Back to Blog
ITCJune 18, 2026·337-TA-1442·PARTIAL VIOLATION

Certain Glow Fish Tape Systems, Safety Helmet Systems, and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1442 (Violation)

U.S. International Trade Commission

Holding

The ALJ found a violation of section 337 limited to the safety helmet systems and components, based on infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,268,265 (claims 1-4 of the '265 patent, via direct and induced infringement). The excerpt does not contain the reasoning on the '327, '209 and '573 patents, or on claim construction and validity, so the result on those patents cannot be stated from this text.

Why It Matters

The ALJ recommends a limited exclusion order covering imported hard hats, safety helmets and accessory devices, with no carve-outs for domestic manufacture, components, warranty or accessories. He also recommends cease and desist orders against Milwaukee and a 100% bond during Presidential review for both the glow fish tape and headwear products. The Commission may review under 19 C.F.R. 210.43-210.44.

Full Summary

The ALJ found a violation of section 337 limited to the safety helmet systems and components, based on infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,268,265 (claims 1-4 of the '265 patent, via direct and induced infringement). The excerpt does not contain the reasoning on the '327, '209 and '573 patents, or on claim construction and validity, so the result on those patents cannot be stated from this text. The ALJ recommends a limited exclusion order covering imported hard hats, safety helmets and accessory devices, with no carve-outs for domestic manufacture, components, warranty or accessories. He also recommends cease and desist orders against Milwaukee and a 100% bond during Presidential review for both the glow fish tape and headwear products. The Commission may review under 19 C.F.R. 210.43-210.44. Violation found for safety helmet systems and components based on infringement of the '265 patent; the introduction names no other patent as infringed. Milwaukee abandoned its argument that re-imported hard hats and helmets were not imported, and the ALJ held an importation remedy is available however the products were made. A limited exclusion order should cover hard hats, safety helmets and accessory devices but not non-adjudicated components like resin and ribbon, and accessories get no carve-out because inducement was found. Cease and desist orders are recommended against Milwaukee, which stipulated to commercially significant inventories of the accused glow fish tape products and accessory devices. Bond is recommended at 100% for the glow fish tape products (only two suppliers, so price differential is not useful) and for the headwear products (wide product variety, difficulty quantifying harm).

Key Points

  • Violation found for safety helmet systems and components based on infringement of the '265 patent; the introduction names no other patent as infringed.
  • Milwaukee abandoned its argument that re-imported hard hats and helmets were not imported, and the ALJ held an importation remedy is available however the products were made.
  • A limited exclusion order should cover hard hats, safety helmets and accessory devices but not non-adjudicated components like resin and ribbon, and accessories get no carve-out because inducement was found.
  • Cease and desist orders are recommended against Milwaukee, which stipulated to commercially significant inventories of the accused glow fish tape products and accessory devices.
  • Bond is recommended at 100% for the glow fish tape products (only two suppliers, so price differential is not useful) and for the headwear products (wide product variety, difficulty quantifying harm).
infringementexclusion ordercease & desistdomestic industryinjunction / stay

How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the Commission's document; before publishing, code checked that the quotation and the citations it gives appear in that document. Editorial policy

More on this topic

New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity