Back to Blog
ITCSeptember 25, 2026·337-TA-1453·EXCLUSION ORDER

Certain Boiler Protection for Absorption Refrigeration Systems and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-1453 (Violation)

U.S. International Trade Commission

Holding

The Commission found a violation of section 337 as to claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,056,360, affirming the summary determination on a modified economic-prong rationale. It issued a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders against four defaulting respondents, with a 100% bond.

Why It Matters

The general exclusion order bars all infringing boiler protection products for absorption refrigeration systems regardless of source, which reaches the many unnamed online sellers. The cease and desist orders add remedies against the four defaulting respondents. The Commission affirmed the summary determination, to which no party petitioned for review, and did not separately adjudicate stand-alone components, which narrows the issues for any appeal.

Full Summary

The Commission found a violation of section 337 as to claims 1, 4, 6, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,056,360, affirming the summary determination on a modified economic-prong rationale. It issued a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders against four defaulting respondents, with a 100% bond. The general exclusion order bars all infringing boiler protection products for absorption refrigeration systems regardless of source, which reaches the many unnamed online sellers. The cease and desist orders add remedies against the four defaulting respondents. The Commission affirmed the summary determination, to which no party petitioned for review, and did not separately adjudicate stand-alone components, which narrows the issues for any appeal. Domestic industry economic prong affirmed under section 337(a)(3)(B) on modified reasoning, based on the labor of ARPC LLC's two partners, found significant because it occurred entirely in the United States. The Commission took no position on section 337(a)(3)(A) and did not reach the SD's findings on advertising, shipping, insurance and trade show expenses. The SD's infringement findings for claims 1, 4, 6 and 10 of the '360 patent by the Defaulting Respondents' accused products were affirmed and adopted without review. A GEO issued under section 337(g)(2) and (d)(2)(B) based on a widespread pattern of violation and difficulty identifying the source of infringing products. Stand-alone components and accessories were not separately adjudicated. CDOs issued against Koofang, RVGIVE, VISVIC and Little Bear Pocket. No public interest factor weighed against relief. The bond was set at 100% of entered value during Presidential review.

Key Points

  • Domestic industry economic prong affirmed under section 337(a)(3)(B) on modified reasoning, based on the labor of ARPC LLC's two partners, found significant because it occurred entirely in the United States.
  • The Commission took no position on section 337(a)(3)(A) and did not reach the SD's findings on advertising, shipping, insurance and trade show expenses.
  • The SD's infringement findings for claims 1, 4, 6 and 10 of the '360 patent by the Defaulting Respondents' accused products were affirmed and adopted without review.
  • A GEO issued under section 337(g)(2) and (d)(2)(B) based on a widespread pattern of violation and difficulty identifying the source of infringing products. Stand-alone components and accessories were not separately adjudicated.
  • CDOs issued against Koofang, RVGIVE, VISVIC and Little Bear Pocket. No public interest factor weighed against relief. The bond was set at 100% of entered value during Presidential review.
domestic industryexclusion ordercease & desistinfringement

Related Documents

More on this topic

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