SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 22, 2025, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Modumetal, Inc. of Snohomish, Washington (“Complainant” or “Modumetal”). 90 FR 7704-05 (Jan. 22, 2025). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 (19 U.S.C. 1337) based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain nanolaminate alloy coated metal parts and products containing same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,253,419 (“the '419 patent”) and 11,242,613 (“the '613 patent”). Id. at 7704. The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists. Id. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following respondents: Parker Hannifin Corporation of Cleveland, Ohio, and Lu Chu Shin Yee Works Co., Ltd. of Kaohsiung City, Taiwan (collectively, “Respondents”). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not a party to this investigation. Id.

The Commission previously amended the complaint and notice of investigation to add seven new respondents: Jiangsu DVP Hi Press Tech Co. of Jiangsu, China (“Jiangsu DVP Hi Press”); Kunshan Huizong Machine Co. of Jiangsu, China (“Kunshan”); Maxort Philippines Inc. of Laguna, Philippines; Paloma Turning Co. Pvt Ltd. of Karnataka, India; Shaoxing Xuantong Fluid Connectors Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang, China; Overseas International Group of Shanghai, China (“Overseas”); and Zhejiang Unifull Industrial Fibre Co., Ltd. of Zhejiang, China (“Zhejiang Unifull”). Order No. 13 (May 8, 2025), unreviewed by90 FR 23563-64 (June 3, 2025).

The Commission previously further amended the notice of investigation to: (1) replace Zhejiang Unifull with Zhejiang Fitting Machinery Co., Ltd., also of Zhejiang China; (2) correct the name of Jiangsu DVP Hi Press to Jiangsu DVP Hi Pressure Technology Co., Ltd., also of Jiangsu, China; (3) correct the name of Overseas to Shanghai Overseas Enterprises Co., also of Shanghai, China; and (4) remove reference to Kunshan to conform to evidence. Order No. 18 (June 10, 2025), unreviewed by90 FR 31241-42 (July 14, 2025).

On April 30, 2026, the ALJ issued the FID finding no violation of section 337 (as corrected on May 6, 2026). Specifically, the FID finds no infringement of the asserted claims, i.e., claims 1-3, 5, and 7 of the '419 patent and claims 1-3 and 5 of the '613 patent. The FID also finds that the asserted claims are not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement. The FID further finds that Modumetal has not satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to both the '419 and '613 patents, but that Modumetal has contingently satisfied the economic prong for both patents.

The FID further includes the ALJ's recommended determination (“RD”), which recommends, should the Commission find a violation of section 337, that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of infringing products imported by or on behalf of the respondents. The RD, however, recommends no cease and desist order against any of the respondents and no bond ( i.e., a zero percent (0%) bond) during the period of Presidential review.

On May 12, 2026, Complainant petitioned for Commission review of the FID's findings relating to claim construction, non-infringement, and failure to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. On the same day, Respondents filed a contingent petition for Commission review of the FID's finding that the asserted claims are not invalid for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement, as well as the FID's finding that Modumetal has contingently satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. On May 20, 2026, the parties filed responses to each other's petitions.

The Commission did not receive any statements on the public interest from the parties pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4), 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). The Commission also did not receive any submission in response to its post-RD Federal Register notice. 91 FR 24607-08 (May 6, 2026).

Having examined the record of this investigation, including the FID and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to review the FID in its entirety and on review, to affirm with modified analysis the FID's determination of no violation of section 337. Specifically, as explained in the Commission Opinion issued concurrently herewith, the Commission has determined to: (1) affirm with ( printed page 45829) modified analysis the FID's finding of no infringement; (2) affirm with modified analysis the FID's finding on failure to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; (3) take no position on the FID's findings as to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement; and (4) take no position on the FID's invalidity findings. The Commission adopts all findings in the FID that are not inconsistent with the Commission's opinion.

The investigation is terminated.

The Commission's vote for this determination took place on July 16, 2026.

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).

91 FR 45828