Back to Blog
ITCOctober 12, 2026·337-TA-1512·AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED

Certain Foundry Coke; Inv. No. 337-TA-1512 (Violation)

U.S. International Trade Commission

Holding

This amended complaint, filed by SunCoke Technology and Development LLC and Jewell Coke Company L.P., asks the Commission to investigate imports of foundry coke from seven proposed respondents (five Czech-group entities and two Italiana Coke entities) that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,600,915. The document does not say what changed from the original complaint, though it refers to the initial Complaint in this Investigation.

Why It Matters

The complaint targets imported foundry coke used in cupola furnaces, which SunCoke says competes with its domestic production at the Jewell facility in Virginia. SunCoke seeks a limited exclusion order, cease-and-desist orders and a bond during the 60-day Presidential review period. The case rests on a patent covering oblong coke with specified length-to-width ratio and sulfur, moisture, fixed carbon and ash levels.

Full Summary

This amended complaint, filed by SunCoke Technology and Development LLC and Jewell Coke Company L.P., asks the Commission to investigate imports of foundry coke from seven proposed respondents (five Czech-group entities and two Italiana Coke entities) that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,600,915. The document does not say what changed from the original complaint, though it refers to the initial Complaint in this Investigation. The complaint targets imported foundry coke used in cupola furnaces, which SunCoke says competes with its domestic production at the Jewell facility in Virginia. SunCoke seeks a limited exclusion order, cease-and-desist orders and a bond during the 60-day Presidential review period. The case rests on a patent covering oblong coke with specified length-to-width ratio and sulfur, moisture, fixed carbon and ash levels. Complainants are SunCoke T&D (patent owner) and Jewell (licensee and operator of the Jewell facility in Oakwood, Virginia). Proposed respondents are MTX Group a.s., OKK Koksovny a.s., METALIMEX a.s., METALIMEX Deutschland GmbH and AMEX Coal Sp. z o.o. (Czech coke group), plus Italiana Coke S.r.l. and Terminal Alti Fondali Savona S.r.l. Asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 12,600,915, issued April 14, 2026. Claims 1-4, 5 and 7-13 are asserted against the Czech coke and claims 1, 3-4, 5 and 7-13 against the Italiana coke, under direct, induced and contributory infringement theories, literally or by equivalents. Accused products are foundry coke imported by the Czech and Italiana groups. The complaint cites test certificates, claim charts and import bill of lading data. Domestic industry is alleged at the Jewell facility, based on practice of at least one claim and investments in plant and equipment, labor and capital, and engineering and R&D under Section 337(a)(3)(A)-(C). Relief sought is a permanent limited exclusion order, cease-and-desist orders against each proposed respondent, and a bond during Presidential review.

Key Points

  • Complainants are SunCoke T&D (patent owner) and Jewell (licensee and operator of the Jewell facility in Oakwood, Virginia).
  • Proposed respondents are MTX Group a.s., OKK Koksovny a.s., METALIMEX a.s., METALIMEX Deutschland GmbH and AMEX Coal Sp. z o.o. (Czech coke group), plus Italiana Coke S.r.l. and Terminal Alti Fondali Savona S.r.l.
  • Asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 12,600,915, issued April 14, 2026. Claims 1-4, 5 and 7-13 are asserted against the Czech coke and claims 1, 3-4, 5 and 7-13 against the Italiana coke, under direct, induced and contributory infringement theories, literally or by equivalents.
  • Accused products are foundry coke imported by the Czech and Italiana groups. The complaint cites test certificates, claim charts and import bill of lading data.
  • Domestic industry is alleged at the Jewell facility, based on practice of at least one claim and investments in plant and equipment, labor and capital, and engineering and R&D under Section 337(a)(3)(A)-(C).
  • Relief sought is a permanent limited exclusion order, cease-and-desist orders against each proposed respondent, and a bond during Presidential review.
amended complaintinfringementdomestic industryexclusion ordercease & desist

Related Documents

More on this topic

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