Certain Pickup Truck Folding Bed Cover Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1143

10 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

In the Matter of

CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED
COVER SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF

337-TA-1143

Publication 5084 June 2020

U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission
COMMISSIONERS
David S. Johanson, Chairman
Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Commissioner
Jason E. Kearns, Commissioner
Randolph J. Stayin, Commissioner
Amy A. Karpel, Commissioner
Address all communications to
Secretary to the Commission
United States International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436
www.usitc.gov
Publication 5084 	June 2020
In the Matter of
337-TA-1143
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED
COVER SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington,D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING
BED COVER SYSTEMS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No.337-TA-1143
NOTICE OF A COMMISSION ISSUANCE OF LIMITED EXCLUSION ORDER
AGAINST INFRINGING PRODUCTS OF RESPONDENT FOUND IN DEFAULT;
ISSUANCE OF CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST DEFAULTING
RESPONDENT; TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATION
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a
limited exclusion order("LEO")against infringing products from Ningbo Huadian Cross
Country Automobile Accessories Co., Ltd.("Ningbo")of Ningbo, China and a cease and desist
order("CDO")against Ningbo. The investigation is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office ofthe General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone(202)708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours(8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,500 E Street,
SW, Washington, D.C. 20436,telephone(202)205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on(202)205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
February 15, 2019, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Extang Corporation and Laurmark
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries (collectively,"Complainants"), both of Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 84 FR 4534-35(Feb. 15, 2019). The complaint alleges violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337("Section 337"), based upon the importation
into the United States, sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain pickup truck folding bed cover systems and components thereof by reason
of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. D620,877; 7,188,888 ("the '888 patent");
7,484,788; 8,061,758; 8,182,021 ("the '021 patent"); and 8,690,224; and U.S. Trademark

Registration Nos. 5,104,393 ("the '393 trademark") and 3,904,016("the '016 trademark"). The
Commission's notice of investigation names eleven respondents: Ningbo; DT Trading Inc. of
Alhambra, California; JL Concepts Inc. and Stehlen Automotive, both of Walnut, California;
Wenzhou Kouvi Hardware Products Co., Ltd. ofZhejiang Province, China; SyneticUSA ofPico
Rivera, California; Topline Autoparts, Inc. and Velocity Concepts Inc., both of Hacienda
Heights, California; Apex Auto Parts Mfg. Inc. and Syppo Marketing, Inc., both of City of
Industry, California; and Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd.("Sunwood")of Jiangsu, China. The
Office of Unfair Import Investigations("OUII")is also a party to the investigation. The
Commission previously found Ningbo in default. Order No. 23(May 3, 2019), unreviewed by
Comm'n Notice(May 29, 2019). Apart from Ningbo, all of the respondents were terminated
from the investigation via consent orders. See Order Nos. 13-19(Apr. 12, 2019), unreviewed by
Comm'n Notice(May 8, 2019); Order Nos. 20-21 (Apr. 26, 2019), unreviewed by Comm'n
Notice(May 15, 2019); Order No. 27(July 3, 2019), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (July 29,
2019).
On March 12, 2019, Complainants filed a motion, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16
(19 CFR 210.16), requesting: (1)an order directing, inter alia, Ningbo to show cause why it
should not be found in default for failure to respond to the complaint and notice ofinvestigation
as required by Commission Rule 210.13(19 CFR 210.13); and (2)the issuance of an initial
determination("ID")finding, inter alia, Ningbo in default upon its failure to show cause. On
March 19, 2019, the presiding administrative law judge("All")issued Order No.9 which
required, inter alia, Ningbo to show cause no later than April 1, 2019, as to why it should not be
held in default and have judgment rendered against it pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16(19
CFR 210.16). No response was received from Ningbo to the motion or show cause order.
The AUJ issued an ID (Order No. 23)on May 3, 2019, finding Ningbo in default,
pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16(19 CFR 210.16), because it did not respond to the
complaint, notice of investigation, and Order No. 9. Subsequently, the All issued Order No.
27, which entered a consent order with respect to Sunwood. Order No. 27 also terminated the
investigation before the AUJ because Sunwood was the last participating respondent. The
Commission determined not to review Order No. 27 and requested written submissions on the
issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 84 Fed. Reg. 37673-74(August 1, 2019).
Complainants and OUII submitted briefing responsive to the Commission's request on
August 12, 2019, and OUII submitted a reply brief on August 19, 2019. Complainants and
OUII both argued that the Commission should issue an LEO directed to Ningbo's infringing
products and a CDO directed to Ningbo.
Having reviewed the record in the investigation, including the written submissions ofthe
parties, the Commission has made its determination on the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. The Commission has determined to issue relief directed solely to the defaulting
respondent, Ningbo, pursuant to Section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1). The Commission
finds that the statutory requirements of Section 337(g)(1)(A)-(E)(19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E))
are met with respect to the defaulting respondent. Pursuant to Section 337(g)(1) and
2

Commission Rule 210.16(c)(19 CFR 210.16(c)), the Commission presumes the facts alleged in
the complaint to be true. Based on the record in this investigation and the written submissions
from the parties, the Commission has determined to issue an LEO directed to the defaulting
respondent prohibiting the unlicensed entry offolding cover assemblies for pickup truck cargo
boxes and components thereof that infringe one or more of claim 11 ofthe '888 patent, claim 18
of the '021 patent, the '393 trademark, and the '016 trademark, and that are manufactured abroad
by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of Ningbo, or any of its affiliated companies,
parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns. The
Commission has also determined to issue a CDO prohibiting Ningbo from conducting any ofthe
following activities in the United States: importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing,
offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors
for folding cover assemblies for pickup truck cargo boxes and components thereof that infringe
one or more of claim 11 ofthe '888 patent, claim 18 ofthe '021 patent, the '393 trademark, and
the '016 trademark. See Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor,
and Kits Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-959, Comm'n Op.(Feb. 13, 2017)(public
version)(including Chairman Schmidtlein's Separate Views on issuing cease and desist orders
governed by Section 337(g)(1)).
The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in
Section 337(g)(1)(19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) do not preclude issuance ofthe LEO or CDO. Finally,
the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of 100 percent ofthe entered value of
the covered products is required during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
The Commission's order was delivered to the President and to the United States Trade
Representative on the day of its issuance.
The Commission has terminated this investigation. The authority for the Commission's
determination is contained in Section 337 ofthe 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.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: October 23, 2019
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
3

CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED COVER Inv. No.337-TA-1143
SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand upon the
Commission Investigative Attorney, Vu Bui, Esq., and the following parties as indicated, on
October 23,2019.
Lisa R.,Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW,Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Extang Corporation and Laurmark
Enterprises,Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries:
H. Jonathan Redway, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
International Square, 1825 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006
On Behalf of Respondent Sunwood Industries
Lyle Vander Schaaf, Esq.
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
1775 Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 900
Washington,DC 200006
Respondents:
Ningbo Huadian Cross Country
Automobile Accessories Co., Ltd.
Room 2402
Huijin Building No. 77, Heyi Road
Ningbo China 315000
Page 1 of 1
O Via Hand Delivery
Z Via Express Delivery
1=1 Via First Class Mail
1=1 Other:
El Via Hand Delivery
Z Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
1Z Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 	.
In the Matter of 	V
IN
OLD 	G 	Investigation	No.	337-TA-1143
COMPONENTS THEREOF
LIMITED EXCLUSION ORDER - 	’
The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has found Ningbo
Huadian Cross Country Automobile Accessories Co., Ltd. (“Respondent”) in default pursuant to
19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 210.16 for failing to respond to aNotice of Institution of
Investigation and a Complaint that alleged a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, in the Lmlawfulimportation, sale for importation, or sale within
the United States after importation of certain folding cover assemblies for pickup truck cargo
boxes and components thereof that infringe one or more of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No.
7,188,888 (“the ’888 patent”); claim 18 ofU.S. Patent No. 8,182,021 (“the ’021 patent”); U.S.
Trademark Registration No. 5,104,393 (“the ’393 trademark”); and U.S. Trademark Registration
No. 3,904,016 (“the ’Ol6 trademark”) (“covered articles”).
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the written submissions of the
parties, the Commission has made its detennination on the issues of remedy, public interest, and
bonding. The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is a limited
exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of folding cover assemblies for pickup truck
cargo boxes and components thereof manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or
on behalf of, Respondent or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related
business entities, or their successors or assigns.

The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in l9
U S C § l337(g)(1) do not preclude the issuance of the limited exclusion order, and that the
bond during the period of Presidential review shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the
entered value of the covered articles.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby ORDERS that:
Folding cover assemblies for pickup truck cargo boxes and components thereof
that infringe one or more of claim ll of the ’888 patent and claim 18 of the ’021
patent that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on
behalf of, Respondent, or its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other
related business entities, or their successors or assigns, are excluded from entry
for consumption into the United States, entry for consumption from a foreign
trade zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, for the remaining
terms of the patents, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by
law.
Folding cover assemblies for pickup truck cargo boxes and components thereof
that infringe one or more of the ’393 trademark and the ’016 trademark that are
manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of,
Respondent, or its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related
business entities, or their successors or assigns, are excluded from entry for
consumption into the United States, entry for consmnption from a foreign trade
zone, or withdrawal from a warehouse for consumption, except under license
from, or with permission provided in writing from, the trademark owner or as
2

provided by law, until such date as the trademarks are abandoned, canceled, or
rendered invalid or unenforceable.
The ’393 and ’016 trademark registrations are attached as Exhibit l. For the
purpose of assisting U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in the
enforcement of this Order, and without in any way limiting the scope of the
Order, the Commission has attached to this Order as Exhibit 2 a copy of a
photograph provided to the Commission by Complainants of an exemplary
folding cover assembly for a pickup truck cargo box having the protected
trademarks. - 	\
Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Order, covered articles are entitled to
entry into the United States for consumption, entry for consumption from a
foreign-trade zone, or withdrawal fromvawarehouse for consumption under bond
in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the products, pursuant to
subsection (j) of Section 337 (19 U.S.C. § l337(j)) and the Presidential
Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative of July 21, 2005 (70
Fed. Reg. 43,251), from the day after this Order is received by the United States
Trade Representative until such time as the United States Trade Representative
notifies the Commission that this Order is “approvedor disapproved but, in any
event, not later than sixty (60) days after the date of receipt of this Order. All
entries of covered articles made pursuant to this paragraph are to be reported to
CBP, in advance of the date of the entry, pursuant to procedures CBP establishes.
3 .

1
This Order does not exempt infringing articles from seizures under the trademark
laws enforced by CBP, most notably 19 U.S.C. § l526(e) and 19 U.S.C.
§ l595a(c)(2)(C) for a violation of 15,U.S.C. § 1124.
At the discretion of CBP and pursuant to the procedures it establishes, persons
seeking to import covered articles that are potentially subject to this Order may be
required to certify that they are familiar with the tenns of this Order, that they
have made appropriate inquiry, and thereupon state that, to the best of their
knowledge and belief, the products being imported are not excluded from entry
under paragraphs 1-2 of this Order. At its discretion, CBP may require persons
who have provided the certification described in this paragraph to fumish such
records or analyses as are necessary to substantiate the certification.
In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1337(1),the provisions of this Order shall not
apply to covered articles that are imported by and for the use of the United States,
or imported for, and to be used for, the United States with the authorization or
consent of the Government.
Complainants shall file a written statement with the Commission, made under
oath, each year on the anniversary of the issuance of this Order stating whether
Complainants continue to use the ’393 trademark and the ’0l6 trademark in
commerce in the United States in connection with folding cover assemblies for
pickup truck cargo boxes and components thereof and whether the ’393 trademark
or the ’016 trademark has been abandoned, canceled, or rendered invalid or
unenforceable.
4

9. The Commission may modify this Order in accordance with the procedures
described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 C.F.R. § 210.76).
10. The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this _
investigation and upon CBP.
11. Notice of this Order shall be published in the Federal Register.
By order of the Commission. 	C
Wee
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: October 23, 2019
5

CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED COVER 	I Inv. No./337-TA'-1143
SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF 4
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served by hand upon the
Commission Investigative Attorney, Vu Bui, Esq., and the following parties as indicated, on
October 23, 2019.
On Behalf of Complainants Extang Corporation
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
UQS.International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112 '
Washington, DC 20436
and Laurmark
Enterprises. Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries:
H. Jonathan Redway, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
International Square, 1825 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D,.C. 20006 _
On Behalf of Respondent Sunwood Industries
Lyle Vander Schaafi Esq. p
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
1775 Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 900
Washington, DC 200006
Respondents: 	'
Ningbo Huadian Cross Country
Automobile Accessories Co., Ltd.
Room 2402
Huijin Building No. 77, Heyi Road '
Ningbo China 315000
Page of 1
I] Via Hand Delivery
I2]Via Express Delivery
El Via First Class Mail
|:| Other: »
El Via Hand Delivery
Via Express Delivery
II Via First Class Mail
l:\ Other:
El Via Hand Delivery
E Via Express Delivery
Cl Via First Class Mail
El Other:

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING 	Investigation N0_337-1‘A-1143 h
BED COVER SYSTEMS AND 	‘
COMPONENTS THEREOF
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Respondent Ningbo Huadian Cross Country "
Automobile Accessories Co., Ltd. (“Respondent”) cease and desist from conducting any of the
following activities in the United States: importing, selling, offering for sa1e,.marketing,
advertising, distributing, transferring (except for exportation), soliciting United States agents or
distributors, and aiding or abetting other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale
after importation, transfer (except for exportation), or distribution of folding cover assemblies for
pickup truck cargo boxes and components thereof that infringe one or more of claim ll of U.S.
Patent N0. 7,188,888 (“the "888 patent”); claim 18 ofU.S. Patent No. 8,182,021 (“the ’O2l
patent”); U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,104,393 (“the ’393 trademark”); and U.S.
Trademark Registration No. 3,904,016 (“the ’016 trademark”), in violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of I930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337).
I.
Definitions
As used in this order:
(A) “Commission” shall mean the United States International Trade Commission.

(B) “Complainants” shall mean Extang Corporation and Laurmark Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a BAK Industries.
(C) “Respondent” shall mean Ningbo Huadian Cross Country Automobile
‘ Accessories Co., Ltd., whose address is represented to be Room 2402, Huijin
Building No. 77, Heyi Road, Ningbo, China 315000.
(D) “Person” shall mean an individual, or any non-governmental partnership, firm,
association, corporation, or other legal or business entity other than Respondent or
its majority-owned or controlled subsidiaries, successors, or assigns.
(E) “United States” shall mean the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
(F) The terms “import” and “importation” refer to importation for entry for
consumption under the Customs laws of the United States.
(G) The tenn “covered products” shall mean folding cover assemblies for pickup
truck cargo boxes and components thereof that infringe one or more of claim 11
of the ’888 patent; claim 18 of the ’02l patent; the ’393 trademark; and the ’0l6
trademark. Covered products shall not include articles for which a provision of
law or license avoids liability for infringement.
II.
Applicability
The provisions of this Cease and Desist Order shall apply to Respondent and to any of its
principals, stockholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, licensees, distributors, controlled
(whether by stock ownership or otherwise) and majority-owned business entities, successors, and
assigns, and to each of them, insofar as they are engaging in conduct prohibited by section III,
infia, for, with, or otherwise on behalf of, Respondent.
2

III.
Conduct Prohibited
The following conduct of Respondent in the United States is prohibited by this Order.
For the remaining terms of the ’888 and ’O2l patents, and while the ’393 and ’0l6 trademarks
remain valid and enforceable, as applicable, Respondent shall not:
(A) import or sell for importation into the United States covered products;
(B) market, distribute, offer for sale, sell, or otherwise transfer (except for
exportation) imported covered products;
(C) advertise imported covered products;
i (D) solicit U.S. agents or distributors for imported covered products; or
(E) aid or abet other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale after
importation, transfer, or distribution of covered products. '
IV.
Conduct Permitted
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Order, specific conduct otherwise prohibited
by the terms of this Order shall be permitted if:
(A) in a written instrument, the owner of the ’888 patent, ’02l patent, ’393 trademark,
or ‘O16trademark licenses or authorizes such specific conduct; or
(B) such specific conduct is related to the importation or sale of covered products by
or for the United States.
V.
Reporting
For purposes of this requirement, the reporting periods shall commence on January 1 of
each year and shall end on the subsequent December 31. The first report required under this
section shall cover the period from the date of issuance of this order through December 31, 2019.
3

This reporting requirement shall continue in force until such time as Respondent has truthfully
reported, in two consecutive timely filed reports, that it has no inventory of covered products in
the United States.
Within thirty (30) days of the last day of the reporting period, Respondent shall report to
the Commission: (a) the quantity in units and the value in dollars of covered products that it has
(i) imported and/or (ii) sold in the United States after importation during the reporting period,
and (b) the quantity in units and value in dollars of reported covered products that remain in
inventory in the United States at the end of the reporting period.
When filing written submissions, Respondent must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight (8) true paper copies to
the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(t) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 2l0.4(f)). Submissions should refer
to the investigation number (“lnv. No. 337-TA-1143”) in a prominent place on the cover pages
and/or the first page. See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbo0k_on_electronic_filing.pdfl
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000). If
Respondent desires to submit a document to the Commission in confidence, it must file the
original and a public version of the original with the Office of the Secretary and must serve a
copy of the confidential version on Complainant’s counsel}
' Complainants must file a letter with the Secretary identifying the attorney to receive
reports and bond information associated with this Order. The designated attorney must be on the
protective order entered in the investigation.
4

Any failure to make the required report or the filing of any false or inaccurate report shall
constitute a violation of this Order, and the submission of a false or inaccurate report may be
referred to the U.S. Department of Justice as a possible criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Vl.
Record-Keeping and Inspection
(A) For the purpose of securing compliance with this Order, Respondent shall retain
any and all records relating to the sale, offer for sale, marketing, or distribution in
the United States of covered products, made and received in the usual and
ordinary course of business, whether in detail or in summary form, for a period of
three (3) years from the close of the fiscal year to which they pertain.
(B) For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Order and for
no other purpose, subject to any privilege recognized by the federal courts of the
United States, and upon reasonable written notice by the Commission or its staff,
duly authorized representatives of the Commission shall be pennitted access and
the right to inspect and copy, in Respondent’s principal offices during office
hours, and in the presence of counsel or other representatives if Respondent so
chooses, all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda, and other
records and documents, in detail and in summary form, that must be retained
under subparagraph Vl(A) of this Order.
VII.
‘ 	Service of Cease and Desist Order
Respondent is ordered and directed to:
(A) Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the effective date of this Order, a copy of this
Order upon each of its respective officers, directors, managing agents, agents, and
5

employees who have any responsibility for the importation, marketing,
distribution, or sale of imported covered products in the United States;
(B) Serve, within fifteen (15) days after the succession of any persons referred to in
subparagraph VII(A) of this order, a copy of the Crder upon each successor; and
(C) Maintain such records as will show the name, title, and address of each person
upon whom the Order has been served, as described in subparagraphs VII(A) and
VII(B) of this order, together with the date on which service was made.
The obligations set forth in subparagraphs VII(B) and VII(C) shall remain in effect until
the ’888 and ’02l patents expire and until the ’393 and ’0l6 trademarks have been abandoned,
canceled, or rendered invalid or unenforceable.
VIII.
Confidentiality 	'
Any request for confidential treatment of information obtained by the Commission
pursuant to section VI of this order should be made in accordance with section 201.6 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 201.6). For all reports for which
confidential treatment is sought, Respondent must provide a public version of such report with
confidential infonnation redacted.
IX.
Enforcement - 	.
Violation of this order may result in any of the actions specified in section 210.75 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. § 210.75), including an action for
civil penalties under section 337(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (l9 U.S.C. § l337(f)), as well as
any other action that the Commission deems appropriate. In determining whether Respondent is
6

in violation of this order, the Commission may infer facts adverse to Respondent if it fails to
provide adequate or timely infonnation.
X.
, 	Modification
The Commission may amend this order on its own motion or in accordance with the
procedure described in section 210.76 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure
(19 C.F.R. §210.76).
XI.
Bonding
The conduct prohibited by section III of this order may be continued during the sixty (60)
day period in which this Order is under review by the United States Trade Representative, as i
delegated by the President (70 Fed. Reg. 43,251 (Jul. 21, 2005)), provided Respondents post a
bond in the amount of 100% of the entered value of the covered products. This bond provision
does not apply to conduct that is otherwise permitted by section IV of this Order. Covered
products imported on or after the date of issuance of this Order are subject to the entry bond as
set forth in the exclusion order issued by the Commission, and are not subject to this bond
provision.
. The bond is to be posted in accordance with the procedures established by the
Commission for the posting of bonds by complainants in connection with the issuance of
temporary exclusion orders. (See 19 C.F.R. § 210.68.) The bond and any accompanying
documentation are to be provided to and approved by the Commission prior to the
commencement of conduct that is otherwise prohibited by section III of this Order. Upon the
Secretary’s acceptance of the bond, (a) the Secretary will serve an acceptance letter on all
7

parties, and (b) Respondent must serve a copy of the bond and accompanying documentation on
Complainant’s counsel?
The bond is to be forfeited in the event that the United States Trade Representative
approves this Order (or does not disapprove it within the review period), unless (i) the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a final judgment, reverses any Commission final
determination and order as to Respondent on appeal, or (ii) Respondent exports or destroys the
products subject to this bond and provides certification to that effect that is satisfactory to the
Commission.
This bond is to be released in the event the United States Trade Representative
disapproves this Order and no subsequent order is issued by the Commission and approved (or
not disapproved) by the United States Trade Representative, upon service on Respondent of an
order issued by the Commission based upon application therefore made by Respondent to the
Commission.
By order of the Commission.
fi%§>
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: October 23, 2019
2 See Footnote 1.
8

CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED COVER , 	Inv. No. 337-TA-1143
SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
. 	PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served by hand upon the
Commission Investigative Attomey, Vu Bui, Esq., and the following parties as indicated, on
October 23, 2019.
On Behalf of Complainants Extang Corporation
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
and Laurmark
Enterprises. Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries:
H. Jonathan Redway, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
International Square, 1825 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900 _
Washington, D.C. 20006
On Behalf of Respondent Sunwood Industries
Lyle Vander Schaaf, Esq.
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
1775 Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 900
Washington, DC 200006
Resgondentsz
Ningbo Huadian Cross Country
Automobile Accessories Co., Ltd.
Room 2402
Huijin Building No. I77,Heyi Road
Ningbo China 315000 _
Page 1 of 1
El Via Hand Delivery
IXIVia Express Delivery
II] Via First Class Mail
II] Other: 	A
III Via Hand Delivery
Via Express Delivery
El Via First Class Mail
U Other:
III Via Hand Delivery
Via Eitpress Delivery
CI Via First Class Mail
El Other:

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington,D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING
BED COVER SYSTEMS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No.337-TA-1143
NOTICE OF A COMMISSION DETERMINATION NOT TO REVIEW AN INITIAL
DETERMINATION TERMINATING THE INVESTIGATION AS TO A SINGLE
RESPONDENT BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION AND CONSENT
ORDER,AND AMENDING THE COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION;
ISSUANCE OF CONSENT ORDER; AND REQUEST FOR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
ON REMEDY,THE PUBLIC INTEREST,AND BONDING
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
determined not to review an initial determination("ID")(Order No. 27)ofthe presiding
administrative law judge("AU"): (1)terminating the above-captioned investigation as to
respondent Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd.("Sunwood")of Jiangsu, China based on a consent
order stipulation and consent order, and(2)amending the complaint and notice ofinvestigation.
The Commission has issued the respective consent order and is requesting written submissions
on remedy, the public interest, and bonding concerning defaulting respondent Ningbo Huadian
Cross Country Automobile Accessories Co., Ltd.("Ningbo")of Ningbo, China.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office ofthe General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone(202)708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours(8:45 a.m. to
5:15 p.m.)in the Office ofthe Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,500 E Street,
SW,Washington, D.C. 20436,telephone(202)205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket
(EDIS)at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on(202)205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
February 15, 2019, based on a complaint filed on behalfof Extang Corporation and Laurmark
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries (collectively,"Complainants"), both of Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 84 FR 4534-35 (Feb. 15, 2019). The complaint alleges violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337("Section 337"), based upon the importation
into the United States, sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after
importation of certain pickup truck folding bed cover systems and components thereof by reason
of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. D620,877; 7,188,888; 7,484,788;
8,061,758; 8,182,021; and 8,690,224; and U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 5,104,393 and
3,904,016. The Commission's notice ofinvestigation names numerous respondents, including
Ningbo and Sunwood. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations("OUII")is also a party to
the investigation. The Commission previously found Ningbo in default. Order No. 23(May 3,
2019), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice(May 29, 2019). All other respondents, with the
exception of Sunwood, have been terminated from the investigation based on consent order
stipulation and proposed consent order. See Order Nos. 13-19(Apr. 12, 2019), unreviewed by
Comm'n Notice(May 8, 2019); Order Nos. 20-21 (Apr. 26,2019), unreviewed by Comm'n
Notice(May 15, 2019).
On May 30, 2019, Complainants and Sunwood filed a joint motion to terminate the
investigation as to Sunwood based on a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order.
On June 11, 2019, OUII filed a response supporting the joint motion, including a request to
amend the complaint and notice of investigation to change the full name of Sunwood to reflect
the correct entity being accused.
On July 3, 2019,the All issued the subject ID (Order No. 27)granting the joint motion
for termination as to Sunwood. The All found that the consent order stipulation and consent
order satisfy the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c)(19 CFR 210.21(c)). He further
found, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2)(19 CFR 210.50(b)(2)), that there is no
indication that termination ofthis investigation as to Sunwood based on the consent order
stipulation would adversely impact the public interest. The All also found that good cause
exists, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.4(19 CFR 210.14), to grant OUII's request and amend
the complaint and notice of investigation to accurately reflect the correct name for respondent
Sunwood as Changzhou Sunwood International Trading Co., Ltd. The All terminated the
investigation before him because Sunwood is the last participating respondent and Complainants
did not request a general exclusion order. No party petitioned for review ofthe ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID and has issued the
requested consent order.
Section 337(g)(1)(19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission Rule 210.16(c)(19 CFR
210.16(c)) authorize the Commission to order limited relief against a respondent found in
default, unless after consideration ofthe public interest factors in Section 337(g)(1), it finds that
2

such relief should not issue. Accordingly, in connection with the final disposition ofthis
investigation, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the
form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered with respect to Ningbo. If a party seeks
exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for
consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities
involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For
background, see Certain Devicesfor Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-
TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10(December 1994).
If the Commission contemplates some form ofremedy, it must consider the effects ofthat
remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect
that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on(1)the public health and
welfare,(2)competitive conditions in the U.S. economy,(3) U.S. production of articles that are
like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers.
The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the
aforementioned public interest factors in the context ofthis investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy,the U.S. Trade Representative, as
delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. See
Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005,70 FR 43251 (July 26,2005). During this period,
the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond,in an amount
determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary ofthe Treasury. The
Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount ofthe bond
that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and
any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues ofremedy,
the public interest, and bonding.
Complainants and OUII are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the
Commission's consideration. Complainants are also requested to state the date that the asserted
patents expire, the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported, and to
supply the names ofknown importers ofthe products at issue in this investigation. The written
submissions regarding remedy, bonding, and the public interest and proposed remedial orders
must be filed no later than close of business on August 12, 2019. Reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business on August 19, 2019. No further submissions on these
issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or
before the deadlines stated above and submit eight true paper copies to the Office ofthe
Secretary pursuant to Section 210.4(0 ofthe Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure(19
CFR 210.4(0). Submissions should refer to the investigation number ("Inv. No. 337-TA-1143")
in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook on Filing
3

Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook on_filing_procedures.pd1 . Persons
with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary at(202)205-2000.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the
proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary ofthe Commission and must
include a full statement ofthe reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19
CFR 210.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be
treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version ofthe document must also be filed
simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business
information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the
Commission for purposes ofthis Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel(a)for developing or
maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or(b)in internal investigations, audits,
reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations ofthe Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract
personnel', solely for cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the Office ofthe Secretary and on EDIS.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 ofthe
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 ofthe Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. part 210.
By order ofthe Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: July 29, 2019
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
4

CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED COVER Inv. No.337-TA-1143
SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served by hand upon the
Commission Investigative Attorney, Vu Bui,Esq., and the following parties as indicated, on July
29,2019.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW,Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainants Extang Corporation and Laurmark
Enterprises,Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries:
H. Jonathan Redway, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
International Square, 1825 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006
On Behalf of Respondent Sunwood Industries
Lyle Vander Schaaf, Esq.
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
1775 Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 900
Washington, DC 200006
Respondents:
Ningbo Huadian Cross Country
Automobile Accessories Co., Ltd.
Room 2402
Huijin Building No. 77, Heyi Road
Ningbo China 315000
Page 1 of!
O Via Hand Delivery
CE Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:
O Via Hand Delivery
El Via Express Delivery
O Via First Class Mail
O Other:

Public Version
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMNHSSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING 	Inv. N0. 337-TA-1143
BED COVER SYSTEMS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
ORDER NO. 27: INITIAL DETERMINATION TERMINATING RESPONDENT
SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER AND AMENDING
NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION; TERMINATION OF THE
INVESTIGATION IN ITS ENTIRETY
(July 3, 2019)
Complainants Extang Corporation and Laurmark Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries
(collectively, “Complainants”) and respondent Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. (“Sunwood”) filed a
joint motion seeking to tenninate this investigation as to Sunwood based upon a consent order
stipulation and proposed consent order, and a memorandum in support thereof.1 Motion Docket No.
1143-018. Subsequently, Complainants moved to supplement the pending Motion to include
photographs of a certain physical exhibit, Sunwood Physical Exhibit 1, referenced in their consent
order stipulation and proposed consent order. Motion Docket No. 1143-O19. Complainants’ motion
to supplement is granted, and due to the claim of confidentiality over Sunwood Physical Exhibit 1,
this initial detenninationumust issue in pubic and confidential versions. 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c)(1)(ii).
Thereafter, the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) filed a response in support of the
requested relief. No other party responded to the pending motions.
Commission Rule 210.21(c) provides: “A motion for termination by consent order shall
1Movants also requested a stay of the proceedings, which was granted-in-part with Order No. 26
(May 31, 2019).

Public Version
contain copies of any licensing or other settlement agreement, any supplemental agreements, and a
statement that there are no other agreements, Written or oral, express or implied between the parties
conceming the subject matter of the investigation.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c). The pending motion
includes as exhibits a Consent Order Stipulation by Respondent Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. (Mot.,
Exhibit A) and a Proposed Consent Order by Respondent Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. (Mot., Exhibit
B). Further, movants state: “There are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied,
between the Parties concerning the subject matter of this investigation.” Mot. at 2. The pending
motion therefore satisfies the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c).
Cormnission Rule 21().2l(c)(3) sets forth the requirements for a consent order stipulation.
19 C.F.R. § 21O.2l(c)(3). The consent order stipulation (Mot, Exhibit A) conforms to Commission
Rule 210.2l(c)(3).
Commission Rule 210.2l(c)(4) sets forth the requirements for a consent order. 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.21(c)(4). In particular, the rule states “[t]he Commission will not issue consent orders with
terms beyond those provided for in this section, and will not issue consent orders that are inconsistent
with this section.” Id. The proposed consent order attached to the motion (Mot., Exhibit B) includes
each of the statements listed in 19 C.F.R. 210.21(c)(4) and, additionally, a definition of “non-subject
articles” with reference to Sunwood Physical Exhibit 1. (See Mot., Exhibit B at 2-3.) While this
definition might be considered material beyond the terms provided in 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.21(c)(4), I fmd
it is useful to any later enforcement of the consent order and otherwise appropriate under the rule
which requires a statement on “the identity of the complainant, the respondent, and the subject
articles . . . .” 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c)(4)(i) (emphasis added); see Certain Carburetors and Products
Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Consent Order, 114 (Mar. 25, 2019). Thus, I
2

Public Version
find the proposed consent order (Mot, Exhibit B) conforms to Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4).
Commission Rule 210.5O(b)(2) provides that, in the case of a proposed termination by
settlement agreement, consent order, or arbitration agreement, the parties may file statements
regarding the impact of the proposed termination on the public interest, and the administrative law
judge may hear argument, although no discovery may be COIl1pCll6d,iWllll	respect to issues relating
solely to the public interest. 19 C.F.R. § 210.50(b)(2). The administrative law judge is directed to
consider and make appropriate fmdings “regarding the effect of the proposed settlement on the public
health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United States, and U.S. consumers.” See id.
The movants state: “[T]ermination here is in the public’s interest as it promotes administrative
economy and it will not impose an undue burden on the public health and welfare, competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States,
or U.S. consumers.” Mem. at 6.
With respect to the public interest considerations, the Staff argues:
The Staff is not aware of any information indicating that termination of the
investigation with respect to Sunwood based on the corrected Proposed
Consent Order would be contrary to the public health and welfare, competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive
articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. . . . Thus, the Staff submits
that there are no public interest concems weighing against tennination of the
investigation with respect to Sunwood based on the corrected Proposed
Consent Order, and that the requested relief should be granted.
Staff Resp. at 10-l 1.
Having considered the arguments submitted by the parties, I find no public interest concerns
weighing against termination of the investigation as to Sunwood. There is nothing to suggest that the
3

Public Version
proposed consent order would impose an undue burden on the public health and Welfare,competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of similar or directly competitive articles in the United
States, or U.S. consumers. See 19 U.S.C. § l337(d). I therefore find that termination of the
investigation as to Sunwood is in the public interest, which favors settlement to avoid needless
litigation and to conserve public resources. See Certain Data Storage Systems and Components
Thereoj’,Inv. No. 337-TA-471, Order No. 51, at 4 (March ll, 2003).
Further, as observed by the Staff, the submitted consent order stipulation and proposed
consent order are both signed by a representative from “Changzhou S11I1WOOCl	International Trading
Co., Ltd.” and not “Sunwood Industries, Co., Ltd.” as listed in the notice of investigation. Both
documents also represent that Changzhou Sunwood Intemational Trading Co., Ltd. is in fact “the
correct legal name” of Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. I therefore find good cause under 19 C.F.R. §
210.14 to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to accurately reflect the correct name for
respondent Sunwood as Changzhou Sunwood International Trading Co., Ltd.
It is therefore my initial determination that Motion No. 1143-O18is granted. This investigation
is hereby terminated as to respondent Changzhou Sunwood International Trading Co., Ltd. This
initial determination, along with supporting documentation, is hereby certified to the Commission.
As Changzhou Sunwood International Trading Co., Ltd. is the last participating respondent, and the
pending motion includes no statement that Complainants seek a general exclusion order under 19
C.F.R. § 21O.l6(c)(2), this investigation is hereby terminated in its entirety.
Pursuant to l9 C.F.R. § 21O.42(h), this initial detennination shall become the determination
of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the initial determination pursuant to 19
4

Public Version
C.F.R. § 21O.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.44, orders on its own motion a
review of the initial determination or certain issues herein.
SO ORDERED.
aw/<Cameron Elliot 	'
Administrative Law Judge
5

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COIVlI\/IISSION
Washington, DC
Before the Honorable Cameron Elliot
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of _
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED I“VeS‘lg“ti°“N°' 337'TA“ 143
COVER SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.
BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN PART
Ground Rule 3.2 Certification
Complainant Extang Corporation and Complainant Launnark Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK
Industries (collectively “Complainants”) I and Respondent Sunwood Industries Co., ’Ltd
(“Sunwood”) jointly contacted the Commission Investigative Attorneys (“Staff”) regarding the
subject matter of this motion. Staff advised that it does not oppose the request for a stay of the
proceedings and will take a position on the Consent Order Stipulation and Consent Order after
reviewing the motion papers. Staff agreed to waive the Ground Rule 3.2 two-day notice required.
Grounds for Motion
On February 15, 2019, the Commission instituted this Investigation. 84 Fed. Reg. 4534.
Pursuant to Commission Rules 210.2l(c), Complainants and Respondent Sunwood Industries Co.,
Ltd. (the correct legal name: Changzhou Sunwood International Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER
337-TA-l I43
1

“Sunwood”)) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby jointly move to terminate the above-captioned
Investigation as to Sunwood based upon the Consent Order Stipulation and [Proposed] Consent
Order (attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively) and to stay all deadlines in the proceeding,
including today’s deadlines, with respect to or relating to Sunwood and Complainants. The Parties
request entry of a Consent Order based on the Consent Order Stipulation submitted
contemporaneously herewith, which contains the admissions, waivers and other statements
required by Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3).
Under the terms of the Consent Order Stipulation, upon entry of the Consent Order,
Sunwood shall not sell within the United States or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) any
remaining inventory of imported Subject Articles (as that term is defined in the Consent Order
Stipulation) within the United States and Sunwood shall not sell for importation, import into the
United States, or sell in the United States after importation, or knowingly aid, abet, encourage,
participate in, or induce the distribution, sale for importation, import into the United States, or sell
in the United States after importation the Subject Articles that Complainants allege infringe the
Asserted Patent (as that term is defined in the Consent Order Stipulation) except under consent, or
a license from Complainants, its successors or assignees.
There are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the Parties
concerning the subject matter of this investigation. Entry of the requested Consent Order will fully
resolve the dispute between the Parties with respect to the relief sought by Complainants from the
Commission as to Sunwood in the above-captioned Investigation.
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER
337-TA-l l43
2

For the reasons set forth above and more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, Complainants and Sunwood respectfully request the Administrative Law Judge
grant this motion, issue an initial detennination tenninating Sunwood from this Investigation and
enter the attached [Proposed] Consent Order. Complainants and Sunwood also request that the
Administrative Law Judge issue a stay of all procedural deadlines for all parties beginning with
any deadlines on the procedural schedule today and continuing until the Commission has
definitively ruled on termination of Sunwood, the last remaining Respondent, from this proceeding
and, thus, termination of this investigation.
Respectfully submitted,
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
By: /s/ H Jonathan Redway
H. Jonathan Redway
Stanislav Torgovitstky
Jomy Methipara
Chelsea Smialek
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1825 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel.: (202) 659-6946
Fax: (844) 670-60009
E-mail: ExtangBAK337@dickinson-wrig;ht.com
Aflorneysfor Extang Corporation and
Laurmark Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a BAKIndustries
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER
337-TA-1 143
3

Dated: May 30, 2019
/s/ Lyle B. Vander Schaaf
Lyle B. Vander Schaaf
Pei Hu
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
I775 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006
Te1.: (202) 296-6941
Fax: (202) 296-8701
Ivanderschaaf@brinksgils0n.c0m
fl1u@brinksgilson.com
sunwoodl l43@brinksgilson.c0m
Counselfor Respondent Sunwood
Industries C0., Ltd
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER
337-TA-1143
4

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
In the Matter of
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED I“V“S‘iga‘i°“N°' 337'TA'1143
COVER SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.
BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN PART
Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(c), Complainant Extang Corporation and
Complainant Laurmark Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries (collectively “Complainants”) and
Respondent Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. (the correct legal name: Changzhou Sunwood
lntemational Trading C0., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sunwood”)) submit this memorandum in support of
their Joint Motion for Termination of the Investigation as to Respondent Sunwood based on a
Consent Order and to stay all deadlines on the procedural schedule With respect to or relating to
Sunwood or Complainants. Commission Rule 2l().2l(a)(2) provides that any party may move at
any the time to terminate an investigation in whole or in part based on a consent order.
Complainants and Sunwood (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly seek to terminate this investigation
as to Sunwood without additional expense, risk, or disruption. Sunwood agrees to enter into a
Consent Order Stipulation and to the entry of a Consent Order, which are attached hereto at
Exhibits A and B.
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER
337-TA-I I43 	4
5

Entry of the requested Consent Order resolves the entire dispute asserted in this
Investigation as between Complainants and Sunwood and is in the public’s interest and the interest
of administrative economy. Typically, the public interest and Commission policy favor
agreements terminating investigations, as they preserve resources for both the Commission and
the private parties and termination based on consent order stipulations is routinely granted. See,
e.g., Certain Height-AafiustableDesk Platforms and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1 l25,
Order No. 13 at 4 (Sept. 24, 2018) (termination based on a consent order “in the public interest,
which favors settlement to avoid needless litigation and to conserve public resources”); Certain
Air Mattress Bed Systems and Components Y71ere0J‘,Inv. No. 337—TA-999,Order No. 9 at 4 (Nov.
18, 2016) (resolving the litigation through the proposed consent order results in “significant public
interest benefits”). In fact, the Commission already has terminated several respondents from this
Investigation based on consent orders. The only other respondent has already been held in default.
See Order No. 23 (Initial Determination Finding Respondent Ningbo in Default) (May 3, 2019).
When ruling on a motion to terminate based on a proposed consent order, the Commission
must also consider the effect upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the
U.S. economy, products of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and U.S.
consumers. 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.21(c)(2)(ii). None of these factors will be adversely affected by
termination. On the contrary, as discussed, termination here is in the public’s interest as it
promotes administrative economy and it will not impose an undue burden on the public health and
welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, production of like or directly competitive
articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. In such circumstances, termination is generally
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER
337-TA-1 143
6.

granted. See, e.g., Certain Digital Televisions & Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-742,
Order No. 7 (Jan. 28, 2011); Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors,
Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Order No. 22 at 4.
Complainants and Sunwood also request that the Administrative Law Judge issue a stay of
all procedural deadlines for all parties beginning with any deadlines on the procedural schedule
today until the Commission has definitively ruled on termination of Sunwood, the last remaining
Respondent, from this proceeding and, thus, termination of this investigation. There is a high
‘likelihoodthat Sunwood will be terminated from the proceeding and, therefore, it promotes judicial
economy and preserves the resources of Sunwood, Complainants and Staff to not be required to
continue to litigate this case while awaiting a decision on whether Sunwood will iofficially be
terminated from this proceeding. Therefore, good cause exists to stay all deadlines in the
procedural schedule .
Based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully request that the Administrative Law Judge
grant the motion, issue an Initial Determination terminating this Investigation as to Sunwood, stay
the proceeding and enter the attached [Proposed] Consent Order.
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER
33 7-TA-1 143
7

Dated: May 30, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
By: /s/ H. Jonathan Redway
H. Jonathan Redway "
Stanislav Torgovitstky
Jomy Methipara
Chelsea Smialek
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1825 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006
Te1.: (202) 659-6946
Fax: (844) 670-60009
E-mail: ExtangBAK337@dickins0n-Wrightcom
Attorneysfor Extang Corporation and
Laurmark Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a BAKIndustries
/s/ Lyle B. Vander Schaaf
Lyle B. Vander Schaaf
Fei I-Iu
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
1775 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006
Te1.: (202) 296-6941
Fax: (202) 296-8701
lvanderschaaf@brinksgils0n.c0m
fl1u@brinksgils0n.c0m
sunwoodl143@brinksgils0n.com
Counselfor Respondent Sunwood
Industries Co., Ltd.
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER
337-TA-1143
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION
OF THE INVESTIGATION AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD INDUSTRIES CO LTD
BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER was served on the below as indicated this 30“ day of May
2019.
The Honorable Cameron Elliot
Administrative Law Judge
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
Washington, D.C. 20436
I8!Via EDIS
Michael Turner
Attorney Advisor
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
500 E Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20436
Michael.Turner@usitc. gov
Via Electronic Mail
Vu Bui, Esq.
Investigative Attorney (Lead)
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
500 E Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20436
Vu.Bui@usitc.g0v
Via Electronic Mail
Sarah Sladic, Esq.
Investigative Attomey
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
500 E Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20436
E Via Electronic Mail
JOINT MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON
337-TA-1143
INVESTIGATION
A CONSENT ORDER

Sarah.Sladic@usitc.g0v
RESPONDENTS
Lyle B. Vander Schaaf
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
sunwoodl l43@brinksgils0n.c0m
Counsel for Sunwood Industries C0., Ltd. E Via Electronic Mail
DC 74735-328 45493Ov10
/s/ H. Jonathan Redway
H. Jonathan Redway
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
JOTNTMOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER
337-TA-1143
10

EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
Before the Honorable Cameron Elliot‘
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING
BED COVER SYSTEMS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1143
CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION BY RESPONDENT SUNWOOD
INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.
|
WHEREAS Complainants Extang Corporation (“Extang”) and Laurmark Enterprises,
Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries (“BAK”) (“Extang” and “BAK,” collectively, “Complainants”) filed
a Complaint on December 7, 2018, which was amended by letter on February 1, 2019, alleging
a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337) (“Section
337”), based upon, among other things, the alleged importation into the United States, sale for
importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain pickup truck folding bed
cover systems and components thereof that allegedly infringe claim 18 of the U.S. Patent No.
8,182,021 (“the ‘O21Patent” or “the Asserted Patent”);
WHEREAS the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “ITC”)
instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19 U.S.C.
§ 1337) based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint filed by Complainants on
February 15, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 4534) (the “lnvestigation”);
WHEREAS, the Complaint alleges that Respondent Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. (the
correct legal name: Changzhou Sunwood International Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION BY SUNWOOD
337-TA—1143
1

"Sunwood")), imports into the United States, sells for importation, and/or sells after importation
into the United States certain pickup truck folding bed cover systems and components thereof
that infringe at least claim 18 of the ‘O21Patent (collectively the “Subject Articles”);
WHEREAS, Sunwood acknowledges and admits that the Subject Articles include all of
Sunw0od’s existing and future pickup truck hard folding bed covers (e.g., solid tri-fold, solid
quad-fold, with or without rails) except as expressly set forth immediately below;
WHEREAS, Complainants do not allege as part of this Investigation that Sunwood
Physical Exhibit l (Bates No. SUN 000872) produced to Complainants in response to
Complainants’ First Requests for Production of Documents having Sunwood 5-digit, 6-digit, 7
digit or 8-digit internal model number starting with “243” infringes claim 18 of the ‘O21Patent
(hereinafter “Non-Subject Articles”);
WHEREAS, Sunwood acknowledges and agrees that Complainants fully reserve all legal
rights to assert in the future that any Non-Subj ect Articles infringe claim l8 (or any other claim)
of the ‘O21Patent as well as any other patent or other intellectual property right;
WHEREAS, in order to terminate this Investigation as to Sunwood and to avoid the
associated costs and burdens of litigation, Sunwood is entering into this Consent Order
Stipulation and agrees to entry of a Consent Order by the Commission in compliance with Rule
210.2l(c) in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A,
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Commission Rule 2IO.2l(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(3)(i),
Sunwood stipulates and agrees as follows in connection with this Joint Motion to Terminate the
Investigation as to Respondent Sunwood based on a Consent Order:
CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION BY SUNWOOO
337-TA-l 143
2

l. Complainant Extang is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Michigan, having a principal place of business at 5400 S. State Road, Ann Arbor Michigan
48108, USA.
2. Complainant BAK is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas,
having a principal place of business as 5400 Data Court Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108, USA.
3. Respondent Sunwood is a company organized under the laws of China having a
principal place of business at 21 Fl, Xinhui Tower, 301 Tongjiang Avenue, Changzhou, Jiangsu
Province, China, 213022.
4. Complainants assert at least claim 18 of the ‘O21 Patent against the Subject
Articles.
5. Complainants do not assert claim 18 of the ‘O21Patent against the Non-Subject
Articles in this investigation but fully reserve all rights as set forth above and, accordingly, this
Consent Order Stipulation docs not cover such Non-Subj ect Articles.
5. The Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over this Investigation. Sunwood
admits that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the subject of the Complaint and in
personam jurisdiction over Sunwood for purposes of this Stipulation and Consent Order.
6. Sunwood, including its officers, directors, employees, and agents, agrees that, upon
entry of the Consent Order, Sunwood shall not sell for importation, import into the United States,
or sell in the United States after importation, and shall not knowingly aid, abet, encourage,
participate in, or induce the distribution, sale for importation, importation into the United States,
or sale in the United States after importation the Subject Articles except under consent, a license
CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION BY SUNWOOD ~
337-TA-l 143
3

from Complainants, their successors or assignees, or to the extent permitted by any settlement
agreement between Complainants and Sunwood.
7. Upon entry of the Consent Order, Sunwood shall not sell within the United States
or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) any inventory of imported Subject Articles Within
the United States.
8. Sunwood expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge
or contest the validity of the Consent Order.
9. Sunwood shall cooperate with and shall not seek to impede by litigation or other
means the Commission’s effort to gather information under Subpart I of the Con1mission°s Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part 210.
10. The enforcement, modification, and revocation of the Consent Order will be carried
out pursuant to Subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part
210, which arc incorporated by reference herein.
ll. The signing of this Consent Order Stipulation is for settlement purposes only to
resolve this investigation and does not constitute any admission by Sunwood that an unfair act has
been committed.
12. The Consent Order shall have the same force and effect and may be enforced,
modified, or revoked in the same manner as is provided in Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
and Part 210, Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations for the Commission actions, and the
Commission may require periodic compliance reports pursuant to Subpart I of Part 210, Title 19
Code Federal Regulations to be submitted by Sunwood.
CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION BY SUNWOOD
337-TA-1143
4

l3. The Consent Order shall become null and void as to the asserted claim of the
Asserted Patent that is expired or is held invalid or unenforceable by a court or agency of
competent jurisdiction or any article that is found or adjudicated not to infringe the asserted right
in a final decision, no longer subject to appeal.
14. Sunwood shall not seek to challenge the validity of claim 18 of the ‘O21Patent in
any administrative orjudieial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
CHANGZHOU SUNWOOD INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD.
/
By: Hflmyi§ hi 	‘I
Title: E;e_s3;§r_,,,¢
Dated: Mm? '50; 2olQ
DC 74735-328 45291-l8v9
CON SENT ORDER STIPULI
337-TA-ll43
5

EXHIBIT B
1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMIVIISSION
Washington, DC
\ Before the Honorable Cameron Elliot
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING
BED COVER SYSTEMS AND
COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-1 143
[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER BY RESPONDENT SUNWOOD
INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.
On December 7, 2018, Complainants Extang Corporation (“Extang”) and Laurmark
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK Industries (“BAK”) (“Extang” and “BAK,” collectively,
“C0mplainants”) filed a Complaint, which was amended by letter on February 1, 2019, against
Respondent Sunwood Industries CO., Ltd. (the correct legal name: Changzhou Sunwood
International Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Sunwood") alleging a violation of Section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337) (“Section 337”). The Complainant alleges
violation of Section 337 based upon, inter alia, the importation into the United States, sale for
importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain pickup truck folding bed
cover systems and components thereof that allegedly infringe at least claim 18 of the U.S. Patent
No. 8,182,021 (“the ‘O21Patent” or “the Asserted Patent”).
The United States International Trade Commission (“Comrnission” or “ITC”) instituted
this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337)
based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint filed by Complainants on February 15,
2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 4534) (the “Investigation”).
[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER BY SUNWOOD
337-TA-1143
1

ln this investigation, Complainants accuse of infringement of at least claim 18 of the ‘O21
Patent certain pickup truck folding bed cover systems and components thereof, which Sunwood
acknowledges and admits includes all of Sunwo0_d’spickup truck hard folding bed covers (e.g.,
solid tri-fold, solid quad-fold, with or without rails) except the Non-subject Articles set forth
immediately below (“Subject Articles). Complainants do not at this time assert claim 18 of the
‘O21 Patent against Physical Exhibit 1 (Bates No. SUN 000872) produced to Complainants in
response to Complainants’ First Request for Production of Documents having Sunwood 8-digit
internal model number starting with “243” (“Non-Subject Articles”) but reserve all rights set
forth in the Consent Order Stipulation by Respondent Sunwood. Accordingly, this Consent Order
covers all Subject Articles but does not cover Non-Subject Articles.
Sunwood has executed a Consent Order Stipulation in which it agrees to the entry of this
Consent Order and to all Waiversand other provisions as required by the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure 210.2l(c) (19 C.F.R. § 2l0.21(c)(3). Complainants and Sunwood have
filed a Motion for Termination of this Investigation as to Respondent Sunwood based on the
Consent Order Stipulation. Based on the Consent Order Stipulation:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Complainant Extang is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Michigan, having a principal place of business at 5400 S. State Road, Ann Arbor Michigan
48108, USA.
2. Complainant BAK is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas,
having a principal place of business as 5400 Data Court Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108, USA.
[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER BY SUNWOOD
337-TA-1 143
2

3. Respondent Sunwood is a company organized under the laws of China having a
principal place of business at 21 Fl, Xinhui Tower, 301 Tongjiang Avenue, Changzhou, Jiangsu
Province, China, 213022.
4. The Complaint alleges that Respondent Sunwood imports into the United States,
sells for importation, and/or sells within the United States after importation its Accused pickup
truck folding bed cover systems and components thereof that infringe at least claim 18 of the
‘O21 Patent including all Sunwood hard folding pickup tnick cargo box covers (previously
identified as the Subject Articles). Complainants do not accuse Physical Exhibit 1 (Bates No.
SUN 000872) produced to Complainants in response to Complainants’ First Request for
Production of Documents having Sunwood 5-digit, 6-digit, 7-digit or 8-digit intemal model
number starting with “243” (previously identified as Non-Subject Articles) in this investigation
and, accordingly, this Consent Order does not cover such product.
5. Sunwood admits that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the subject of
the Complaint, in personam jurisdiction over Sunwood, and subject matter jurisdiction over this
Investigation.
6. Effective upon entry of this Consent Order, Sunwood shall not sell for importation,
import into the United States, or sell in the United States after importation the Subject Articles,
directly or indirectly, and shall not aid, abet, encourage, participate in, or induce the sale for
importation, importation into the United States, or sale in the United States after importation of
the Subject Articles except under consent, a license from Complainants, their successors or
assignees, or to the extent permitted by any settlement agreement between Complainants and
Sunwood.
[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER BY SUNWOOD
337-TA-1 143 '
3

7. Effective upon entry of this Consent Order, Sunwood shall not sell Within the
United States or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) any United States inventory of
imported Subject Articles.
8. Effective upon entry of this Consent Order, Sunwood shall cease and desist from
importing into the United States and distributing the Subject Articles.
9. Sunwood shall be precluded from seeking judicial review or otherwise challenging
or contesting the validity of this Consent Order.
10. Sunwood shall cooperate with and shall not seek to impede by litigation or other
means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under Subpart l of Part 210, Title 19 of
the Code of Federal Regulations.
11. Sunwood and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and any entity or individual
acting on its behalf and with its authority shall not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability
of any of the asserted claims of any Asserted Patent in any administrative or judicial proceeding
to enforce the Consent Order.
I2. Upon expiration of the Asserted ‘O21Patent, the Consent Order shall become null
and void as to that expired patent.
13. If the asserted claim of the ‘O21Patent is held invalid or unenforceable by a court
or agency of competent jurisdiction or if any article has been found or adjudicated not to infringe
the asserted right in a final decision, no longer subject to appeal, this Consent Order shall become
null and void as to the invalid or unenforceable claim or adjudicated article.
[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER BY SUNWOOD
337-TA-1 143
4

14. Sunwood admits that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the Subject
Articles, in personam jurisdiction over Sunwood, and subject matter jurisdiction over this
Investigation.
15. This Investigation is hereby terminated with respect to Sunwood; provided,
however, that enforcement, modification, or revocation of the Consent Order shall be carried out
pursuant to Subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part 210.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION:
Date:
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
DC 74735-328 453031v9
[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER BY SUNWOOD
337-TA-l 143
5

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
Before the Honorable Cameron Elliot
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED I“V°s‘ig*“i°“N°" 337'TA'1143
COVER SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT TO SUPPLEMENT THE JOINT
MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATION AS TO RESPONDENT
SUNWOOD INDUSTRIES CO.. LTD. BASED ON A CONSENT ORDER AND TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS IN PART
Ground Rule 3.2 Certification
Complainant Extang Corporation and Complainant Laurmark Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a BAK
Industries (collectively “Complainants”) contacted the Commission Investigative Attorneys
(“Staff”) and Respondent Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. regarding the subject matter of this motion.
Staff and Sunwood advised that they do not oppose the motion to supplement. Staff agreed to
waive the Ground Rule 3.2 two-day notice required.
Grounds for Motion and Memorandum
On February I5, 2019, the Commission instituted this Investigation. 84 Fed. Reg. 4534.
On May 30, 2019, pursuant to Commission Rules 2l().2l(c), Complainants and Respondent
Sunwood Industries Co., Ltd. (the correct legal name: Changzhou Sunwood International Trading
Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sunwood”)) (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly moved to terminate the
above-captioned Investigation as to Sunwood based upon the Consent Order Stipulation and
[Proposed] Consent Order (attached as Exhibits B and A, respectively) and to stay all deadlines in
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO TERMINATE SUNWOOD
337-TA-I I43
l

the proceeding. The Parties requested entry of a Consent Order based on the Consent Order
Stipulation submitted contemporaneously therewith, which contained the admissions, waivers and
other statements required by Commission Rule 2l0.21(c)(3).
Thereafter, on Monday, June 3, 2019, the Staff requested that the Joint Motion to Terminate
the Investigation with respect to Respondent Sunwood be supplemented to include photographs of
Sunwood Physical Exhibit 1. Attached hereto is the declaration of Jonathan Redway attesting to
certain true and correct photographs of Sunwood Physical Exhibit 1.
Accordingly, Complainants hereby move to supplement the Motion to Terminate the
above-captioned Investigation to include reference to the photographs attached to the declaration
of Jonathan Redway that depict Physical Exhibit 1.
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO TERMINATE SUNWOOD
337-TA-1143
2

Dated: June 7, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
By: /s/ H. Jonathan Redwgy
H. Jonathan Redway
Stanislav Torgovitstky
Jomy Methipara
Chelsea Smialek
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1825 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel.: (202) 659-6946
Fax: (844) 670-60009
E-mail: ExtangBAK337@dickins0n-wrightcom
Attorneysfor Extang Corporation and
Laurmark Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a BAKIndustries
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO TERMINATE SUNWOOD
337-TA-1143
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT TO SUPPLEMENT THE JOINT MOTION FOR TERIVHNATIONOF THE
INVESTIGATION AS TO RESPONDENT SUNWOOD INDUSTRIES CO LTD BASED
ON A CONSENT ORDER AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN PART was served on the
below as indicated this 10*“day of June 2019.
The Honorable Cameron Elliot
Administrative Law Judge
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W., Room 3l7
Washington, D.C. 20436
Via EDIS
Michael Turner
Attorney Advisor
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
500 E Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20436
Michael.Turner@usitc. gov
E Via Electronic Mail
Vu Bui, Esq.
Investigative Attorney (Lead)
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
500 E Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20436
Vu.Bui@usitc.gov
N Via Electronic Mail
Sarah Sladic, Esq.
Investigative Attorney
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
500 E Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20436
Sarah.Sladic@usitc. gov
E Via Electronic Mail
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO TERMINATE SUNWOOD
337-TA-1143

RESPONDENTS
Counsel for Sunwood Industries C0., Ltd. IX Via Electronic Mail
Lyle B. Vander Schaaf
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
sunwoodl l43@brinksgi1s0n.com
DC 74735-328 458619v1
/s/ H. Jonathan Redway
I-I.Jonathan Redway
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO TERMINATE SUNWOOD
337-TA-1143
5

Exhibit 1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
In the Matter of '
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED Investigation No. 337-TA-1143
COVER SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
DECLARATION OF H. JONATHAN REDWAY
I, H. Jonathan Redway, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a member of Dickinson Wright, PLLC (“Dickinson Wright”). I am over the
age of eighteen (18). I am competent to make this Declaration. I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein. I am able to testify to such facts under oath if called to do so.
2. I submit this Declaration in support of Complainant Extang Corporation and
Complainant Laurmark Enterprises, lnc. d/b/a BAK Industries’ (collectively “Complainants”)
Motion to Supplement the Joint Motion for Termination of the Investigation as to Respondent
Sunwood Industries, Co., Ltd. Based on a Consent Order and to Stay Proceedings in Part.
3. The below photographs are true and correct images of Physical Exhibit 1 (Bates
No. SUN 000872).
1

[CBI]
2

[CBI]
3

[CBI]
4

-
[CBI]
5

[CBI]
6

[CBI]
7

[CBI]
8

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7"‘day of June 2019.
/.»' V 	_ , 	7
MH. Jon an Redway
DC 74735-32a 45B629v1
9

CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCK FOLDING BED COVER
SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
INV. NO. 337-TA-1143
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached INITIAL DETERMINATION ORDER NO.
‘27has been served by hand upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Vu Bui, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated 	0 3 Z013? Y 	.
N 	W
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street SW, Room 112A
Washington, DC 20436
FOR COMPLAINANTS EXTANG CORPORATION & LAURMARK ENTERPRISES,
INC. A
H. Jonathan Redway, Esq. 	( ) ia Hand Delivery
DICKINSONWRIGHT PLLC 	( /Express Delivery
International Square 	’( ) Via First Class Mail
1825 Eye Street, NW Suite 900 	( ) Other:
Washington, DC 20006
FOR RESPONDENT SUNWOOD INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.
Lyle B. Vander Schaaf, Esq. 	(‘X/Via Hand Delivery	BRINKS GILSON & LIONE 	( Express Delivery
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W, Suite 900 	( ) Via First Class Mail
Washington, DC 20019 	( ) Other: