SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission instituted this investigation on June 1, 2026, based on a complaint filed by Promotion in Motion, Inc. (“Complainant”) of Park Ridge, New Jersey. 91 FR 32434 (June 1, 2026). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. ( printed page 56900) 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain coated confectionery products and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,750,267 and 11,317,640. Id. The complaint further alleges that a domestic industry exists or is in the process of being established. Id. In addition to the Terminated Respondent, the notice of investigation named the following respondents: Cibo Vita, Inc. of Totowa, New Jersey; Cibo Vita Founders, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware; and New Cibo Vita, LLC of Wilmington, Delaware (collectively, “Respondents”). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in the investigation. Id.

On July 30, 2026, Complainant filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add the Added Respondent and to terminate the Terminated Respondent. The motion states that Respondents do not oppose the motion.

On August 3, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 7) granting the motion pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) and 210.14(b), 19 CFR 210.21(a)(1) and 210.14(b). In accordance with Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), the ID notes that “there are no agreements written or oral, express or implied . . . between Complainant and the Terminated Respondent.” ID at 4. In addition, the ID finds good cause under Commission Rule 210.14(b) for adding the Added Respondent because the “identification of the substitute entity was based on information obtained during discovery.” Id. The ID also finds no prejudice to the public interest or the rights of the parties participating in this investigation. Id. at 5. The ID explains that the proposed amendment “will not necessitate a change in the substantive scope of the investigation because the proposed amendment is essentially a substitution.” Id. The ID further finds that “the investigation is still in relatively early stages and there are several months remaining in fact discovery.” Id.

No petition for review of the subject ID was filed.

The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. AnaBio Technologies Unlimited Company is added as a respondent in this investigation, and AnaBio Technologies, LTD. is terminated from the investigation.

The Commission vote for this determination took place on September 1, 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 56899