem. at 244-46).
* 	* 	*
Accordingly, the issuance of a GEO under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(A) is
appropriate with respect to the three asserted patents.
Widespread Pattern of Violation and Difficulty Identifying the Source(s) of
Infringing Products
As discussed below, the record evidence supports issuance of a GEO under
section 337(d)(2)(B) because there is a widespread pattern of violation, and it is difficult
to identify the source of infringing products.
With respect to the ‘490 patent, the Staff argued that “complainants have not
shown that the same pattern of violation exists.” Staff Resp. at 79. As discussed in the
immediate section above, in response to the Staff’s position concerning the ‘490 patent,
complainants filed a supplement addressing the Staff’s concerns. See Second
Supplement to Complainants’ Motion for Summary Determination (“Second
Supplement”) (EDIS Doc. ID No. 702940).
Widespread Pattern of Violation
The record evidence shows a widespread pattern of violation with respect to the
three asserted patents. As discussed above in the infringement sections, there is evidence
that at least five products from the defaulting respondents infringe the ‘460 patent, five
products from defaulting respondents and two additional products from non-respondents
infringe the ‘655 patent, and six products from defaulting respondents and one additional

PUBLIC VERSION
261
product from a non-respondent infringe the ‘490 patent.25 Further, complainants
identified a number of other accused products from the terminated respondents that
complainants and their expert allege infringe the asserted claims of the three patents. See
Ex. A (Scott Decl.), ¶ 150, 186; Ex. UUU; Certain Toner Cartridges, and Components
Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-918, Comm’n Op. at 9-10 (Oct. 1, 2015) (“in determining
whether a GEO is warranted, the Commission looks not only to the activities of active
respondents, but also to those of respondents that have been terminated from an
investigation as well as non-respondents”).
Further, the evidence shows that a large number of entities are involved in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of the accused products. For example, in addition to
the 42 named respondents there are at least dozens of non-respondents that are involved
in the supply chain of the respondents or are selling infringing products online. See Ex. F
(Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 123-124.
In addition, complainants have provided evidence of a high market demand for
LVT products, and more specifically infringing LVT products, low barriers to entry, and
attractive margins, all of which encourage foreign manufacturers to enter the market. See
Mem. at 219-28; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 89-95, 104-111.
As discussed above, the defaulting respondents have imported, sold for
importation, and/or sold within the United States after importation the accused products.
Given the number of the defaulting respondents involved, the activities of the defaulting
25 For the ‘490 patent, Engage Genesis and Aspecta Ten products are each representative
of: the Engage Genesis; Aspecta Ten; ISOCore; Lifeproof; and Aspecta Elemental
ISOCore products. See Sec. Supp. Scott Decl. at 2 (citing ¶ Ex. A-27, Parties’ August 29,
2019, Joint Stipulation Regarding Representative Accused Products at 2).

PUBLIC VERSION
262
respondents are sufficient to demonstrate a widespread pattern of violation with respect to
the three asserted patents.
Difficulty Identifying Source of Infringing Products
In addition to the widespread pattern of violation, the evidence establishes that the
defaulting respondents engage in a number of practices that mask the source of the
accused product and as a result there is difficulty in identifying the source of the
infringing products.
Indeed, there is direct evidence that defaulting respondents have altered their
corporate structures, changed their names or addresses, created new entities, or operated
under multiple names. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 85-86. Defaulting respondents also
utilize generic and non-descript packaging that omits their names, which facilitates their
ability to circumvent an LEO directed only to the named respondents. See Ex. HHH
(Summary of Accused Product Packaging); Ex. C-2; Ex. C-4; Ex. C-6; Ex. C-8; Ex. C-
10; Ex. C-11; Ex. E-2; Ex. D-4. In addition, it is difficult to identify the source of the
defaulting respondents’ accused products because the manufacturers do not sell the
accused products under their own names. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 87. Companies
also omit the name of the manufacturers and other entities from the bills of lading, which
helps mask the source of the accused products. See, e.g., Mem. at 228-29; Ex. B
(Schuster Decl.), ¶ 25; Ex. B-5; Ex. X, Ex. KK. Furthermore, there is also evidence of
complex corporate structures and expansive supply chains in the LVT industry. See
Mem. at 233-39; Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 112-125.
In earlier investigations, such evidence has been found to support the issuance of
a GEO. See, e.g., Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-

PUBLIC VERSION
263
829, Commission Opinion at 6-8 (July 29, 2013); Certain Toner Cartridges and
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-740, Commission Opinion at 5-6 (October 5,
2011); Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters, Inv. No. 337-TA-739, Commission Opinion at
91 (June 8, 2012); Certain Inkjet Ink Cartridges with Printheads and Components
Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-723, Commission Opinion at 23 (Dec. 1, 2011).
Based on the undisputed evidence presented, complainants have met their burden
of establishing that a pattern of violation exists with respect to the three asserted patents
and that it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products. See 19 U.S.C. §
1337(d)(2)(B).
B. 	Cease and Desist Orders
Complainants request the administrative law judge to recommend the entry of
cease and desist orders directed to each of the domestic defaulting respondents. See
Mem. at 252-53.
Section 337(g)(l) authorizes the Commission to issue cease and desist orders
against defaulted respondents. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(l); see Certain Hand Dryers and
Housing for Hand Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015, Comm’n Op. at 9-10 (Oct. 30, 2017)
(“Hand Dryers”). This provision provides:
If—
(A) a complaint is filed against a person under this section;
(B) the complaint and a notice of investigation are served on the person;
(C) the person fails to respond to the complaint and notice or otherwise
fails to appear to answer the complaint and notice;
(D) the person fails to show good cause why the person should not be
found in default; and

PUBLIC VERSION
264
(E) the complainant seeks relief limited solely to that person;
the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true
and shall, upon request, issue an exclusion from entry or a cease and desist
order, or both, limited to that person unless, after considering the effect of
such exclusion or order upon the public health and welfare, competitive
conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, the
Commission finds that such exclusion or order should not be issued.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(1).
As discussed above, the Commission has personal jurisdiction over all the
respondents in this investigation. Nevertheless, “[i]n determining whether the issuance of
a CDO against a defaulted respondent is appropriate, the Commission considers whether
the defaulted respondent maintains commercially significant inventories in the United
States or has significant domestic operations that could undercut the remedy provided by
an exclusion order.” See Hand Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015, Comm’n Op. at 10;
Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefore, and Kits
Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-959, Comm’n Op. at 21-31 (Feb. 13, 2017) (“Skin
Care Devices”) (discussion of statutory provision and Commission precedent). The
Commission’s practice recognizes that inasmuch as a defaulted respondent has chosen
not to participate in the investigation, complainants are not able to obtain detailed
information in discovery to support a request for a cease and desist order. See Hand
Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015, Comm’n Op. at 10.
As to domestic respondents found in default under section 337(g)(1), the
Commission has consistently inferred the presence of commercially significant
inventories in the United States and granted complainant’s request for relief in the form
of a cease and desist order. See Hand Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015, Comm’n Op. at 24

PUBLIC VERSION
265
(citing Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers, and
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-486, Comm’n Op. at l7-18 (July 14, 2003));
Certain Mobile Device Holders and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1028,
Comm’n Op. at 24 (Mar. 22, 2018).
Accordingly, the administrative law judge recommends that cease and desist
orders issue to the five domestic defaulting respondents: ABK Trading; Aurora Flooring;
Maxwell Flooring; Mr. Hardwood Inc.; and Sam Houston Hardwood Inc.
C. 	Bond
Pursuant to section 337(j)(3), the administrative law judge and the Commission
must determine the amount of bond to be required of a respondent, during the 60-day
Presidential review period following the issuance of permanent relief, in the event that
the Commission determines to issue a remedy. The purpose of the bond is to protect the
complainant from any injury. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(3); 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.42(a)(1)(ii),
When reliable price information is available, the Commission has often set bond
by eliminating the differential between the domestic product and the imported, infringing
product. See Certain Microsphere Adhesives, Processes for Making Same, and Products
Containing Same, Including Self-Stick Repositionable Notes, Inv. No. 337-TA-366,
Comm’n Op. at 24 (1995). In other cases, the Commission has turned to alternative
approaches, especially when the level of a reasonable royalty rate could be ascertained.
See Certain Integrated Circuit Telecommunication Chips and Products Containing Same,
Including Dialing Apparatus, Inv. No. 337-TA-337, Comm’n Op. at 41 (1995). A 100
percent bond has been required when no effective alternative existed. See Certain Flash
Memory Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-382, USITC Pub. No.

PUBLIC VERSION
266
3046, Comm’n Op. at 26-27 (July 1997) (a 100% bond imposed when price comparison
was not practical because the parties sold products at different levels of commerce, and
the proposed royalty rate appeared to be de minimis and without adequate support in the
record).
Complainants propose that the bond be set at a bond of $0.08 per square foot of
the imports. See Mem. at 253-54. The Staff agrees with this proposal. See Staff Resp. at
84-85.
In this investigation, a lack of reliable pricing data makes it difficult to use a price
differential analysis to determine and appropriate bond. However, there is evidence
available to determine a bond based on licensing royalties. Complainants have shown
[ 	] many licensees to the asserted patents that include royalty provisions. See
Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 60-61. These licenses include information relevant to
determining an appropriate royalty for a reasonable royalty-based bond.
The evidence shows that there are at least [ 	] license agreements for [
]. See Ex. F
(Prowse Decl.), ¶¶ 61-63; Exs. F-29 at 1, F-30 at 1, F-31 at 1. Specifically, the royalty
rate on [ 	] products in these agreements ranged from [ 	] per square
meter, or approximately [ 	] per square foot. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 61.
Additionally, other licenses [ 	] corroborate this rate. There are
[ 	] licenses to patent portfolios covering LVT flooring, [
] with royalty rates ranging from approximately [ 	] per square meter, or
[ 	] per square foot. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 64; Exs. F-94 to F-117.

PUBLIC VERSION
267
Similarly, there are [ 	] licenses additional licenses to patent portfolios covering LVT
flooring, with royalty rates ranging from [ 	] per square meter, or [ 	]
per square foot. See Ex. F (Prowse Decl.), ¶ 65; Exs. F-118 to F-129.
Accordingly, the administrative law judge recommends that the defaulting
respondents be required to post a bond of $0.08 per square foot during the 60-day
Presidential review period. This amount should be sufficient to prevent any harm to
complainants during the Presidential review period.
X. 	Conclusions of Law
1. 	The Commission has subject matter, personal, and in rem jurisdiction in
this investigation.
2. 	The accused products have been imported or sold for importation into the
United States.
3. 	The accused products infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
9,200,460; 10,208,490; and 10,233,655.
4. 	The domestic industry requirement has been satisfied with respect to U.S.
Patent Nos. 9,200,460; 10,208,490; and 10,233,655.
XI. 	Initial Determination and Order
It is the initial determination of the administrative law judge that complainants’
Motion No. 1155-53 for summary determination of violation of section 337 by the
defaulting respondents is granted.
Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(h), this initial determination shall become the
determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the initial

PUBLIC VERSION
268
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 contained herein.
Further, it is recommended that the Commission issue a GEO, certain cease and
desist orders, and that a bond of $0.08 per square foot be established for importation
during the Presidential review period.
All issues delegated to the administrative law judge, pursuant to the notice of
investigation, have been decided, with dispositions as to all respondents. Accordingly,
this investigation before the administrative law judge is concluded in its entirety.
* 	* 	*
To expedite service of the public version, each party is hereby ordered to file with
the Commission Secretary no later than May 25, 2020, a copy of this initial determination
with brackets to show any portion considered by the party (or its suppliers of
information) to be confidential, accompanied by a list indicating each page on which such
a bracket is to be found. At least one copy of such a filing shall be served upon the office
of the undersigned, and the brackets shall be marked in red. If a party (and its suppliers
of information) considers nothing in the initial determination to be confidential, and thus

PUBLIC VERSION
269
makes no request that any portion be redacted from the public version, then a statement to
that effect shall be filed.26
David P. Shaw
Administrative Law Judge
Issued: May 15, 2020
26 Confidential business information (“CBI”) is defined in accordance with 19 C.F.R. §
201.6(a) and § 210.5(a). When redacting CBI or bracketing portions of documents to
indicate CBI, a high level of care must be exercised in order to ensure that non-CBI
portions are not redacted or indicated. Other than in extremely rare circumstances, block-
redaction and block-bracketing are prohibited. In most cases, redaction or bracketing of
only discrete CBI words and phrases will be permitted.

CERTAIN LUXURY VINYL TILE AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Inv. No. 337-TA-1155
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached Initial Detrmination has been served
via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Sarah J. Sladic, Esq., and the following
parties as indicated, on August 7, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Mohawk Industries, Inc., Flooring
Industries Ltd. Sarl, and IVC US Inc.:
Paul F. Brinkman Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Email: paul.brinkman@kirkland.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification of
Availability for Download