USITC Publication 5291

Full text

U.S. International Trade Commission
Publication 5291 	March 2022
Washington, DC 20436
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES
WITH SLIDER DEVICES HAVING A USER
ACTUATED INSERTABLE TORPEDO FOR
SELECTIVELY OPENING THE CLOSURES
AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Investigation No. 337-TA-1171

U.S. International Trade Commission
COMMISSIONERS
Jason E. Kearns, Chair
Randolph J. Stayin, Vice Chair
David S. Johanson, Commissioner
Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, 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
Publication 5291 	March 2022
Washington, DC 20436
www.usitc.gov
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES
WITH SLIDER DEVICES HAVING A USER
ACTUATED INSERTABLE TORPEDO FOR
SELECTIVELY OPENING THE CLOSURES
AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Investigation No. 337-TA-1171

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES
WITH SLIDER DEVICES HAVING A USER
ACTUATED INSERTABLE TORPEDO
FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES
THEREFOR
Investigation No. 337-TA-1171
NOTICE OF COMMISSION FINAL DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION OF
SECTION 337; ISSUANCE OF A GENERAL EXCLUSION ORDER; TERMINATION
OF INVESTIGATION
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commission has determined to affirm, with
modified reasoning, an initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) granting summary determination on violation of section 337 by certain defaulting
respondents. The Commission has also determined to issue a general exclusion order (“GEO”)
barring entry of certain child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated
insertable torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor that infringe
the asserted claims of the three patents at issue in this investigation. This investigation is
terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection
with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at
https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 21, 2019, the Commission instituted this
investigation based on a complaint filed by Reynolds Presto Products Inc. (“Presto”). 84 Fed.
Reg. 43616-17 (Aug. 21, 2019). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) (“section 337”) based on the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of
certain child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable torpedo for

2
selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,505,531 (“the ’531 patent”); 9,554,628; and 10,273,058 (“the ’058
patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Id. at 43616. The complaint further alleges that a
domestic industry exists. Id. The Commission’s notice of investigation names six respondents:
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd. of Dalian, China (“Dalian Takebishi”); Dalian
Altma Industry Co., Ltd. of Dalian, Liaoning, China (“Dalian Altma”) (collectively, the “Dalian
Respondents”); and Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan; Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Shiga,
Japan; Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd., of Shanghai, China; and Qingdao
Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Qingdao, China (collectively, the “Unserved
Respondents”). Id. at 43616-17. It also names the Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(“OUII”) as a party. Id. at 43617.
On October 7, 2019, the ALJ issued an ID finding the two Dalian Respondents in default.
Order No. 7 (Oct. 30, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 26, 2019). On November 19,
2019, the ALJ issued an ID terminating the investigation in part based on Presto’s withdrawal of
the complaint as to the Unserved Respondents, which were never served with the complaint.
Order No. 10 (Nov. 19, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Dec. 18, 2019). That ID also
terminated the investigation as to (i) claims 6 and 7 of the ’531 patent and (ii) claims 6 and 7 of
the ’058 patent. Id.
On November 15, 2019, Presto filed a motion for summary determination that the
domestic industry requirement was satisfied and that a violation had been established. Presto’s
motion requested immediate entry of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against the Dalian
Respondents, a GEO, and a 100 percent bond. On November 26, 2019, OUII filed a response to
the motion supporting the summary determination motion and the requested GEO and 100
percent bond during the period of Presidential review.
On April 21, 2020, the ALJ issued an ID granting summary determination of violation of
section 337 by the Dalian Respondents. The ID also contains the ALJ’s recommendation on
remedy and bonding, in which the ALJ recommends issuance of a GEO or, in the alternative, a
LEO directed to the Dalian Respondents, and that a 100 percent bond be set for importation
during the period of Presidential review.
On May 1, 2020, OUII filed a petition seeking review of portions of the ID’s analysis of
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. No other party petitioned for review
of the ID, and no party filed a response to OUII’s petition.
On June 5, 2020, the Commission determined to review the ID in part with respect to the
ID’s analysis of the economic prong of the DI requirement. 85 FR 35662, 35663 (June 11,
2020). The Commission’s notice also requested written submissions on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. Id. In particular, the notice requested a response to certain questions
regarding whether Presto seeks cease and desist orders against the Dalian Respondents. Id. On
June 11 and 12, 2020, Presto and OUII, respectively, filed written submissions in response to the
Commission’s notice. On June 19, 2020, OUII filed a reply submission. No other submissions
were received.

3
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the ID granting summary
determination, and the party’s submissions, the Commission has determined to affirm, with
modified reasoning, the ID’s findings with respect to the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement and, thus, the ID’s finding of a violation of section 337. The Commission
has also determined that the appropriate remedy in this investigation is a GEO prohibiting the
unlicensed entry of certain child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated
insertable torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor that infringe
certain claims of the three patents asserted in the investigation, pursuant to section 337(g)(2) (19
U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)). The Commission has further determined that the bond during the period of
Presidential review pursuant to section 337(j) (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be in the amount of 100
percent of the entered value of the imported articles that are subject to the GEO. The
Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsection
337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude the issuance of the GEO. The Commission’s
order was delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of
its issuance. This investigation is hereby terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for these determinations took place on August 27, 2020.
The authority for the Commission’s determinations 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).
While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to COVID-19, the
Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel or otherwise
provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to Commission Rules
201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission orders that the
Complainant(s) complete service for any party/parties without a method of electronic service
noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on the Electronic
Document Information System (EDIS).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: 	August 27, 2020

CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES WITH SLIDER
DEVICES HAVING A USER ACTUATED INSERTABLE
TORPEDO FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served via EDIS
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Megan Wantland, Esq., and the following
parties as indicated, on August 27, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc.:
Daniel H. Shulman, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: dshulman@vedderprice.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd.
Room 101, Unit 2, No. 125 ChangChun Road
XiGang District, Dalian
China 116011
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd.
No. 36, North Fuquan Road, Economic and Technological
Development Zone, Dalian, Liaoning
China 116100
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

1
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES
WITH SLIDER DEVICES HAVING A USER
ACTUATED INSERTABLE TORPEDO
FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES
THEREFOR
Investigation No. 337-TA-1171
GENERAL EXCLUSION ORDER
The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined that
there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, in the
unlawful importation, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of
certain child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable torpedo for
selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor (as defined in paragraph 2 below)
that infringe one or more of claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531 (“the ’531
patent”), claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,554,628 (“the ’628 patent”),
and claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,273,058 (“the ’058 patent”) (collectively, the
“Asserted Patents”).
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the written submissions of the
parties, the Commission has made its determinations on the issues of remedy, the public interest,
and bonding. The Commission has determined that a general exclusion from entry for
consumption is necessary (1) to prevent circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products
of named persons and (2) because there is a pattern of violation of section 337 and it is difficult
to identify the source of the infringing products. Accordingly, the Commission has determined

2
to issue a general exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation of infringing child
resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable torpedo for selectively
opening the closures and slider devices therefor.
The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in 19
U.S.C. § 1337(d) do not preclude issuance of a general exclusion order, and that the bond during
the period of Presidential review shall be in the amount of one hundred (100) percent of the
entered value of the articles in question.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby ORDERS that:
1. 	Child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable
torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor (as
defined in paragraph 2 below) that infringe one or more of claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-
10 of the ’531 patent, claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of the ’628 patent, and
claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of the ’058 patent 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
Asserted Patents, except under license from, or with the permission of, the patent
owner or as provided by law until such date as the Asserted Patents are
abandoned, canceled, or rendered invalid or unenforceable.
2. 	The child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable
torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor subject to
this exclusion order (i.e., “covered articles”) are as follows: reclosable zippers
and slider devices for packages, including bags and pouches, that are resistant to
opening by young children.

3
3. 	Notwithstanding paragraph 1 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 from a warehouse for consumption under bond in the
amount of one hundred (100) percent of the entered value of the products,
pursuant to subsection (j) of section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(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 approved or 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
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), in advance of the date of the entry,
pursuant to procedures CBP establishes
4. 	At the discretion of CBP and pursuant to procedures it establishes, persons
seeking to import child resistant closures with slider devices having a user
actuated insertable torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices
therefor that are potentially subject to this Order may be required to certify that
they are familiar with the terms 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 paragraph 1 of this
Order. At its discretion, CBP may require persons who have provided the
certification described in this paragraph to furnish records or analyses as are
necessary to substantiate the certification.

4
5. 	In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1337(l), 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.
6. 	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).
7. 	The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this
investigation and upon CBP.
8. 	Notice of this Order shall be published in the Federal Register.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: 	August 27, 2020

CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES WITH SLIDER
DEVICES HAVING A USER ACTUATED INSERTABLE
TORPEDO FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached COMMISSION ORDER has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Megan Wantland, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on August 27, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc.:
Daniel H. Shulman, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: dshulman@vedderprice.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd.
Room 101, Unit 2, No. 125 ChangChun Road
XiGang District, Dalian
China 116011
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd.
No. 36, North Fuquan Road, Economic and Technological
Development Zone, Dalian, Liaoning
China 116100
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

PUBLIC VERSION
1
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT
CLOSURES WITH SLIDER DEVICES
HAVING A USER ACTUATED
INSERTABLE TORPEDO FOR
SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES
THEREFOR
Investigation No. 337-TA-1171
COMMISSION OPINION
The Commission has determined that there has been a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”), with respect to U.S. Patent
Nos. 9,505,531 (“the ’531 patent”), 9,554,628 (“the ’628 patent”), and 10,273,058 (“the ’058
patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) on review of the presiding administrative law
judge’s (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 12). After considering the public
interest, the Commission has also determined that the appropriate form of relief is a general
exclusion order (“GEO”) prohibiting the unlicensed importation of articles that infringe certain
claims of the Asserted Patents. The Commission has further determined to set a bond during the
period of Presidential review in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the infringing
articles. This opinion sets forth the Commission’s reasoning in support of its determinations. In
addition, the Commission adopts the findings in the ID that are not inconsistent with this
opinion.

PUBLIC VERSION
2
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Procedural History
On August 21, 2019, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint
filed by Reynolds Presto Products Inc. (“Presto”) of Lake Forest, Illinois. 84 Fed. Reg. 43616-
17 (Aug. 21, 2019). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based on
the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United
States after importation of certain child resistant closures with slider devices having a user
actuated insertable torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor by
reason of infringement of claims 1, 3, and 5-10 of the ’531 patent, claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 15,
and 19 of the ’628 patent, and claims 1, 3, and 5-8 of the ’058 patent. Id. at 43616. The
complaint further alleges that a domestic industry (“DI”) exists. Id.
The Commission’s notice of investigation names six respondents: (1) Dalian Takebishi
of Dalian, China; (2) Dalian Altma of Dalian, Liaoning, China (collectively, the “Dalian
Respondents”); and (3) Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan; (4) Takebishi Co., Ltd., of
Shiga, Japan; (5) Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd., of Shanghai, China; and (6)
Qingdao Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Qingdao, China (collectively, the “Unserved
Respondents”). Id. at 43616-17. It also names the Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(“OUII”) as a party. Id. at 43617.
During the course of the investigation, both Dalian Respondents were found in default.
Order No. 7 (Oct. 30, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 26, 2019). The Commission
also terminated the four Unserved Respondents, which were never served with the complaint and
notice of investigation, based on Presto’s withdrawal of the complaint as to those respondents.
Order No. 10 (Nov. 19, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Dec. 18, 2019). The

PUBLIC VERSION
3
Commission further terminated the investigation as to claims 6 and 7 of the ’531 patent and
claims 6 and 7 of the ’058 patent. Id.
On November 15, 2019, Presto moved for summary determination that it had satisfied the
DI requirement and that the Dalian Respondents had violated section 337.1 Presto’s motion
requested the immediate entry of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against the Dalian
Respondents, a GEO, and a 100 percent bond during the period of Presidential review. ID at 2
(citing CMot. at 1).
On November 26, 2019, OUII filed a response supporting the requested relief. Id.2 More
specifically, OUII argued that Presto had shown that: (i) the importation requirement was
satisfied; (ii) the accused products infringe the asserted claims; and (iii) a DI exists with respect
to products protected by at least one claim of each Asserted Patent. OResp. at 2-3. OUII also
supported Presto’s request for a GEO and the imposition of a 100 percent bond during the period
of Presidential review. Id. at 3-4. No respondent filed a response to Presto’s motion. Id. at 2.
On April 21, 2020, the ALJ issued a combined initial determination (“ID”) and
recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and bonding. The ID finds, inter alia, that
Presto: (i) established the importation requirement (ID at 9-10); (ii) demonstrated that the Dalian
Respondents’ accused products infringe claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 of the ’531 patent, claims 1, 4,
6-8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of the ’628 patent, and claims l, 3, 5, and 8 of the ’058 patent (id. at 12-
1 Corrected Complainant’s Motion for Summary Determination with Respect to Domestic
Industry, Violation and Remedy (Nov. 15, 2019) (“CMot.”), memorandum in support thereof
(“CMemo.”), and statement of facts (“SOF”).
2 Commission Investigative Staff’s Response to Corrected Complainant’s Motion for Summary
Determination with Respect to Domestic Industry, Violation and Remedy (Nov. 26, 2019)
(“OResp.”).

PUBLIC VERSION
4
57)3; and (iii) demonstrated that the DI products are protected by at least one claim of each
Asserted Patent and that a DI exists in the United States (id. at 57-79). The RD recommends that
the Commission (i) issue a GEO or, in the alternative, an LEO directed to the Dalian
Respondents and (ii) set a 100 percent bond for importation during the period of Presidential
review. RD at 79-92. The RD does not recommend issuing cease and desist orders (“CDOs”),
which Presto did not request in its underlying motion.
On May 1, 2020, OUII filed a petition seeking review of a “very limited portion” of the
ID’s economic prong analysis.4 OPet. at 1. OUII argued that:
[T]he Commission should review a statement in the [ID’s] analysis of the
economic prong of the [DI] requirement concerning the significance and
substantiality of Presto’s investments and, on review, affirm the [ID’s]
conclusion with modified reasoning. In OUII’s view, the Commission should
not review any other portion of the [ID], particularly here where the [ID’s]
findings are based on substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, and the
Respondents have already been found in default.
Id. No other party petitioned for review of the ID, and no party filed a response to OUII’s
petition.
On June 5, 2020, the Commission determined to review the ID in part with respect to the
ID’s analysis of the economic prong of the DI requirement. 85 Fed. Reg. 35662, 35663 (June 11,
2020). The Commission’s notice also requested written submissions on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. Id. The notice further enquired as to whether Presto seeks CDOs against
the Dalian Respondents. Id.
3 See Notice of Errata to Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bond (April 22, 2020) (correcting typographical error in list of
infringed claims on page 92 of the ID).
4 Petition of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations for Limited Review of Order No. 12:
Initial Determination Granting Summary Determination (May 1, 2020) (“OPet.”).

PUBLIC VERSION
5
On June 11 and 12, 2020, Presto and OUII, respectively, filed written submissions in
response to the Commission’s notice.5 On June 19, 2020, OUII filed a reply submission.6 No
other submissions were received.
B. The Asserted Patents
Presto’s three asserted patents—the ’531, ’628, and ’058 patents—are each titled “Child
Resistant Slider Having Insertable Torpedo and Methods” and all share the same specification.
ID at 4 (citing Compl. Exs. 1-3). The patents generally disclose “a zipper closure system that
may be incorporated into flexible bags and pouches to make it difficult for children to access the
contents of the packages, particularly packages containing hazardous or otherwise dangerous
contents.” Id. (citing ’531 patent at Abstract, 1:38-45). Further, “[t]o open the bag, a slider is
moved to the vicinity of a notch and a tab is moved or flexed in such a way that a torpedo comes
between the interlocking track profiles of the zipper causing the tracks to separate when the
slider is moved.” Id. (citing ’531 patent at 1:45-50).
Figure 14 of the Asserted Patents’ shared specification, which is reproduced below,
“shows an [exemplary] embodiment of the invention incorporated into bag B with the zipper
closure 36 having notch 8 and slider 1”:
5 Complainant’s Written Submission to the Commission on the Issue of Remedy (June 11, 2020)
(“CSub.”); and Response of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations to the Commission’s
Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding (June 12, 2020)
(“OSub.”).
6 Reply Submission of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations on Remedy, the Public Interest,
and Bonding (June 19, 2020).

PUBLIC VERSION
6
Id. at 4-5 (reproducing ’531 patent, Fig. 14). Figure 2 of the shared specification, which is
reproduced below, “shows an embodiment of the claimed slider 1 having a flexible tab 2 with
torpedo 3”:
Id. at 5 (reproducing ’531 patent, Fig. 5).
C. 	The Accused Products
The accused products are child-resistant zippers for opening and closing plastic bags. Id.
at 6. “To open the zipper, a tab must be held down to engage a torpedo and separate the zipper

PUBLIC VERSION
7
tracks.” Id. Images of Physical Exhibits 1 and 2 to the complaint, which exemplify the accused
products, are reproduced below:
Physical Exhibit 1 – Sample of Accused Product
Front 	Back
Top View 1
(red slider with a torpedo on
a white zipper track)
Top View 2
(torpedo flexed upward from
the zipper track)
Id. (citing Compl. Phys. Ex. 1).

PUBLIC VERSION
8
Physical Exhibit 2 – Sample of Accused Product
Front 	Back
Top View 1
(red slider with a torpedo on
a white zipper track)
Top View 2
(torpedo flexed upward from
the zipper track)
Id. at 7 (citing Compl. Phys. Ex. 2; see also OResp. at 7-8).
D. 	The Domestic Industry Products
The DI products, which practice the asserted claims, are child-resistant zippers for
opening and closing plastic bags. See id. at 8. Presto manufactures the tracks for child-resistant

PUBLIC VERSION
9
bags, and its contractors produce the sliders used on the tracks. Id. (citing Petkovsek Aff.7 ¶ 5;
Hansen Decl.8 ¶ 5). Id. Presto grants its customers permission to incorporate the patented slider
closure in their packaging. Id. (citing CMemo. at 98 n.5). The following image is an exemplary
DI product that was produced with Presto’s permission:
Id. (citing Thomas Decl.9 Ex. 1 at 1).
7 Affidavit of Greg Petkovsek, attached as Exhibit 6 to Presto’s motion (“Petkovsek Aff.”). Mr.
Petkovsek is Presto’s Director of Research & Development. Petkovsek Aff. ¶ 1.
8 Declaration of Brad Hansen Concerning the Economic Prong of Domestic Industry, attached as
Confidential Exhibit 11 to the complaint (“Hansen Decl.”). Mr. Hansen is President of Presto’s
Specialty Business Unit. Hansen Decl. ¶ 1.
9 Declaration of Toby Thomas, attached as Exhibit 2 to Presto’s motion (“Thomas Decl.”).
Presto retained Mr. Thomas as an expert witness in this investigation. Thomas Decl. ¶ 1.

PUBLIC VERSION
10
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
A. 	Standard on Review
Commission Rule 210.45(c) provides that “[o]n review, the Commission may affirm,
reverse, modify, set aside or remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part, the initial
determination of the [ALJ]” and that “[t]he Commission also may make any findings or
conclusions that in its judgment are proper based on the record in the proceeding.” See 19
C.F.R. § 210.45(c). In addition, as explained in Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Yarn &
Prods. Containing Same, “[o]nce the Commission determines to review an initial determination,
the Commission reviews the determination under a de novo standard.” Inv. No. 337-TA-457,
Comm’n Op., 2002 WL 1349938, at *5 (June 18, 2002) (citations omitted). This is “consistent
with the Administrative Procedure Act which provides that once an initial agency decision is
taken up for review, ‘the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule.’” Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 557(b)).
B. 	Summary Determination
Under Commission Rule 210.18, summary determination “shall be rendered if [the]
pleadings and any depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a summary determination as a matter of law.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.18(b).
“[I]n deciding a motion for summary judgment, ‘the evidence of the nonmovant is to be
believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.’” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). “The summary judgment movant has the initial responsibility of
identifying the legal basis of its motion, and of pointing to those portions of the record that it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Novartis Corp, v. Ben

PUBLIC VERSION
11
Venue Labs., Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
C. 	Violation of Section 337(a)(1)(B)
Section 337(a)(1)(B) provides that the Commission has authority to investigate and
adjudicate unfair trade practices relating to “[t]he importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation . . . of articles that . . . infringe
a valid and enforceable United States patent.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B). Thus, a violation of
section 337(a)(1)(B) requires a showing of: (1) importation; (2) infringement of a valid and
enforceable patent; and (3) an industry in the United States relating to the articles protected by
the asserted patent. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B), (a)(2), and (a)(3).
D. 	Domestic Industry: Technical and Economic Prongs
When a section 337 investigation is based on allegations of patent infringement, the
complainant must show that an industry “relating to the articles protected by the patent . . . exists
or is in the process of being established” in the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). This
domestic industry requirement of section 337 is often described as having a “technical prong”
and a “economic prong.” InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295,
1298 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
The “technical prong” requires that the complainant practice the patented invention.
Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The test for
determining whether the technical prong is met through the practice of the patent “is essentially
same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted claims.”
Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). It is sufficient that the
domestic industry product practices at least one valid claim of each patent that serves as a basis
for relief; it is not necessary for the complainant to practice the same claims it is asserting against

PUBLIC VERSION
12
the respondent. Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-546, Comm’n Op. at 38
(Aug. 1, 2007).
The “economic prong” requires, with respect to the products protected by a patent, either:
(a) “significant investment in plant and equipment”; (b) “significant employment of labor or
capital”; or (c) “substantial investment in [the patent’s] exploitation, including engineering,
research and development, or licensing.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3). The Commission has clarified
that its decisions as to the existence of a domestic industry are not based on the amount of an
investment divorced from the circumstances of a particular case. Rather, the Commission
evaluates the significance or substantiality of domestic industry expenditures “based on a proper
contextual analysis in the relevant timeframe such as in the context of” the complainant’s or its
licensee’s “operations, the marketplace, or the industry in question.” Certain Solid State Storage
Drives, Stacked Elecs. Components, & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1097,
Comm’n Op., 2018 WL 4300500, at *18 (June 29, 2018).
The Commission has also explained that this contextual analysis can reflect “a number of
factors and approaches.” Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes & Cartridges Containing the
Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1012, Comm’n Op., 2018 WL 8648372, at *75 (Apr. 2, 2018). The
Commission has “sought to place the value of domestic investments in the context of the relevant
marketplace, such as by comparing a complainant’s domestic expenditures to its foreign
expenditures or considering the value added to the product from a complainant’s activities in the
United States.” Certain Carburetors & Prods. Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-1123,
Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 5622443, at *12 (Oct. 28, 2019) (“Carburetors”). Section 337(a)(3)
does not require a minimum monetary expenditure, nor does it obligate the complainant “to
define or quantify the industry itself in absolute mathematical terms.” Certain Stringed Musical

PUBLIC VERSION
13
Instruments & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-586, Comm’n Op., 2008 WL 2139143, at
*14 (May 16, 2008) (“Stringed Instruments”).
III. 	DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
The ID grants Presto’s motion for a summary determination of violation of section 337.
The Commission determined to review the ID only with respect to its economic prong analysis.
85 Fed. Reg. 35662, 35663 (June 11, 2020). The Commission did not request further briefing
from the parties on this issue. Id.
A. 	The ID
The ID finds that Presto “proffered substantial, reliable, and probative evidence showing
that Presto satisfies the economic prong of the [DI] requirement under section 337(a)(3)(A), (B),
and (C)” with respect to each of the patents in suit. ID at 74; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2).
1. 	Plant and Equipment (Subsection 337(a)(3)(A))
As to plant investments, the ID finds that Presto “invested in significant domestic facility
space dedicated to its production of child-resistant closures.” Id. The ID finds that Presto (i)
“has facilities in [ 	] that manufacture all the track for its
child-resistant closures,” id. (citing Petkovsek Aff. ¶ 18), and (ii) “contracts the manufacture [of]
the slider portion of the closure from [ 	],” id. (citing Hansen Decl. ¶ 5). In
addition, the “[ 	] []
and the [ 	] for the
child-resistant closures.” Id. (citing Hansen Decl. ¶ 8).
As to equipment investments, the ID finds that that “Presto spent [
] on equipment for these plants,” as shown in the following table:

PUBLIC VERSION
14
[
]
Id. at 74-75; Mitra Decl.10 Ex. E. Further, because all of this equipment “is used exclusively for
producing child-resistant closures under Presto’s authority,” the ID finds that “investments in
that machinery are investments related to articles protected by the asserted patents within the
meaning of section 337(a)(3)(A).” Id. at 75 (citing Mitra Decl. Ex. E).
The ID also finds that Presto’s investments in building insertion machines—i.e.,
machines for inserting the slider devices onto the reclosable track—is “an investment in
equipment related to articles protected by the asserted patents.” Id. (citing Presto’s First Suppl.
Interrog. Resps.11 at 23-30 (Interrog. No. 6); Athans Aff.12 ¶ 8). It appears the ID may have
inadvertently omitted this investment from its summary table on page 78, reproduced below, of
10 Declaration of Sudip K. Mitra, attached as Exhibit 9 to Presto’s motion (“Mitra Decl.”). Mr.
Mitra is counsel for Presto. Mitra Decl. ¶ 1.
11 Complainant’s Supplemental Answers to Commission Investigative Staff’s First Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 1-21) (Oct. 4, 2019), attached as Exhibit 10 to Presto’s motion (“Presto’s
First Suppl. Interrog. Resps.”).
12 Affidavit of John Athans, attached as Exhibit 3 to Presto’s motion (“Athans Aff.”).

PUBLIC VERSION
15
investments in the articles protected by the Asserted Patents under section 337(a)(3)(A). See id.
at 78.
2. 	Labor and Capital (Subsection 337(a)(3)(B))
The ID finds that the evidence shows that (i) Presto’s suppliers, [
], employ “[ 	]” in the U.S. to
make [ 	] sliders for incorporation into the DI products, id. at 76 (citing Mitra Decl. Ex. F;
Hansen Decl. ¶ 8), and (ii) Presto [ 	] employs “[ 	]” in the U.S.
to make track for the DI products, id. at 76-77 (citing Mitra Decl. Ex. F; Hansen Decl. ¶ 8). The
ID finds that “this is an employment of labor related to articles protected by the asserted patents
within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(B).” Id. at 76-77.
3. 	Engineering, Research and Development, and Licensing (Subsection
337(a)(3)(C))
The ID finds that the evidence shows that Presto “spent [approximately] [
] in research and development related to child-resistant closures.” Id. at 77 (citing
Presto’s Second Suppl. Interrog. Resps.13 at 42-45 (Interrog. No. 8)). The ID finds “these
expenditures to be relevant under section 337(a)(3)(C).” Id.
4. 	Whether Presto’s Domestic Investments Are Significant and
Substantial
The ID finds that, “based on the undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
outlined above,” Presto met its burden of showing that a DI exists in the U.S. under sections
337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C). Id. at 78. Specifically, the ID finds that the “evidence demonstrates
that Presto is a domestic company with minimal operations abroad and that all of its products are
13 Complainant’s Second Supplemental Answers to Commission Investigative Staff’s First Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 1-21) (Nov. 11, 2019) (“Presto’s Second Suppl. Interrog. Resps.”), attached
as Exhibit 11 to Presto’s motion.

PUBLIC VERSION
16
made domestically.” Id. (citing Petkovsek Aff. ¶ 5; Hansen Aff.14 ¶ 3; Hansen Decl. ¶ 5). The
ID provides the following table summarizing Presto’s investments and expenditures in the
articles protected by the Asserted Patents, according to sub-prongs A, B, and C:
[
]
Id.
The ID concludes that “the magnitude and quantity of these expenses and investments
alone is significant and substantial in any context.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Lelo Inc. v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 786 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).15 The ID also noted that “even when
considering the qualitative significance of Presto’s domestic expenditures in context, its
investments, employments, and activities are clearly significant and substantial.” Id. at 78-79
(citing Stringed Instruments).16
B. 	OUII’s Petition
OUII petitioned for review of a “very limited portion” of the ID’s economic prong
analysis concerning the significance and substantiality of Presto’s investments and submitted
that, on review, the Commission should affirm the ID’s conclusion with modified reasoning.
14 Affidavit of Bradford Hansen, attached as Exhibit 4 to Presto’s motion (“Hansen Aff.”). As
noted above, Mr. Hansen is President of Presto’s Specialty Business Unit. Hansen Aff. ¶ 1.
15 In Lelo, the Federal Circuit explained that “[t]he plain text of § 337 requires a quantitative
analysis in determining whether a petitioner has demonstrated a ‘significant investment in plant
and equipment’ or ‘significant employment of labor or capital.” Lelo, 786 F.3d at 883.
16 In Stringed Instruments, the Commission explained that analyzing the significance of the
complainant’s investment “will depend on the industry in question, and the complainant’s
relative size.” Stringed Instruments, Comm’n Op., 2008 WL 2139143, at *14

PUBLIC VERSION
17
OPet. at 1. Specifically, OUII asserted that one sentence from the ID—“‘It is further determined
that the magnitude and quantity of these expenses and investments alone is significant and
substantial in any context.’”—could be taken out of context in subsequent investigations. Id. at
5-6 (quoting ID at 78 (OUII’s emphasis)).
In OUII’s view, “this statement is overly broad, and does not acknowledge Commission
decisions in which domestic investments must be evaluated, not in any context, but in the context
of the [c]omplainant’s operations, the relevant marketplace, or the industry in question.” Id. at 6
(citing Carburetors, Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 5622443, at *11-12). That is, per OUII, “rather
than rely on the absolute value of the domestic expenditures, context is ‘necessary to understand
whether the value of [the] domestic activities is significant or substantial.’” Id. (quoting
Carburetors, Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 5622443, at *13).
OUII asserts that, instead of providing a quantitative analysis involving the context of
Presto’s investments and expenditures, the ID finds “that certain investments and expenditures
are merely related or relevant to the domestic products.” Id. OUII agreed, however, with the
ID’s conclusion that Presto has a DI within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(A) because “the
evidence demonstrates that Presto’s investments in plant and equipment are both qualitatively
and quantitatively significant.” Id. at 7 (citing ID at 74-75, 78).17
C. 	Analysis
The Commission has determined to affirm with modified reasoning the ID’s finding that
Presto satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Specifically, the
17 OUII explained in a footnote that it “does not dispute the [ID’s] factual findings concerning
the investment and expenditure totals under section 337(a)(3)(B) and (C).” Id. at 8 n.5 (citing ID
at 78). “Nevertheless, OUII maintains the view that there are insufficient facts on which the
investments and expenditures in these categories (i.e., (B) and (C)) may be quantitatively
analyzed.” Id. (citing OResp. at 39-40 n.23). “Such [an] analysis is unnecessary, however,
because Presto has satisfied the [DI] requirement under subprong (A).” Id.

PUBLIC VERSION
18
Commission (i) affirms with modified reasoning the ID’s finding that Presto’s investments in
plant and equipment satisfy section 337(a)(3)(A), and (ii) takes no position on the ID’s findings
that Presto satisfies the economic prong under section 337(a)(3)(B) or (C).
As to Presto’s investments in plant and equipment, the evidence shows that Presto has
[ 	] that manufacture all the track for its domestic industry products and
that Presto’s [ 	] that manufacture all the sliders used in
these products. ID at 74; CMemo. at 70. The ID finds, and the Commission agrees, that Presto’s
[ 	] between [ 	] in equipment used at these [
]—which are “used exclusively for producing the [domestic industry products] under
Presto’s authority”—are properly credited under section 337(a)(3)(A). ID at 74-75
The Commission also clarifies that Presto’s asserted investments, circa [ 	], for
the [ 	] insertion machines (which Presto’s customers use to insert sliders onto the
reclosable tracks to make the domestic industry products) are properly credited under section
337(a)(3)(A). See id. at 75; OResp. at 37 (citing CMemo. at 71, 74-75; SOF at ¶¶ 48-49; Athans
Aff. ¶ 8).18 Presto reported the total value of the [ 	], and it further
explained that [ 	]
parts were sourced domestically. Id. at 71, 74. Presto discounted the value of the insertion
machines by excluding the value of the foreign sourced parts, which yielded a [
]. Id. (relying solely on Presto’s investments in domestically sourced parts for the
machines). While a complainant is not normally required to segregate the value of foreign-
18 Although the ID expressly finds that these investments are “related to articles protected by the
asserted patents,” these investments were not incorporated into the final sum reported in the ID’s
summary table. See ID at 75, 78.

PUBLIC VERSION
19
sourced components of its domestic equipment investments, see 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(A), the
Commission will credit the discounted investments that Presto has claimed here.
The Commission therefore relies on Presto’s track manufacturing equipment ([
]), its contractors’ slider manufacturing equipment ([ 	]), and the [
] insertion machines (which Presto provides to its customers to put together the closures) in
concluding that Presto has satisfied the domestic industry requirement under section
337(a)(3)(A). These investments are summarized in the following table:
Equipment
Category
Investment
Amount (USD)
Percentage of
Investment
Claimed by
Presto (%)
Investment
Amount
Claimed by
Presto (USD)
Investment
Amount the
Commission
has Credited
(USD)
Equipment to
manufacture
sliders and track
$[ 	] 	[ 	]% 	$[ 	] 	$[ 	]
[ 	] insertion
machines
$[ 	] 	[ 	]% 	$[ 	] 	$[ 	]
Totals 	$[ 	] 	[ 	]% 	$[ 	] 	$[ 	]
See CMemo. at 74-75; SOF at ¶ 55.
As to the ID’s analysis of whether Presto’s investments are significant, the Commission
strikes the ID’s statement that “[i]t is further determined that the magnitude and quantity of these
expenses and investments alone is significant and substantial in any context.” ID at 78
(emphasis added). This language erroneously suggests that the absolute magnitude of
investments can be dispositive of the economic prong determination, with no context-dependent
considerations. This would be contrary to Federal Circuit precedent and prior Commission
decisions. See Lelo, 786 F.3d at 883-84 (noting that the Commission “[has] found that the word
‘significant’ denote[s] ‘an assessment of the relative importance of the domestic activities’”)
(quoting Certain Concealed Cabinet Hinges & Mounting Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-289, 1990 WL

PUBLIC VERSION
20
10608981, Comm’n Op., at *11 (Jan. 8, 1990)); Printing Devices, Comm’n Op. at 31
(recognizing that “the magnitude of the investment cannot be assessed without consideration of
the nature and importance of the complainant’s activities to the patented products in the context
of the marketplace or industry in question”); Certain Movable Barrier Operator Sys. &
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, Comm’n Order Vacating and Remanding Order
No. 38 at 5 (Apr. 22, 2020) (“Order No. 38 does not appropriately evaluate the relative
significance of [complainant’s] investments in labor and capital or plant and equipment, as
opposed to their absolute value”); Carburetors, Comm’n Op. at 8-10.
Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with the ID’s ultimate conclusion that the record
evidence demonstrates that Presto’s investments in plant and equipment are quantitatively
significant. The undisputed evidence shows that, since [ 	], Presto’s investments led to the
domestic manufacture of all the tracks ([ 	]) and all the sliders
([ 	]) that have been used in the domestic industry products. OResp. at 35-36
(citing CMemo. at 69-72, 74; SOF ¶¶ 47, 51-53; Hansen Decl. ¶ 5; Petkovsek Decl. ¶ 5).19 The
Commission therefore determines that Presto’s investments are significant within the context of
Presto’s operations.
Consequently, the Commission has determined to affirm with modified reasoning the
ID’s finding that Presto has shown, through substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, that its
investments are significant under section 337(a)(3)(A). The Commission takes no position on
19 Presto states that the only non-U.S. parts related to Presto’s domestic industry products are
“off-the-shelf parts (i.e., bowls or funnels) used in manufacturing to allow the customer to sort
the slider components of the [domestic industry] [p]roducts prior to inserting them onto the
track.” Athans Aff. ¶ 3.

PUBLIC VERSION
21
the ID’s findings that Presto satisfies the economic prong under section 337(a)(3)(B) or (C).
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984).20
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that undisputed, substantial, reliable, and
probative evidence supports the ID’s conclusion that Presto demonstrated a violation of section
337. See ID at 10 (finding the importation requirement satisfied), 13-57 (finding the asserted
claims infringed), 58-74 (finding the technical prong of the DI requirement satisfied); see also
supra at 18-21 (determining to affirm with modified reasoning the finding that the economic
prong of the DI requirement is satisfied).
IV. 	REMEDY, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING
A. 	Remedy
The Commission has “broad discretion in selecting the form, scope, and extent of the
remedy.” Viscofan, S.A. v. Int’1 Trade Comm’n, 787 F.2d 544, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
1. 	General Exclusion Order
Where, as here, no respondent appeared to contest the complainant’s allegations, the
Commission may issue a GEO if “a violation is established by substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence” and “the requirements of subsection (d)(2)” of section 337 are met, subject to
consideration of the public interest. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2). Section 337(d)(2), in turn,
provides:
The authority of the Commission to order an exclusion from entry of
articles shall be limited to persons determined by the Commission to be
violating this section unless the Commission determines that—
(A) 	a general exclusion from entry of articles is necessary to prevent
circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named
persons; or
20 While Commissioner Schmidtlein agrees with the majority, she notes that she takes no
position with respect to prongs (B) and (C) for reasons of administrative efficiency.

PUBLIC VERSION
22
(B) 	there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to
identify the source of infringing products.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2).
The Commission agrees with the ALJ’s recommendation to issue a GEO against
infringing products. Specifically, undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
supports a finding that Presto demonstrated a violation of section 337. In addition, the
Commission finds that the requirements of section 337(d)(2) are met and that a GEO is
warranted in this investigation.
a. 	Circumvention of a Limited Exclusion Order
The Commission finds that a GEO is necessary to prevent circumvention of an LEO. See
RD at 80-84; 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(A).
The undisputed record demonstrates the Dalian Respondents’ use of alter egos and sham
corporate entities with respect to the infringing products supports “a conclusion that the Dalian
[R]espondents intend to circumvent lawful enforcement of Presto’s patent rights.” RD at 83.
The Commission also agrees with the RD that the Dalian Respondents “likely will use different
corporate names and addresses to circumvent exclusion orders limited to specific corporate
entities.” Id. (citing Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters & Prods. Containing Same, Inv.
No. 337-TA-739, Comm’n Op. at 88-89 (June 8, 2012) (a GEO was appropriate based on
evidence that named respondents would likely circumvent an LEO by changing their corporate
identity); Certain Cases for Portable Elec. Devices, Inv. No. 867, Comm’n Op. at 9 (June 20,
2014) (a GEO was appropriate where there was evidence of “companies operating under fake
names and fake addresses”).
Presto’s unrebutted evidence also shows that (i) the “cost of manufacturing the accused
product in Asia is low,” (ii) “the costs to make relevant molds in China ‘are between one-fourth

PUBLIC VERSION
23
and one-half of the U.S. costs,’” (iii) “the setup to begin commercial production of infringing
goods in China can cost as little as $80,000,” and (iv) the “molds for producing the accused
products are portable and easily transferred between entities.” Id. at 84 (citing Athans Aff. ¶¶ 9-
14; Petkovsek Aff. ¶¶ 7-9). Therefore, the Commission agrees with the RD that “[t]hese facts
support Presto’s unrebutted assertion that the persons behind the Dalian [R]espondents could
easily circumvent limited exclusion orders by setting up new companies that continue the
infringing course of conduct.” Id. (citing Certain Toner Cartridges, & Components Thereof, Inv.
No. 337-TA-918, Comm’n Op., 2015 WL 13817122, at *4 (Oct. 1, 2015) (“Toner Cartridges”)
(noting that “if only LEOs are issued, operations could be easily replicated”)).
The evidence also shows that (i) “a product obtained from the Dalian [R]espondents []
lacks any visible origin or identification marker,” (ii) “the Dalian [R]espondents advertise [that]
their zipper closures may be incorporated into third-party packages,” (iii) “[f]inished goods
incorporating infringing closures would have no indication of their connection to the Dalian
[R]espondents,” and (iv) “finished packages may be sold in a ‘hooded’ arrangement, where an
infringing track and slider is obscured until the hood is torn off by a consumer.” Id. at 85 (citing
Complaint Phys. Ex. 1 (packaging labeled with “Blank Brand”); Herrington Report21 ¶ 42;
Hansen Aff. ¶ 10). Therefore, the Commission agrees with the RD that the “evidence supports a
conclusion that an exclusion order limited to the Dalian respondents could be circumvented by
goods lacking any marking that would connect the infringing articles to the Dalian
[R]espondents.” Id. (citing Toner Cartridges, Comm’n Op. at *5-7).
21 Expert Report of Ryan N. Herrington, attached as Exhibit 7 to Presto’s motion (“Herrington
Report”). Mr. Herrington was retained to “evaluate the likely economic effects of Complainant’s
proposed general exclusion order.” Herrington Report ¶ 4.

PUBLIC VERSION
24
Thus, the Commission determines that the criteria for obtaining a GEO under section
337(d)(2)(A) are satisfied because the “record contains substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence that the Dalian [R]espondents are likely [to] circumvent a limited exclusion order using
corporate alter egos, by setting up new companies at little cost, or both.” Id.; accord OSub. at
6-8.
b. Pattern of Violation and Difficulty Identifying the Source of
Infringing Goods
The Commission likewise finds that a GEO should issue because there is a pattern of
violation and because it is difficult to identify the source of the infringing products. See RD at
85-89; 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B).
The record contains “undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that
infringing goods are being widely sold for importation into the United States without
authorization from Presto.” RD at 86. Specifically, the Commission agrees with the RD that the
online marketplace Alibaba.com contains listings by three non-party manufacturers22 based in
China that offer to sell plastic bags with child-resistant zipper closures “that are identical in all
material respects to the [DI] products protected by the asserted patents.” Id. (citing Herrington
Report ¶¶ 34, 70; Hardy Aff.23 ¶¶ 3-4, 13-16). Further, these Alibaba listings all advertise that
the company has an “FDA” certification or that their products can “pass FDA,” which are
22 These three non-party manufactures are: (1) Qingdao Jintiandi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd.,
which is based in Shandong, China, and “requires an order minimum of 100,000 bags and claims
it can supply 100,000 bags per day”; (2) Shantou Changxing Packaging Co., Ltd., which is based
in Guangdong, China, and “requires an order minimum of 20,000 pieces and claims it can supply
10 million bags per month”; and (3) Shenzhen Rishanhong Plastic Packaging Products Co., Ltd.,
which is based in Guangdong, China, and “requires an order minimum of 10,000 bags and claims
it can supply 200,000 bags per day.” RD at 86-87.
23 Affidavit of Paul Hardy, attached as Exhibit 5 to Presto’s motion (“Hardy Aff.”). Mr. Hardy is
Presto’s Manager of International Sales. Hardy Aff. ¶ 1.

PUBLIC VERSION
25
references to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Id. at 86-87 (citing Herrington Report ¶¶
71, 76-77).
The evidence also shows that Presto employees encountered infringing products from a
fourth Chinese manufacturer, Qingdao RAJ Packaging Products Co., Ltd. (“RAJ”), at a trade
show in Germany in September 2019. Id. at 87 (citing Herrington Report ¶ 39; Hardy Aff. ¶¶
17-18). Like the Alibaba listings, record evidence show that this manufacturer’s products have
sliders that “are identical in all material respects to the [DI] products protected by the asserted
patents” and its website displays the logo for the FDA. Id. at 87 (citing Herrington Report ¶ 39;
Hardy Aff. ¶¶ 16-17).
The Commission agrees that, by advertising “FDA” certification, “the Alibaba listings
and the RAJ website demonstrate that the products offered for sale through those channels are
intended for importation into the United States.” Id. Thus, “the evidence supports a conclusion
that thousands of infringing bags are sold for importation into the United States without
authorization from Presto,” which “is a pattern of violation of section 337.” Id. The
Commission also agrees that the actions of the Dalian Respondents “are also part of a pattern of
violation of section 337.” Id. at 87-88.
In addition, the evidence “supports a conclusion that identifying the source of imported
zipper enclosures is difficult.” Id. at 88. Specifically, the evidence shows that “child-resistant
zipper enclosures can be incorporated into finished goods without any indication of the source of
an infringing track and slider” and “the Dalian [R]espondents are likely to circumvent a limited
exclusion order by using alternative corporate entities.” Id. (citing Toner Cartridges, Comm’n
Op. at *5-7; Certain Sildenafil or Any Pharmaceutically Acceptable Salt Thereof, such as
Sildenafil Citrate, & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-489, Comm’n Op. at 7-8 (July

PUBLIC VERSION
26
23, 2004) (“Sildenafil”) (Public Version)). Further, the Commission agrees with the RD that the
“quick removal of online evidence after an importer catches wind of legal proceedings” also
makes it difficult to identify the source of infringing goods. Id. at 89 (referencing several
Alibaba listings that are identified in Presto’s motion as offering infringing products for sale that
had been taken down before the RD issued on April 21, 2020).
Thus, the Commission finds that the criteria for obtaining a GEO under section
337(d)(2)(B) are satisfied because “Presto has established by substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence a pattern of violation of section 337 by sources that are difficult to identify.” Id. at 89;
accord OSub. at 8-9.
2. Cease and Desist Orders
Section 337 provides that in addition to, or in lieu of, the issuance of an exclusion order,
the Commission may issue a CDO as a remedy for violation of section 337. See 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(f), (g).
The RD does not recommend issuing CDOs against the Dalian Respondents because,
among other things, Presto did not request them. RD at 90.
On review, the Commission inquired as to whether Presto desired CDOs against the
Dalian Respondents. 85 Fed. Reg. 35662, 35663 (June 11, 2020). In response, Presto confirmed
that it “is not seeking a CDO against the Dalian Respondents.” CSub. at 2.
In light of Presto’s position, the Commission has determined not to issue CDOs against
the Dalian Respondents.
B. Public Interest
Before issuing a GEO, the Commission must consider “the effect of such exclusion or
order upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy,
the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States

PUBLIC VERSION
27
consumers.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1). The statute “does not require the Commission to
determine that a remedial order would advance the public interest factors but rather requires the
Commission to consider whether issuance of such an order will adversely affect the public
interest factors.” Certain Loom Kits for Creating Linked Articles, Inv. No. 337-TA-923,
Comm’n Op., 2015 WL 5000874, *9 (June 26, 2015) (“Loom Kits”) (citation omitted).
With respect to the first public interest factor, the Commission finds that excluding the
infringing products would not adversely affect the public health and welfare. To the contrary, it
would help “ensure compliance with important child safety standards for children within the
United States.” See CSub. at 6. For example, unlike “Presto’s domestic industry products [that]
have been tested for, and comply with federal guidelines for child resistance[,] . . . [t]here is no
evidence, much less any guarantee, that infringing child-resistant products from China comply
with any U.S. regulations on safety or testing.” Id. at 5-6; accord OSub. at 13-14 (citing Presto’s
Public Interest Statement at 2-4 (July 17, 2017) (“Presto’s PI Statement”)).
Nor does the record evidence suggest any adverse effect on the second (competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy), third (production of like or directly competitive articles in the
U.S.), or fourth (U.S. consumers) public interest factors. See OSub. at 13 (“OUII is not aware of
any evidence that would indicate that the issuance of [a GEO] would be contrary to [these
factors].”); id. at 14 (“Presto also explains that it manufactures products that are directly
competitive with the accused products and could seamless replace any excluded products. And
. . . Presto indicates there is a sufficient supply of competitive, non-infringing alternatives
already available to the U.S. market, ensuring that consumers have and will continue to have
access to like or directly competitive products and will not be negatively impacted by an
exclusion order.” (citing Presto’s PI Statement at 3-4)); CSub. at 6 (Presto “is currently the only

PUBLIC VERSION
28
domestic supplier of child resistant slider products subject to this investigation, i.e., child
resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable torpedo for selectively
opening the closures and slider devices therefor.”) (emphasis in original). Thus, the record
indicates that there is a sufficient supply of competitive, non-infringing alternatives already
available to the U.S. market, ensuring that consumers have, and will continue to have, access to
like or directly competitive products and will not be negatively impacted by an exclusion order.
Thus, based on the record of this investigation, and after considering the public interest
factors, the Commission has determined to issue a GEO.
C. Bonding
During the 60-day period of Presidential review under section 337(j), “articles directed to
be excluded from entry under subsection (d) . . . shall . . . be entitled to entry under bond
prescribed by the Secretary in an amount determined by the Commission to be sufficient to
protect the complainant from any injury.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(3). “The Commission
typically sets the bond based on the price differential between the imported infringing product
and the domestic industry article or based on a reasonable royalty. However, where the available
pricing or royalty information is inadequate, the bond may be set at one hundred (100) percent of
the entered value of the infringing product.” Loom Kits, Comm’n Op., 2015 WL 5000874, *11
(citations omitted). The Commission has set a 100 percent bond in cases where respondents
have defaulted and provided no discovery regarding pricing, precluding any reliable
determination of an appropriate bond amount. See id. at *12.
The RD recommends that the Commission set the bond amount at 100 percent of the
entered value of the accused products. RD at 91-92. The Commission agrees. As the RD notes,
because “[t]here was no discovery from respondents in this investigation as all respondents were
either terminated or found in default without participating in discovery,” the record “lacks

PUBLIC VERSION
29
reliable evidence upon which to base a bond amount.” Id. at 91. Thus, the RD recommends that
a 100 percent bond is necessary “to ensure that [Presto] is protected ‘from any injury’ if a
respondent attempts to import accused articles during the Presidential review period.” Id. at 91-
92; accord OSub. at 14-15 (“Given the state of the evidentiary record . . . and the fact that the
Dalian Respondents have defaulted (rather than provide any discovery), OUII agrees with the
ALJ’s recommendation that a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of the
accused products is appropriate . . . .”).
Thus, the Commission has determined to set the bond during the period of Presidential
review in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the infringing articles.
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Commission has determined that Presto has
established a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 of the ’531 patent,
claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of the ’628 patent, and claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of the ’058
patent. After considering the public interest, the Commission has also determined that the
appropriate remedy is a GEO directed against infringing child resistant closures with slider
devices having a user actuated insertable torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider
devices therefor. The Commission has further determined to impose a bond in the amount of
100 percent of the entered value of the infringing articles for importation that occurs during the
period of Presidential review.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: September 18, 2020

CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES WITH SLIDER
DEVICES HAVING A USER ACTUATED INSERTABLE
TORPEDO FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached COMMISSION OPINION has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Megan Wantland, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on September 18, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc.:
Daniel H. Shulman, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: dshulman@vedderprice.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd.
Room 101, Unit 2, No. 125 ChangChun Road
XiGang District, Dalian
China 116011
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd.
No. 36, North Fuquan Road, Economic and Technological
Development Zone, Dalian, Liaoning
China 116100
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES
WITH SLIDER DEVICES HAVING A USER
ACTUATED INSERTABLE TORPEDO
FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES
THEREFOR
Investigation No. 337-TA-1171
NOTICE OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO REVIEW IN PART AN INITIAL
DETERMINATION GRANTING COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
DETERMINATION OF A VIOLATION OF SECTION 337; SCHEDULE FOR FILING
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON REMEDY, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, on April 21, 2020, the presiding administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”) in the above-captioned investigation,
granting summary determination on violation of section 337 that included a recommended
determination on remedy and bonding. On April 22, 2020, the ALJ issued a Notice of Errata
thereto. The Commission has determined to review the ID in part. The Commission requests
briefing from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection
with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at
https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 21, 2019, the Commission instituted this
investigation based on a complaint filed by Reynolds Presto Products Inc. (“Presto”). 84 Fed.
Reg. 43616-17 (Aug. 21, 2019). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) (“section 337”) based on the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of
certain child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable torpedo for

2
selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,505,531 (“the ’531 patent”); 9,554,628; and 10,273,058 (“the ’058
patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Id. at 43616. The complaint further alleges that a
domestic industry exists. Id. The Commission’s notice of investigation names six respondents:
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd. of Dalian, China (“Dalian Takebishi”); Dalian
Altma Industry Co., Ltd. of Dalian, Liaoning, China (“Dalian Altma”) (together, the “Dalian
Respondents”); Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan; Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Shiga, Japan;
Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd., of Shanghai, China; and Qingdao Takebishi
Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Qingdao, China. Id. at 43616-17. It also names the Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) as a party. Id. at 43617.
On October 7, 2019, the ALJ issued an ID finding the Dalian Respondents in default.
Order No. 7 (Oct. 30, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 26, 2019). On November 19,
2019, the ALJ issued an ID terminating the investigation based on Presto’s withdrawal of the
complaint as to the other four respondents (Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd.; Takebishi Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd.; and Qingdao Takebishi Packing Industry Co.,
Ltd.). Order No. 10 (Nov. 19, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Dec. 18, 2019). That ID
also terminated the investigation as to (i) claims 6 and 7 of the ’531 patent and (ii) claims 6 and 7
of the ’058 patent. Id.
On November 15, 2019, Presto filed a motion for summary determination that the
domestic industry requirement was satisfied and that a violation had been established. Presto’s
motion requested immediate entry of a limited exclusion order against the Dalian Respondents, a
general exclusion order (“GEO”), and a 100 percent bond. On November 26, 2019, OUII filed a
response to the motion supporting the summary determination motion and the requested GEO
and 100 percent bond.
On April 21, 2020, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting summary determination of
violation of section 337 by the Dalian Respondents. The ID also contains the ALJ’s
recommendation on remedy and bonding, in which the ALJ recommends issuance of a GEO or,
in the alternative, a limited exclusion order directed to each of the Dalian Respondents, and that a
100 percent bond be set for importation during the Presidential review period.
On May 1, 2020, OUII filed a petition seeking review of portions of the ID’s analysis of
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. No other party petitioned for review
of the ID, and no party filed a response to OUII’s petition.
The Commission has determined to review the ID in part with respect to the ID’s analysis
of the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission has determined
not to review the remaining findings in the ID. The Commission is not requesting any briefing
on the issue under review.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes
issuance of: (1) an exclusion order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from
entry into the United States, and/or (2) one or more cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) that could
result in the Dalian Respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts
in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in

3
receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 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 Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-
TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7-10 (December 1994). In addition, if a party
seeks issuance of any CDOs, the written submissions should address that request in the context
of recent Commission opinions, including those in Certain Arrowheads with Deploying Blades
and Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-977, Comm’n Op. (Apr. 28,
2017) and 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). The written
submissions should respond to the following:
1. 	Is Presto still seeking CDOs against the Dalian Respondents?
2. 	If Presto is still seeking CDOs, please address the following questions:
a. 	Can the Commission grant CDOs if a complainant has not argued for them
in its remedy briefing before the ALJ? Has the Commission ever granted
CDOs under such circumstances?
b. 	What prejudice have the Dalian Respondents suffered as a result of Presto
seeking CDOs in its complaint but not requesting them before the ALJ?
c. 	Please identify with citations to the record any information regarding
commercially significant inventory in the United States as to each
respondent against whom a CDO is sought. If Presto also relies on other
significant domestic operations that could undercut the remedy provided
by an exclusion order, identify with citations to the record such
information as to each respondent against whom a CDO is sought.
d. 	In relation to the infringing products, please identify any information in
the record, including allegations in the pleadings, that addresses the
existence of any domestic inventory, any domestic operations, or any
sales-related activity directed at the United States for each respondent
against whom a CDO is sought.
e. 	Please discuss any other basis upon which the Commission could enter a
CDO.
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of any remedy upon the
public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that
an exclusion order and/or CDO 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 of this investigation.

4
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as
delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the
Commission’s determination. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005. 70 Fed. Reg.
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 of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions
concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Parties to this investigation, interested government agencies, and
any other interested parties are invited to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the
public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should include views on the recommended
determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding.
In its initial written submission, Presto is also requested to submit proposed remedial
orders for the Commission’s consideration. Presto is further requested to identify the date the
Asserted Patents expire, to provide the HTSUS subheadings under which the subject articles are
imported, and to supply identification information for all known importers of the subject articles.
Initial written submissions, including proposed remedial orders, must be filed no later
than close of business on June 12, 2020. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close
of business on June 19, 2020. No further submissions on any of 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. The Commission’s paper filing requirements in 19 CFR
210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 Fed. Reg. 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to
the investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1171) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or
the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions
regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission
and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission
is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business
information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the
Commission for purposes of this 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 of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract
personnel[1], solely for cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will be
available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.
[1] All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

5
The Commission vote for these determinations took place on June 5, 2020.
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).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: June 5, 2020

CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES WITH SLIDER
DEVICES HAVING A USER ACTUATED INSERTABLE
TORPEDO FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served via EDIS
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Megan Wantland, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on June 5, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc.:
Daniel H. Shulman, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: dshulman@vedderprice.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT
CLOSURES WITH SLIDER DEVICES
HAVING A USER ACTUATED
INSERTABLE TORPEDO FOR
SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES
THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
ORDER NO. 12: INITIAL DETERMINATION
GRANTING SUMMARY DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337
AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BONDING
PUBLIC VERSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. 	BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
A. 	Institution of the Investigation and Procedural History ...........................................1
B. 	The Private Parties ...................................................................................................3
1. 	Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc. ................................................3
2. 	The Dalian Respondents ..............................................................................3
C. 	The Asserted Patents ................................................................................................4
D. 	The Accused Products..............................................................................................6
E. 	The Domestic Industry Products ..............................................................................8
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION ........................................ 9
III. 	IMPORTATION AND JURISDICTION ........................................................................... 9
A. 	Importation ...............................................................................................................9
B. 	Subject Matter Jurisdiction ....................................................................................10
C. 	In Rem Jurisdiction ................................................................................................11
D. 	Personal Jurisdiction ..............................................................................................11
IV. 	INFRINGEMENT............................................................................................................. 12
A. 	U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531......................................................................................13
1. 	Claim 1 .......................................................................................................13
2. 	Claim 3 .......................................................................................................16
3. 	Claim 5 .......................................................................................................19
4. 	Claim 8 .......................................................................................................20
5. 	Claim 9 .......................................................................................................21
6. 	Claim 10 .....................................................................................................28
PUBLIC VERSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
Page
ii
B. 	U.S. Patent No. 9,554,628......................................................................................29
1. 	Claim 1 .......................................................................................................29
2. 	Claim 4 .......................................................................................................35
3. 	Claim 6 .......................................................................................................36
4. 	Claim 7 .......................................................................................................37
5. 	Claim 8 .......................................................................................................38
6. 	Claim 11 .....................................................................................................39
7. 	Claim 12 .....................................................................................................40
8. 	Claim 15 .....................................................................................................45
9. 	Claim 19 .....................................................................................................46
C. 	U.S. Patent No. 10,273,058....................................................................................47
1. 	Claim 1 .......................................................................................................47
2. 	Claim 3 .......................................................................................................51
3. 	Claim 5 .......................................................................................................55
4. 	Claim 8 .......................................................................................................56
V. 	DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ................................................................................................. 57
A. 	Technical Prong .....................................................................................................58
1. 	U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531..........................................................................58
2. 	U.S. Patent No. 9,554,628..........................................................................64
3. 	U.S. Patent No. 10,273,058........................................................................68
B. 	Economic Prong .....................................................................................................74
1. 	Plant and Equipment ..................................................................................74
2. 	Labor and Capital .......................................................................................76
PUBLIC VERSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
Page
iii
3. Engineering, Research and Development, and Licensing .........................77
4. Presto’s Domestic Investments Are Significant and Substantial ...............78
VI. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BONDING ................... 79
A. General Exclusion Order........................................................................................79
1. Circumvention of Limited Exclusion Orders .............................................80
a. Corporate Alter Egos .....................................................................80
b. Low Barriers to Entry ....................................................................84
c. Lack of Identifying Markings ........................................................85
d. Conclusion .....................................................................................85
2. Pattern of Violation and Difficulty Identifying The Source of Infringing
Goods .........................................................................................................85
a. Widespread Pattern of Violation ....................................................86
b. Difficulty Identifying the Source of Infringing Goods ..................88
c. Conclusion .....................................................................................89
B. Limited Exclusion Orders ......................................................................................89
C. Cease and Desist Orders ........................................................................................90
D. Bond .......................................................................................................................90
VII. INITIAL DETERMINATION AND ORDER.................................................................. 92
PUBLIC VERSION

I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Institution of the Investigation and Procedural History
By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on August 21, 2019, pursuant to
subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Commission instituted
this investigation to determine:
whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(l)(B) of section 337 in the importation
into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3, and 5–10 of [U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531
(“the ’531 patent”)]; claims 1, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of [U.S. Patent No.
9,554,628 (“the ’628 patent”)]; and claims l, 3, and 5–8 of [U.S. Patent No.
10,273,058 (“the ’058 patent”)]; and whether an industry in the United States exists
as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337 . . . .
84 Fed. Reg. 43616 (Aug. 21,2019) (“Notice of Investigation”).
The Notice of Investigation named Reynolds Presto Products Inc. of Lake Forest, Illinois,
as the complainant (“Presto”) and the following companies as respondents:
• 	Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Dalian, China;
• 	Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd., of Dalian, Liaoning, China;
• 	Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan;
• 	Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Shiga, Japan;
• 	Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd., of Shanghai, China;
• 	Qingdao Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Qingdao, China.
Id. at 43616–17. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“Staff”) was also named as a party
to this investigation. Id. at 43617.
A 12-month target date for completion of this investigation was set for August 21, 2020.
Order No. 3 (Sept. 5, 2019).
PUBLIC VERSION

2
On November 15, 2019, Presto filed the pending Corrected Complainant’s Motion for
Summary Determination with Respect to Domestic Industry, Violation and Remedy (“Mot.”) with
a memorandum in support (“Memo.”). Motion Docket No. 1171-006 (EDIS Doc. No. 694487).
In its motion, Presto requests:
1) “summary determination of a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337”;
2) a finding Presto “has met the domestic industry requirement of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)”;
3) “immediate entry of a Limited Exclusion Order against” the defaulting respondents;
4) “imposition of a 100% bond”; and
5) “a recommendation for entry of a General Exclusion order.”
Mot. at 1. 	No respondent filed a response to the pending motion. 	Staff filed a response to the
pending motion (“Staff Resp.”) supporting the requested relief. EDIS Doc. No. 694236.
On November 26, 2019, the Commission affirmed that respondents Dalian Takebishi
Packing Industry Co., Ltd., and Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd. (collectively, “the Dalian
respondents”), had defaulted in the investigation. Order No. 7 (Oct. 30, 2019), aff’d, Notice of a
Commission 	Determination 	Not 	to 	Review 	an 	Initial 	Determination 	Finding 	the 	Dalian
Respondents in Default (Nov. 26, 2016).
On December 18, 2019, the Commission affirmed an initial determination terminating the
investigation with respect to claims 6 and 7 of the ’531 patent and claim 6 and 7 of the ’058 patent.
Order No. 10 (Nov. 19, 2019), aff’d, Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial
Determination 	Terminating 	the 	Investigation 	as 	to 	Certain 	Asserted 	Claims 	and 	Named
Respondents (Dec. 18, 2019). The Commission also affirmed the termination of the investigation
with respect to respondents Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd.; Takebishi Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Takebishi
PUBLIC VERSION

3
Packing Material Co., Ltd.; and Qingdao Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd.; as those
respondents were never served. Id.
B. The Private Parties
1. Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc.
Presto is a privately held company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with
its principal place of business in Lake Forest, Illinois. EDIS Doc. No. 682496 (“Complaint”) ¶ 5.
Presto is a wholly owned and privately held company of the Rank Group. Expert Report of Ryan
N. Herrington (“Herrington Report”) ¶ 7.1 Presto owns by assignment the entire right, title, and
interest in the asserted patents. Complaint ¶¶ 35, 39, 43; Complaint Ex. 14 (Assignment
Agreement).
Presto manufactures many products, including slider closures for resealable bags.
Affidavit of Bradford Hansen (“Bradford Aff.”)2 ¶ 7. Presto makes the plastic tracks for its closure
mechanism at facilities in Wisconsin and obtains most of the plastic sliders used on the tracks from
U.S. manufacturers. Mot. Ex. 9.
2. The Dalian Respondents
The Dalian respondents—Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd. (“Dalian
Takebishi”), and Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd. (“Dalian Altma”)—are the only remaining
respondents in the investigation. The record contains evidence that Dalian Takebishi “specialize[s]
in producing zipper tape” and is located in Dalian, China. Herrington Report ¶ 13. The record
1 The Expert Report of Ryan N. Herrington is attached as Exhibit 7 to the pending motion.
Mr. Herrington was retained to “evaluate the likely economic effects of Complainant’s proposed
general exclusion order.” Mot. Ex. 7 ¶ 4.
2 The Affidavit of Bradford Hansen is attached as Exhibit 4 to the pending motion. Mr. Hansen is
the President of the Specialty Business Unit of Presto. Mot. Ex. 4 ¶ 1.
PUBLIC VERSION

4
indicates that Dalian Altma, also based in Dalian, China, “manufactures and trades slitting
machines, printing machines, and edge trim winders, among other products.” Herrington Report
¶ 14. Dalian Altma also goes by the name Takebishi (Dalian) Industrial Co., Ltd., an entity that
has the same address and contact information as Dalian Altma. Id.
C. 	The Asserted Patents
Presto asserts three utility patents in this investigation: the ’531, ’628, and ’058 patents.
The asserted patents are each titled “Child Resistant Slider Having Insertable Torpedo and
Methods” and share the same named inventor and the same specification. 	See Complaint Exs.
1–3. The patents generally disclose a zipper closure system that may be incorporated into flexible
bags and pouches to make it difficult for children to access the contents of the packages,
particularly packages containing hazardous or otherwise dangerous contents. See, e.g., ’531 patent
at Abstract; see also id. at 1:38–45. To open the bag, a slider is moved to the vicinity of a notch
and a tab is moved or flexed in such a way that a torpedo comes between the interlocking track
profiles of the zipper causing the tracks to separate when the slider is moved. Id. at 1:45–50.
Figure 14 of the ’531 patent, reproduced below, shows an example embodiment of the
invention incorporated into bag B with the zipper closure 36 having notch 8 and slider 1:
PUBLIC VERSION

5
Figure 2 of the ’531 patent, reproduced below, shows an embodiment of the claimed
slider 1 having a flexible tab 2 with torpedo 3:
The remaining issues in the investigation concern claims 1, 3, 5, and 8–10 of the ’531
patent; claims 1, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of the ’628 patent; and claims 1, 3, 5, and 8–10 of the
’058 patent.
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

8
E. 	The Domestic Industry Products
As discussed in more detail herein, Presto manufactures track for use with the patented
inventions in Wisconsin, and manufacturers in New York produce the sliders used on those tacks.
Affidavit of Greg Petkovsek (“Petkovsek Aff.”)3 ¶ 5; Declaration of Brad Hansen Concerning the
Economic Prong of Domestic Industry (“Hansen Decl.”) 4 ¶ 5. 	Presto’s customers receive
permission from Presto to incorporate the patented slider closure in their packaging. Memo. at 98
n.5. One example of a domestic industry product produced in this way is a child-resistant package
for laundry detergent, shown below:
Declaration of Toby Thomas (“Thomas Decl.”), Exhibit 1 at 1.5
3 The Affidavit of Greg Petkovsek is attached as Exhibit 6 to the pending motion.
4 The Affidavit of Bradford Hansen is attached as Exhibit 4 to the pending motion.
5 The Declaration of Toby Thomas is attached as Exhibit 2 to the pending motion. Mr. Thomas
was retained by Presto as an expert witness. Mot. Ex. 2 at 1.
PUBLIC VERSION

9
II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION
The Commission Rules provide that “[a]ny party may move with any necessary supporting
affidavits for a summary determination in its favor upon all or part of the issues to be determined
in the investigation. 19 C.F.R. § 210.18(a). Summary determination “shall be rendered if
pleadings and any depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to summary determination as a matter of law.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.18(b).
III. IMPORTATION AND JURISDICTION
A. Importation
It has long been recognized that importing just one accused product can satisfy the
importation requirement of section 337. See Certain Trolley Wheel Assemblies, Inv.
No. 337-TA-161, Comm’n Op. at 7–8, USITC Pub. No. 1605 (Nov. 1984) (deeming the
importation requirement satisfied by the importation of a single product of no commercial value).
Here, there is no factual dispute that the accused articles have been imported into the United
States. Witnesses provided unrebutted testimony that the accused products were present at two
trade shows within the United States: the 2017 Global Pouch West Show in Anaheim, California,
and the 2019 Global Pouch Forum, in Rosemont, Illinois. See Declaration of Thomas Morsheimer
(“Morsheimer Decl.”)6; Herrington Report ¶ 14; Complaint Exs. 9 and 22. The photographs below
show the Dalian Altma / Takebishi (Dalian) Industrial Co., Ltd., booth at the 2019 Global Pouch
Forum and an accused product offered for sale at that booth:
6 The Declaration of Thomas Morsheimer is attached as Exhibit 24 to the Complaint.
Mr. Morsheimer is the Market Development Manager for the Fresh-Lock® / Slide-Rite® business
unit of Presto. Complaint Ex. 24 ¶ 1.
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

11
C. In Rem Jurisdiction
In section 337, Congress granted the Commission in rem jurisdiction over imported
articles. See Sealed Air Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 645 F.2d 976, 985–86 (C.C.P.A. 1981). As
noted above, the record demonstrates that the accused products have been imported into the United
States. Morsheimer Decl. ¶¶ 3–9; Herrington Report ¶¶ 13–18; supra Part III.A. No party has
contested the Commission’s in rem jurisdiction over the accused products. Accordingly, I find the
Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the articles accused in this investigation.
D. Personal Jurisdiction
By filing the Complaint and participating in the investigation, Presto has consented to
personal jurisdiction at the Commission. See Certain Cutting Tools for Flexible Plastic Conduit
and Components Thereof, 337-TA-344, Initial Determination at 4, not reviewed, Comm’n
Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337,
(October 28, 1993), USITC Pub. No. 2719 (Jan. 1994).
Representatives of the Dalian respondents have personally entered the United States on at
least two occasions to import and offer the accused products for sale at trade shows. See supra
Part III.A. The intentional and systematic contacts of the Dalian respondents with the United
States give the Commission personal jurisdiction over the Dalian respondents. Certain Pocket
Lighters, 337-TA-1142, Initial Determination at 12–13 (Feb. 12, 2020) (public version Mar. 30,
2020, EDIS Doc. ID 706458); Certain Minoxidil Powder, Salts & Compositions for Use in Hair
Treatment, 337-TA-267, Order No. 9 (Aug. 6, 1987) (“[E]stablishing that a foreign respondent
has made two or more shipments of a product to the United States would be adequate to subject it
to the jurisdiction of this agency.”). The Dalian respondents have all been given notice of this
investigation at least through service of the Complaint and Notice of Investigation, hand delivery
PUBLIC VERSION

12
of a cease and desist letter, and email correspondence with Presto’s counsel. See Complaint Ex.
24 ¶ 7 (hand delivery of letter); id. at Ex. 17 (cease and desist letter); id. at Ex. 22 (email
correspondence).
No party has contested the Commission’s personal jurisdiction over it. Based on the record
evidence, I find that the Commission has personal jurisdiction over all parties, including the Dalian
respondents.
IV. 	INFRINGEMENT
Presto seeks a finding that the imported accused products infringe various claims of the
’531 patent; the ’628 patent; and the ’058 patent. Under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), making, using, offering
to sell, selling, or importing a patented invention without consent of the patent owner infringes the
rights of the patent owner. Literal infringement of a claim occurs “when every limitation recited
in the claim appears in the accused device, i.e., when the properly construed claim reads on the
accused device exactly.” Amhil Enters., Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy. 	O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521
F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 366
F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vivid Tech., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, no party has raised a dispute as to the meaning of the asserted claims. See
EDIS Doc. No. 690581; see also Order No. 5 (Oct. 8, 2019) (modifying the procedural schedule
in light of the parties’ claim construction agreement). 	Accordingly, I need not construe any
particular claim term.
Importing an article that infringes patent rights is unlawful under section 337. 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(a)(1)(B)(1). The complainant in a section 337 investigation bears the burden of proving
PUBLIC VERSION

13
infringement of the asserted patent claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Enercon GmbH v.
Int’l Trade Comm’n, 151 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
A. U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531
Presto seeks a finding that the accused products infringe claims 1, 3, 5, and 8–10 of the
’531 patent. See Memo. at 11. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 are apparatus claims, while claims 9 and 10
are claims to a method of operating a zippered bag. In support of the pending motion, Presto
submitted the Declaration of Toby Thomas, which included claim charts showing infringement of
claims 1, 3, 5, and 8–10. See Thomas Decl. Ex. 4. I evaluate that evidence below.
1. Claim 1
Independent claim 1 of the ’531 patent recites:
1. A child resistant slider zipper closure system comprising:
(a) a reclosable zipper closure with a male track and a female track having
complementary profiles for interlocking and unlocking;
(b) a notch defined by the complementary profiles; the notch being spaced
from an end of the slider zipper closure system; and
(c) a slider being slidably located on the zipper closure, the slider including
a flexible tab with a torpedo; when the slider is moved into a vicinity of the
notch, the tab being selectively moveable into a position to be between the
male track and female track and result in separation of the interlocking
complementary profiles as the slider is moved in an opening direction along
the zipper closure.
The Thomas Declaration shows each element of claim 1 of the ’531 patent in the accused
products:
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

22
profiles interlocking to close the mouth and unlocking to open the mouth;
the zipper closure including a notch spaced from the first side; a slider
located on the zipper closure; and
(b) opening the mouth by:
(i) moving the slider to the notch;
(ii) pressing down on a flexible tab on the slider to position a
torpedo on the tab between the male track and female track;
and
(iii) while pressing, moving the slider in an opening direction
along the zipper closure to result in separation of the
interlocking profiles.
To show infringement of a method claim, it is Presto’s burden to prove that it is more likely
than not that “one person somewhere in the United States had performed the claimed method”
using the accused products. See Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2009).
PUBLIC VERSION

23
Here, Presto has adduced evidence of accused products on display at two trade shows in
the United States, in 2017 and 2019. Morsheimer Decl. ¶¶ 5–6; Complaint Exs. 9 and 22. The
goods displayed at the 2017 show in Anaheim, California, listed instructions for carrying out the
method of claim 9, as shown in the image below:
Complaint Phys. Ex. 2. The instructions state:
HOW DOES IT WORK
Step 1: Align the slider with the notch
Step 2: Turn& [stet.] click the hook and ensure the “hook” is placed in the notch
Step 3: Slide open
Id. The booth at the 2019 trade show in Rosemont, Illinois, had a sign with similar “HOW DOES
IT WORK” instructions for operating the accused products. Complaint Ex. 9 (sign on right side
of table).
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

28
Decl. ¶¶ 5–6; Complaint Phys. Ex. 2. The table at the other trade show had a sign with instructions
for performing the claimed method. 	Complaint Ex. 9. 	The record thus shows it is more likely
than not that Dalian Altma imported accused products into the United States and its representatives
demonstrated the patented method at the Anaheim and Rosemont trade shows using those
products. I also find it more likely than not that visitors to the Dalian Altma booths at the trade
shows also performed the method using the accused products. 	I therefore find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 9 of the ’531 patent by substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence. See Certain Blood Cholesterol Testing Strips and Associated Systems Containing the
Same, Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1116, Comm’n Op. at 25 (Apr. 16, 2020) (“Cholesterol Testing Strips”)
(finding a violation of section 337 based on infringement of a method claim where respondent
imported an accused product into the United States and used it to perform the claimed method).
6. 	Claim 10
Method claim 10 depends from claim 9 as follows:
10. A method according to claim 9 further including:
(a) closing the mouth by moving the slider in a closing direction along the
track to interlock the profiles.
The Thomas Declaration shows how the accused products are used to perform the
additional step recited in claim 10:
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Certain Stringed Musical
Instruments and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-586, USITC Pub. 4120, Comm’n Op. at
12–14, 2009 WL 5134139 (Dec. 2009).
The technical prong requires that the complainant practice the patented invention in the
United States. Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The
test for determining whether the technical prong is met through the practice of the patent “is
essentially same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted
claims.” Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The economic prong requires, with respect to the products protected by patent, either
(a) significant investment in plant and equipment; (b) significant employment of labor or capital;
or (c) substantial investment in exploitation of the patent(s), including engineering, research and
development, or licensing activities. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3).
A. 	Technical Prong
Presto seeks a finding that the domestic industry products are protected by one claim of
each of the asserted patents. See Memo. at 48. I evaluate that evidence below.
1. 	U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531
In support of the pending motion, Presto submitted the Declaration of Toby Thomas, which
included a claim chart showing how claim 1 of the ’532 patent reads on the domestic industry
products:
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

74
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated that the domestic industry products are protected by claim 1 of the ’058 patent.
B. 	Economic Prong
As discussed below, Presto has proffered substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
showing that Presto satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under
section 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C).
1. 	Plant and Equipment
The evidence shows that Presto has invested in significant domestic facility space
dedicated to its production of child-resistant closures. 	Presto has facilities in
Petkovsek
Aff. ¶ 18. 	Presto contracts
. Declaration of Brad Hansen Concerning the Economic Prong of Domestic Industry
(“Hansen Decl.”) 7 ¶ 5. 	The 	have about
for the and
producing sliders for the child-resistant closures. Id. ¶ 8. Presto spent
, as shown below.
7 The Affidavit of Bradford Hansen is attached as Exhibit 4 to the pending motion.
PUBLIC VERSION

75
Project No 	Project Name 	2014 	2015 	2016 	2017 	2018 	2019 	Total
L2681-14-
A14005 - 	- 	-
00007360 	- 	- 	- 	-
00007361 	- 	- 	- 	-
00007364 	- 	- 	- 	-
RCP00090 	- 	- 	- 	-
Total 	-
Declaration of Sudip K. Mitra (“Mitra Decl.”)8 Ex. E. Because all of the equipment listed above
is used exclusively for producing child-resistant closures under Presto’s authority, id., I find
investments in that machinery are investments related to articles protected by the asserted patents
within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(A).
Additionally, Presto assembles machines in the United States for inserting the slider
devices onto the recloseable track. First Supp. Interogs, No. 6; Affidavit of John Athans (“Athans
Aff.”)9 ¶ 8. From 2015 to 2019, Presto 	, which
are then used by Presto’s customers. Id. I find Presto’s investment in the insertion machines is an
investment in equipment related to articles protected by the asserted patents within the meaning of
section 337(a)(3)(A).
8 The Declaration of Sudip K. Mitra is attached as Exhibit 9 to the pending motion. Mr. Mitra is
counsel for Presto. Mitra Decl. ¶ 1.
9 The Affidavit of John Athans is attached as Exhibit 3 to the pending motion.
PUBLIC VERSION

76
2. 	Labor and Capital
The evidence shows that Presto’s suppliers 	employ people in the United
States to make authorized sliders for incorporation into the domestic industry products. 	Mitra
Decl. Ex. F; Hansen Decl. ¶ 8. The chart below shows the number of full-time employee (“FTE”)
equivalents producing sliders for Presto’s child-resistant closures by year and location:
Year 	FTE 	Location 	Mfg Footprint (ft2)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019 (up to July 18)
Id. As can be seen from the chart above, recent
. 	I find this is an employment of labor related to articles protected by the
asserted patents within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(B).
Presto itself employs people to produce track for the domestic industry products. 	As
explained by John Athans, Director of Converting Engineering and Development for Presto’s
Slide-Rite Business Unit, Presto’s
. Athans Aff. ¶¶ 6–7. The number of Presto employees producing tack
each year is shown in the chart below:
Year 	FTE 	Location 	Mfg Footprint (ft2)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019 (up to July 18)
PUBLIC VERSION

77
Mitra Decl. Ex. 7; Hansen Decl. ¶ 8. As can be seen from the chart above,
. 	I find this is an employment of labor related to
articles protected by the asserted patents within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(B).
3. 	Engineering, Research and Development, and Licensing
Presto has adduced evidence of its expenditures on engineering and research that is directly
related to its child-resistant closures. Specifically, Presto adduces the following:
Year
R&D Expense 	Location
Track Slider/Application
Equipment Track Slider/Application
Equipment
2013 	-
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019 (up
to Nov.
11)
Total 	- 	-
Complainant’s Second Supplemental Answers to Commission Investigative Staff’s First Set of
Interrogatories (“Second Supp Interogs”),10 No. 8.
As shown in the charts above, Presto has
to child-resistant closures. 	I find these expenditures to be relevant under
section 337(a)(3)(C).
10 Complainant’s Second Supplemental Answers to Commission Investigative Staff’s First Set of
Interrogatories is attached as Exhibit 3 to the pending motion.
PUBLIC VERSION

78
4. 	Presto’s Domestic Investments Are Significant and Substantial
I find, based on the undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence outlined
above, that Presto has met its burden to show that a domestic industry exists in the United States.
Presto has shown a significant investment in plant and equipment under section 337(a)(3)(A), a
significant employment of labor and capital under section 337(a)(3)(B), and a substantial
investment in research, development, and engineering under section 337(a)(3)(C). The evidence
demonstrates that Presto is a domestic company with minimal operations abroad and that all of its
products are made domestically in the United States. Petkovsek Aff. ¶ 5; Hansen Aff. ¶ 3; Hansen
Decl. ¶ 5. 	The chart below summarizes Presto’s investments and expenditures in the articles
protected by the asserted patents:
Section 337(a)(3)(A):
Plant & Equipment
Section 337(a)(3)(B):
Labor & Capital
Section 337(a)(3)(C):
Exploitation
Memo. at 49.
It is further determined that the magnitude and quantity of these expenses and investments
alone is significant and substantial in any context. See Lelo Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 786 F.3d
879, 883 (“The plain text of § 337 requires a quantitative analysis in determining whether a
petitioner has demonstrated a ‘significant investment in plant and equipment’ or ‘significant
employment of labor or capital.’”). 	Nevertheless, even when considering the qualitative
significance of Presto’s domestic expenditures in context, its investments, employments, and
activities are clearly significant and substantial. 	See Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-586, Comm’n Op., 2009 WL 5134139 at *16 (Dec. 2009)
PUBLIC VERSION

79
(the significance of an investment depends on the industry in question and the complainant’s
relative size).
VI. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BONDING
Presto’s motion for summary determination seeks the entry of limited exclusion orders
against the Dalian respondents and a general exclusion order to prevent circumvention of such
orders. Memo. at 80–90. Presto also contends in its motion that there is a pattern of violation of
this section and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products. Id. at 90–94. Presto’s
motion does not address cease and desist orders, but Presto sought such relief in its Complaint.
Compare Memo. at 80 with Complaint at 2, 23. Staff agrees that limited exclusion orders should
be issued against the Dalian respondents and a general exclusion order covering all infringing
products should be entered. See Staff Resp. at 43–52. Staff does not support entry of cease and
desist orders because there is no evidence the Dalian respondents maintain a significant domestic
inventory. Id. at 51 n.28.
A. General Exclusion Order
The Commission focuses principally on the statutory language of section 337 when
determining whether a general exclusion order is warranted. Certain Ground Fault Circuit
Interrupters and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-615, Comm’n Op. at 25 (Mar. 26,
2009) (“Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters I”). Under section 337(d)(2), a general exclusion order
is warranted when “an exclusion order limited to products of named persons” would be
circumvented or when “there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to identify
the source of infringing products.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(A) and (B). Satisfaction of either
criterion is sufficient for imposition of a general exclusion order. Certain Cigarettes and
Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-643, Comm’n Op. at 24 (Oct. 1, 2009) (“Cigarettes”).
PUBLIC VERSION

80
1. 	Circumvention of Limited Exclusion Orders
A limited exclusion order restricts the activities of named respondents but not others.
Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2008). If the
evidence shows that named respondents would circumvent a limited exclusion order, a general
exclusion order is appropriate. See Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters & Prod. Containing
Same, Comm’n Opinion, Inv. No. 337-TA-739, Comm’n Op. at 88–89, 2012 WL 2394435 at *56
(June 8, 2012) (“Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters II”) (finding a general exclusion order was
appropriate based on evidence that named respondents would circumvent a limited exclusion order
by changing their corporate identity). Presto has adduced evidence that a general exclusion order
is necessary to prevent the respondents named in this investigation from circumventing a limited
exclusion order.
a. 	Corporate Alter Egos
The 	record 	contains 	substantial, 	reliable, 	and 	probative 	evidence 	that 	the 	Dalian
respondents are likely to use corporate alter egos to circumvent a limited exclusion order. 	For
example, an employee of respondent Dalian Altma lists in his email signature line three corporate
alter egos having the same address:
PUBLIC VERSION

81
Complaint Ex 22.
Representatives of respondent Dalian Altma entered the United States to attend trade shows
in Anaheim, California, and Rosemont, Illinois, under another corporate alter ego, Takebishi
(Dalian) Industrial Co., Ltd. 	See Herrington Report ¶ 14. 	When counsel for Presto referred to
people at the Takebishi trade show booths in Anaheim and Rosemont as representatives of Dalian
Altma, Dalian Altma did not dispute the assertion. See Complaint Ex. 22.
Moreover, an accused product that was displayed by Dalian Altma at the trade show in
Anaheim in December 2017 listed five different corporate entities across China and Japan under
the “Takebishi” heading:
PUBLIC VERSION

82
Complaint Phys. Ex. 2. The package listed a sixth entity named Takebishi Packing America as
“Coming Soon.” Id. The corporate entities and addresses listed on this product were the basis for
naming the respondents in Presto’s Complaint. 	Complainants’ Unopposed Motion for Partial
Termination of the Investigation Regarding Claims 6–7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531 and Claims
6–7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,273,058 and Against Unserved Respondents, EDIS Doc. ID 693597,
Ex. A. Presto attempted to serve each of the entities at the addresses listed on the package, but
PUBLIC VERSION

83
service could not be completed for four of the entities because the address was either non-existent
or incorrect. Id. These facts support Presto’s unrebutted assertion that four of the corporate entities
and addresses listed on the accused products are nothing more than shams, or otherwise non-
existent. See Memo. at 85.
There is also record evidence supporting a conclusion that the Dalian respondents intend
to circumvent lawful enforcement of Presto’s patent rights. After Presto hand delivered a cease-
and-desist letter to representatives of the Dalian respondents at a trade show in California, the
Dalian respondents nevertheless brought infringing products to a second trade show in Illinois.
Complaint Ex. 22. When Presto’s counsel again insisted that the Dalian respondents cease
infringing activity, a representative of the Dalian respondents replied that the respondents were
doing nothing wrong. Id. After Presto filed the Complaint and the Commission served the Notice
of Investigation on the Dalian respondents, those entities never responded to explain their actions.
This evidence supports a conclusion that the Dalian respondents intend to continue in their course
of conduct regardless of Commission action, making circumvention likely.
Based on the evidence of record, I find that the Dalian respondents likely will use different
corporate names and addresses to circumvent exclusion orders limited to specific corporate
entities. See Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters II, Comm’n Op. at 88–89 (a general exclusion
order was appropriate based on evidence that named respondents would circumvent a limited
exclusion order by changing their corporate identity); Portable Electronic Devices, Comm’n Op.
at 5 (a general exclusion order was appropriate where there is evidence of “companies operating
under fake names and fake addresses”); Certain Pocket Lighters, 337-TA-1142, Initial
Determination at 40–43 (Feb. 12, 2020) (public version March 30, 2020, EDIS Doc. ID 706458)
(“Pocket Lighters”) (recommending a general exclusion order where respondents would
PUBLIC VERSION

circumvent limited exclusion orders using one or more different corporate names). These facts
weigh in favor of a general exclusion order.
b. Low Barriers to Entry
Where barriers to entry into a market are low, “new business[es] can quickly spring to life
and carry on the same infringing activities” as those of a named respondent. See, e.g., Certain
Toner Cartridges, & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-918, Comm’n Op., 2015 WL
13817122 at *4 (Oct. 1, 2015) (“Toner Cartridges”). In such circumstances, the persons operating
a company named in a limited exclusion order can shed the named corporate form and immediately
begin operations as a different entity. A general exclusion order will prevent such new entities
from circumventing more limited orders. Id.
Here, Presto has provided evidence that the cost of manufacturing the accused product in
Asia is low. See, e.g., Athans Decl. ¶¶ 13–14 (“I am also aware that is it less costly to manufacture
the Accused Products in Asia . . . .”). Its estimated that the costs to make relevant molds in China
“are between one-fourth and one-half of the U.S. costs,” Athans Decl. ¶¶ 9–14, and the setup to
begin commercial production of infringing goods in China can cost as little as $80,000, Petkovsek
Aff. ¶¶ 7–8. Additionally, molds for producing the accused products are portable and easily
transferred between entities. See Petkovsek Aff. ¶ 9 (describing how molds are “easily portable
or transferable”). These facts support Presto’s unrebutted assertion that the persons behind the
Dalian respondents could easily circumvent limited exclusion orders by setting up new companies
that continue the infringing course of conduct. These facts weigh in favor of a general exclusion
order. See, e.g., Toner Cartridges, Comm’n Op. at 4 (noting that “if only LEOs are issued,
operations could be easily replicated”).
PUBLIC VERSION

85
c. Lack of Identifying Markings
A manufacturer or importer may circumvent a limited exclusion order by leaving off
markings that would link the product to the entity named in the order. Toner Cartridges, Comm’n
Op. at *5–7. Here, the record contains evidence of a product obtained from the Dalian respondents
that lacks any visible origin or identification marker. See Complaint Phys. Ex. 1 (packaging
labeled with “Blank Brand”); Herrington Report ¶ 42. Additionally, the Dalian respondents
advertise their zipper closures may be incorporated into third-party packages. Herrington Report
¶ 42. Finished goods incorporating infringing closures would have no indication of their
connection to the Dalian respondents. Similarly, finished packages may be sold in a “hooded”
arrangement, where an infringing track and slider is obscured until the hood is torn off by a
consumer. Hansen Aff. ¶ 10. This evidence supports a conclusion that an exclusion order limited
to the Dalian respondents could be circumvented by goods lacking any marking that would connect
the infringing articles to the Dalian respondents. See Toner Cartridges, Comm’n Op. at *5–7.
d. Conclusion
The record contains substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that the Dalian
respondents are likely circumvent a limited exclusion order using corporate alter egos, by setting
up new companies at little cost, or both. Accordingly, I find that the criteria for a general exclusion
order found in section 337(d)(2)(A) are satisfied.
2. Pattern of Violation and Difficulty Identifying The Source of
Infringing Goods
Section 337(d)(2)(B) allows for the issuance of a general exclusion order where there is a
pattern of violation of section 337 and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing goods.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B). This basis for a general exclusion order is independent from the
circumvention criteria of section 337(d)(2)(A). Cigarettes, Comm’n Op. at 24.
PUBLIC VERSION

86
a. Widespread Pattern of Violation
The record in this investigation contains undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence that infringing goods are being widely sold for importation into the United States without
authorization from Presto. For example, the online marketplace Alibaba.com contains listings by
non-parties Qingdao Jintiandi Plastic Packaging Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Jintiandi”), a manufacturer
based in Shandong, China; Shantou Changxing Packaging Co., Ltd. (“Changxing”), a
manufacturer based in Guangdong, China; and Shenzhen Rishanhong Plastic Packaging Products
Co., Ltd. (“Rishanhong”), a manufacturer based in Guangdong, China. Herrington Aff. ¶¶ 34, 70.
All three companies offer plastic bags with child-resistant zipper closures on Alibaba that are
identical in all material respects to the domestic industry products protected by the asserted patents.
Affidavit of Paul Hardy (“Hardy Aff.”)11 ¶¶ 3–4, 13–16.
The Alibaba listings by Qingdao Jintiandi advertise an “FDA” certification, a reference to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. See, e.g., https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Smell-
Proof-Child-Resistant-Zip-Lock 62078906830.html?spm=a2700.7724838.2017115.263.
395c7cd7Tm9CCh (last visited April 21, 2020) (cited in Herrington Report ¶ 71). The Qingdao
Jintiandi listings show a “Delivery” map that includes the geographic area of the United States.
Id. Qingdao Jintiandi requires an order minimum of 100,000 bags and claims it can supply 100,000
bags per day. Id.
The Alibaba listings for Changxing state that 30 % of its product ships to “America” and
that its plastic bags can “pass FDA,” a reference to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. See
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Resealable-Laminated-Foil-Child-Resistant-
11 The Affidavit of Paul Hardy is attached as Exhibit 5 to the pending motion. Mr. Hardy is the
Manager of International Sales for Presto. Mot. Ex. 5 ¶ 1.
PUBLIC VERSION

87
Ziplock 60704886233.html?spm=a2700.7724838.2017115.440. 63ba20a1XbNRv3 (last visited
April 21, 2020) (cited in Herrington Report ¶ 76). Changxing requires an order minimum of
20,000 pieces and claims it can supply 10 million bags per month. Id.
The Alibaba listings for Rishanhong state that its plastic bags are made from “Safety Food
Grade material” and that the company has an “FDA” certification, a reference to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. See https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Manufacture-Eco-
friendly-smell-proofchild_62328343994.html?spm=a2700.7724838.2017115.24.63ba20a1
XbNRv3&s=p (last visited April 21, 2020) (cited in Herrington Report ¶ 77). Rishanhong requires
an order minimum of 10,000 bags and claims it can supply 200,000 bags per day.
Presto employees have encountered infringing products from another Chinese
manufacturer, Qingdao RAJ Packaging Products Co., Ltd. (“RAJ”), at a trade show in Germany
in September 2019. Herrington Report ¶ 39; Hardy Aff. ¶¶ 17–18. The sliders on the RAJ products
are identical in all material respects to the domestic industry products protected by the asserted
patents. Hardy Aff. ¶¶ 16–17. The RAJ website displays the logo for the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. See https://www.rajflexpack.com/about/ (last visited April 21, 2020) (web
domain cited in Herrington Report ¶ 39).
By advertising “FDA” certification, the Alibaba listings and the RAJ website demonstrate
that the products offered for sale through those channels are intended for importation into the
United States. I find that the evidence supports a conclusion that thousands of infringing bags are
sold for importation into the United States without authorization from Presto. That is a pattern of
violation of section 337.
The actions of the Dalian respondents are also part of a pattern of violation of section 337.
As has been noted, Presto observed the Dalian respondents offered infringing goods at their booth
PUBLIC VERSION

at a trade show in Anaheim, California, in 2017. I have determined above that the infringing goods
offered for sale at that booth were imported in violation of section 337. Presto hand-delivered a
cease-and-desist letter to the Dalian respondents at the Anaheim trade show, but less than two
years later, the Dalian respondents again brought infringing products into the United States and
offered them for sale at another trade show. Complaint Exs. 9 and 22; Morsheimer Decl. That
was another violation of section 337. These incidents are further evidence of a pattern of violation
of section 337.
b. Difficulty Identifying the Source of Infringing Goods
In my circumvention analysis above, I found that child-resistant zipper enclosures can be
incorporated into finished goods without any indication of the source of an infringing track and
slider. The same evidence supports a conclusion that identifying the source of imported zipper
enclosures is difficult. See Toner Cartridges, Comm’n Op. at *5–7; Certain Sildenafil or Any
Pharmaceutically Acceptable Salt Thereof, such as Sildenafil Citrate, and Prods. Containing
Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-489, Comm’n Op. at 7–8 (July 23, 2004) (Public Vers.) (EDIS Doc. ID
210919).
I have also already discussed record evidence that the Dalian respondents are likely to
circumvent a limited exclusion order by using alternative corporate entities. Those same facts
support a conclusion that identifying the source of infringing zipper closures is difficult. Pocket
Lighters, Initial Determination at 40–43, 46–47.
In addition, Presto’s motion included evidence from five Alibaba website addresses that
offered infringing products for sale. Hardy Aff. ¶ 3. However, when the URLs in the record were
visited on April 21, 2020, only the first link was still active; the other four product listings had
PUBLIC VERSION

89
been taken down. The quick removal of online evidence after an importer catches wind of legal
proceedings makes it difficult to identify the source of infringing goods.
c. 	Conclusion
In sum, Presto has established by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence a pattern of
violation of section 337 by sources that are difficult to identify. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B);
see also Pocket Lighters, Initial Determination at 40–47 (recommending a general exclusion order
based on widespread unauthorized online sales and difficulty in identifying the source of infringing
goods). 	I therefore recommend a general exclusion order issue in this investigation should the
Commission find a violation of section 337.
B. 	Limited Exclusion Orders
After a respondent has been found in default, a complainant may file with the Commission
“a declaration that it is seeking immediate entry of relief against the respondent[s] in default.”
19 C.F.R. § 210.16(c)(1). The facts alleged in the Complaint will be considered true with respect
to the defaulting respondent. Id.
As noted above, the only remaining respondents—the Dalian respondents—are in default.
See Order No. 7 (Oct. 30, 2019) (finding Dalian Respondents in default), aff’d, Notice of a
Commission 	Determination 	Not 	to 	Review 	an 	Initial 	Determination 	Finding 	The Dalian
Respondents in Default (Nov. 26, 2016). 	Following the direction of 19 C.F.C. § 210.16(c), I
presume the facts alleged against the Dalian respondents in the Complaint to be true, and those
facts demonstrate a violation of section 337. The condition precedent for limited exclusion orders
set by statute and regulation has been satisfied. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d), (g)(1); 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.16(c)(1). 	Accordingly, should the Commission find a violation in this investigation, I
PUBLIC VERSION

90
recommend that the Commission issue limited exclusion orders directed to each of the Dalian
respondents.
C. Cease and Desist Orders
Under section 337(f)(1), the Commission may issue a cease and desist order in addition to,
or instead of, an exclusion order. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(f)(1). Presto’s Complaint in this
investigation requests cease and desist orders against the named respondents. Complaint ¶ 4 and
p. 23. However, Presto’s motion for summary determination makes no mention of cease and desist
orders. Staff notes that such orders are generally issued when, with respect to the imported
infringing goods, respondents maintain commercially significant inventories in the United States
or have significant domestic operations that could undercut a remedial exclusion order. See Staff
Resp. at 51 n.28 (citing Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and
Kits Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-959, Comm’n Op. at 26 (Feb. 13, 2017)). Staff does
not view the evidence of record to indicate that cease and desist orders are appropriate here.
I find that Presto’s failure to address cease and desist orders in its motion for summary
determination is a strong indication that such orders are unnecessary to preserve an effective
remedy for Presto. Additionally, no party has identified evidence that the Dalian respondents have
a domestic inventory of infringing goods that would undermine exclusion orders. Accordingly, I
do not recommend entry of cease and desist orders.
D. Bond
When the Commission determines to issue a remedy, the President has 60 days to
determine if the remedy should not take effect for policy reasons. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(2). During
that 60-day period, any articles slated for exclusion are entitled to entry under bond at a rate set by
PUBLIC VERSION

91
the Commission. See 19 U.S.C. §1337(j)(3). The purpose of the bond is to protect the complainant
from any injury. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(a)(1)(ii), § 210.50(a)(3).
When reliable price information is available, the Commission has often set the bond by
eliminating the differential between the protected product price and the infringing product price.
See Microsphere Adhesives, Processes for Making Same, and Prods. Containing Same, Including
Self-Stick Repositionable Notes, Inv. No. 337-TA-366, USITC Pub. 2949, Comm’n Op. at 24
(Dec. 8, 1995). In other cases, the Commission has turned to alternative approaches, especially
when a reasonable royalty rate could be ascertained. See, e.g., Certain Integrated Circuit
Telecomm. Chips and Prods. Containing Same, Including Dialing Apparatus, Inv. No.
337-TA-337, USITC Pub. No. 2670, Comm’n Op., 1993 WL 13033517 at *27-28 (August 1993).
A 100-percent bond has been required when no effective alternative existed. See, e.g., Certain
Flash Memory Circuits and Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-382, USITC Pub.
No. 3046, Comm’n. Op. at 26–27 (July 1997) (imposing a 100-percent bond when price
comparison was not practical and the proposed royalty rate was without adequate support in the
record).
Presto requests that the bond in this investigation be set at 100 percent, arguing that there
is a “lack of reliable pricing data from Respondents” and “no reasonable royalty exists upon which
to base a bond amount.” Memo. at 97–98. Staff agrees, noting the lack of reliable evidence
because “Dalian Respondents have defaulted without entering an appearance or providing any
discovery.” Staff Resp. at 52–53.
There was no discovery from respondents in this investigation as all respondents were
either terminated or found in default without participating in discovery. See Order Nos. 7 and 10.
The record therefore lacks reliable evidence upon which to base a bond amount. Therefore, to
PUBLIC VERSION

92
ensure that the complainant is protected “from any injury” if a respondent attempts to import
accused articles during the Presidential review period, I recommend that the bond amount be set
at 100 percent of the entered value of the accused products.
VII. INITIAL DETERMINATION AND ORDER
It is my initial determination that Presto’s Motion No. 1171-006 for summary
determination of domestic industry, violation, and remedy is granted. I have determined that a
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, has occurred in the importation
into the United States, and the sale for importation, of certain child resistant closures and slider
devices that infringe claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531; claims 1, 4, 6–8, 11,
12, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,554,628; and claims l, 3, 5, and 8 of U.S. Patent
No. 10,273,058.
Further, I recommend that the Commission issue a general exclusion order. If no general
exclusion order is issued, I recommend that limited exclusion orders be issued against respondents
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Dalian, China, and Dalian Altma Industry Co.,
Ltd., of Dalian, Liaoning, China. I do not recommend cease and desist orders be entered against
any respondent. I recommend that a 100-percent bond be established for importation during the
Presidential review period.
All other motions pending in this investigation, if any, are denied as moot in view of this
initial determination.
All issues delegated to the administrative law judge pursuant to the Notice of Investigation
have been decided, with dispositions as to all respondents. Accordingly, this investigation is
concluded in its entirety.
I hereby certify to the Commission this Initial Determination and the Recommended
Determination.
PUBLIC VERSION

93
The Secretary shall serve the confidential version of this Initial Determination upon
counsel who are signatories to the Protective Order (Order No. 1) issued in this investigation. A
public version will be served at a later date upon all parties of record.
Pursuant 	to 	19 	C.F.R. 	§ 	210.42(h), 	this 	Initial 	Determination 	shall 	become 	the
determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.43(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 therein.
Within seven days of the date of this document, the parties must jointly submit a statement
to Cheney337@ustic.gov stating whether or not each seeks to have any portion of this document
redacted from the public version. 	Should any party seek to have any portion of this document
redacted from the public version thereof, the parties shall attach to the statement a copy of a joint
proposed public version of this document indicating with red brackets any portion asserted to
contain confidential business information. 12 	To the extent possible, the proposed redactions
should be made electronically, in a PDF of the issued order, using the “Redact Tool” within Adobe
Acrobat, wherein the proposed redactions are submitted as “marked” but not yet “applied.” The
12 If the parties submit excessive redactions, they may be required to provide an additional written
statement, supported by declarations from individuals with personal knowledge, justifying each
proposed redaction and specifically explaining why the information sought to be redacted meets
the definition for confidential business information set forth in Commission Rule 201.6(a).
19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a).
PUBLIC VERSION

94
parties’ submission concerning the public version of this document should not be filed with the
Commission Secretary.
Issued: April 21, 2020
PUBLIC VERSION

CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES WITH SLIDER
DEVICES HAVING A USER ACTUATED INSERTABLE
TORPEDO FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served via EDIS
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Megan Wantland, Esq., and
the following parties as indicated, on May 21, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc.:
Daniel H. Shulman, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: dshulman@vedderprice.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

In the Matter of

CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES
WITH SLIDER DEVICES HAVING A USER
ACTUATED INSERTABLE TORPEDO FOR
SELECTIVELY OPENING THE CLOSURES
AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR

Investigation No. 337-TA-1171

Publication 5291 March 2022

U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

U.S. International Trade Commission
COMMISSIONERS
Jason E. Kearns, Chair
Randolph J. Stayin, Vice Chair
David S. Johanson, Commissioner
Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, 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
Publication 5291 March 2022
Washington, DC 20436
www.usitc.gov
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES
WITH SLIDER DEVICES HAVING A USER
ACTUATED INSERTABLE TORPEDO FOR
SELECTIVELY OPENING THE CLOSURES
AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Investigation No. 337-TA-1171

3
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the ID granting summary
determination, and the party’s submissions, the Commission has determined to affirm, with
modified reasoning, the ID’s findings with respect to the economic prong of the domestic
industry requirement and, thus, the ID’s finding of a violation of section 337. The Commission
has also determined that the appropriate remedy in this investigation is a GEO prohibiting the
unlicensed entry of certain child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated
insertable torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor that infringe
certain claims of the three patents asserted in the investigation, pursuant to section 337(g)(2) (19
U.S.C. 1337(g)(2)). The Commission has further determined that the bond during the period of
Presidential review pursuant to section 337(j) (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be in the amount of 100
percent of the entered value of the imported articles that are subject to the GEO. The
Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsection
337(d)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude the issuance of the GEO. The Commission’s
order was delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of
its issuance. This investigation is hereby terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for these determinations took place on August 27, 2020.
The authority for the Commission’s determinations 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).
While temporary remote operating procedures are in place in response to COVID-19, the
Office of the Secretary is not able to serve parties that have not retained counsel or otherwise
provided a point of contact for electronic service. Accordingly, pursuant to Commission Rules
201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission orders that the
Complainant(s) complete service for any party/parties without a method of electronic service
noted on the attached Certificate of Service and shall file proof of service on the Electronic
Document Information System (EDIS).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: August 27, 2020

CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES WITH SLIDER
DEVICES HAVING A USER ACTUATED INSERTABLE
TORPEDO FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached NOTICE has been served via EDIS
upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Megan Wantland, Esq., and the following
parties as indicated, on August 27, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc.:
Daniel H. Shulman, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: dshulman@vedderprice.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd.
Room 101, Unit 2, No. 125 ChangChun Road
XiGang District, Dalian
China 116011
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd.
No. 36, North Fuquan Road, Economic and Technological
Development Zone, Dalian, Liaoning
China 116100
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

2
to issue a general exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation of infringing child
resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable torpedo for selectively
opening the closures and slider devices therefor.
The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in 19
U.S.C. § 1337(d) do not preclude issuance of a general exclusion order, and that the bond during
the period of Presidential review shall be in the amount of one hundred (100) percent of the
entered value of the articles in question.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby ORDERS that:
1. Child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable
torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor (as
defined in paragraph 2 below) that infringe one or more of claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-
10 of the ’531 patent, claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of the ’628 patent, and
claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of the ’058 patent 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
Asserted Patents, except under license from, or with the permission of, the patent
owner or as provided by law until such date as the Asserted Patents are
abandoned, canceled, or rendered invalid or unenforceable.
2. The child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable
torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor subject to
this exclusion order (i.e., “covered articles”) are as follows: reclosable zippers
and slider devices for packages, including bags and pouches, that are resistant to
opening by young children.

3
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 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 from a warehouse for consumption under bond in the
amount of one hundred (100) percent of the entered value of the products,
pursuant to subsection (j) of section 337 (19 U.S.C. § 1337(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 approved or 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
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), in advance of the date of the entry,
pursuant to procedures CBP establishes
4. At the discretion of CBP and pursuant to procedures it establishes, persons
seeking to import child resistant closures with slider devices having a user
actuated insertable torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices
therefor that are potentially subject to this Order may be required to certify that
they are familiar with the terms 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 paragraph 1 of this
Order. At its discretion, CBP may require persons who have provided the
certification described in this paragraph to furnish records or analyses as are
necessary to substantiate the certification.

4
5. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1337(l), 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.
6. 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).
7. The Secretary shall serve copies of this Order upon each party of record in this
investigation and upon CBP.
8. Notice of this Order shall be published in the Federal Register.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: August 27, 2020

CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES WITH SLIDER
DEVICES HAVING A USER ACTUATED INSERTABLE
TORPEDO FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached COMMISSION ORDER has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Megan Wantland, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on August 27, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc.:
Daniel H. Shulman, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: dshulman@vedderprice.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd.
Room 101, Unit 2, No. 125 ChangChun Road
XiGang District, Dalian
China 116011
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd.
No. 36, North Fuquan Road, Economic and Technological
Development Zone, Dalian, Liaoning
China 116100
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

PUBLIC VERSION
1
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT
CLOSURES WITH SLIDER DEVICES
HAVING A USER ACTUATED
INSERTABLE TORPEDO FOR
SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES
THEREFOR
Investigation No. 337-TA-1171
COMMISSION OPINION
The Commission has determined that there has been a violation of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“section 337”), with respect to U.S. Patent
Nos. 9,505,531 (“the ’531 patent”), 9,554,628 (“the ’628 patent”), and 10,273,058 (“the ’058
patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) on review of the presiding administrative law
judge’s (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 12). After considering the public
interest, the Commission has also determined that the appropriate form of relief is a general
exclusion order (“GEO”) prohibiting the unlicensed importation of articles that infringe certain
claims of the Asserted Patents. The Commission has further determined to set a bond during the
period of Presidential review in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the infringing
articles. This opinion sets forth the Commission’s reasoning in support of its determinations. In
addition, the Commission adopts the findings in the ID that are not inconsistent with this
opinion.

PUBLIC VERSION
2
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
On August 21, 2019, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint
filed by Reynolds Presto Products Inc. (“Presto”) of Lake Forest, Illinois. 84 Fed. Reg. 43616-
17 (Aug. 21, 2019). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based on
the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United
States after importation of certain child resistant closures with slider devices having a user
actuated insertable torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor by
reason of infringement of claims 1, 3, and 5-10 of the ’531 patent, claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 15,
and 19 of the ’628 patent, and claims 1, 3, and 5-8 of the ’058 patent. Id. at 43616. The
complaint further alleges that a domestic industry (“DI”) exists. Id.
The Commission’s notice of investigation names six respondents: (1) Dalian Takebishi
of Dalian, China; (2) Dalian Altma of Dalian, Liaoning, China (collectively, the “Dalian
Respondents”); and (3) Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan; (4) Takebishi Co., Ltd., of
Shiga, Japan; (5) Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd., of Shanghai, China; and (6)
Qingdao Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Qingdao, China (collectively, the “Unserved
Respondents”). Id. at 43616-17. It also names the Office of Unfair Import Investigations
(“OUII”) as a party. Id. at 43617.
During the course of the investigation, both Dalian Respondents were found in default.
Order No. 7 (Oct. 30, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 26, 2019). The Commission
also terminated the four Unserved Respondents, which were never served with the complaint and
notice of investigation, based on Presto’s withdrawal of the complaint as to those respondents.
Order No. 10 (Nov. 19, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Dec. 18, 2019). The

PUBLIC VERSION
3
Commission further terminated the investigation as to claims 6 and 7 of the ’531 patent and
claims 6 and 7 of the ’058 patent. Id.
On November 15, 2019, Presto moved for summary determination that it had satisfied the
DI requirement and that the Dalian Respondents had violated section 337.1 Presto’s motion
requested the immediate entry of a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) against the Dalian
Respondents, a GEO, and a 100 percent bond during the period of Presidential review. ID at 2
(citing CMot. at 1).
On November 26, 2019, OUII filed a response supporting the requested relief. Id.2 More
specifically, OUII argued that Presto had shown that: (i) the importation requirement was
satisfied; (ii) the accused products infringe the asserted claims; and (iii) a DI exists with respect
to products protected by at least one claim of each Asserted Patent. OResp. at 2-3. OUII also
supported Presto’s request for a GEO and the imposition of a 100 percent bond during the period
of Presidential review. Id. at 3-4. No respondent filed a response to Presto’s motion. Id. at 2.
On April 21, 2020, the ALJ issued a combined initial determination (“ID”) and
recommended determination (“RD”) on remedy and bonding. The ID finds, inter alia, that
Presto: (i) established the importation requirement (ID at 9-10); (ii) demonstrated that the Dalian
Respondents’ accused products infringe claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 of the ’531 patent, claims 1, 4,
6-8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of the ’628 patent, and claims l, 3, 5, and 8 of the ’058 patent (id. at 12-
1 Corrected Complainant’s Motion for Summary Determination with Respect to Domestic
Industry, Violation and Remedy (Nov. 15, 2019) (“CMot.”), memorandum in support thereof
(“CMemo.”), and statement of facts (“SOF”).
2 Commission Investigative Staff’s Response to Corrected Complainant’s Motion for Summary
Determination with Respect to Domestic Industry, Violation and Remedy (Nov. 26, 2019)
(“OResp.”).

PUBLIC VERSION
4
57)3; and (iii) demonstrated that the DI products are protected by at least one claim of each
Asserted Patent and that a DI exists in the United States (id. at 57-79). The RD recommends that
the Commission (i) issue a GEO or, in the alternative, an LEO directed to the Dalian
Respondents and (ii) set a 100 percent bond for importation during the period of Presidential
review. RD at 79-92. The RD does not recommend issuing cease and desist orders (“CDOs”),
which Presto did not request in its underlying motion.
On May 1, 2020, OUII filed a petition seeking review of a “very limited portion” of the
ID’s economic prong analysis.4 OPet. at 1. OUII argued that:
[T]he Commission should review a statement in the [ID’s] analysis of the
economic prong of the [DI] requirement concerning the significance and
substantiality of Presto’s investments and, on review, affirm the [ID’s]
conclusion with modified reasoning. In OUII’s view, the Commission should
not review any other portion of the [ID], particularly here where the [ID’s]
findings are based on substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, and the
Respondents have already been found in default.
Id. No other party petitioned for review of the ID, and no party filed a response to OUII’s
petition.
On June 5, 2020, the Commission determined to review the ID in part with respect to the
ID’s analysis of the economic prong of the DI requirement. 85 Fed. Reg. 35662, 35663 (June 11,
2020). The Commission’s notice also requested written submissions on remedy, the public
interest, and bonding. Id. The notice further enquired as to whether Presto seeks CDOs against
the Dalian Respondents. Id.
3 See Notice of Errata to Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended
Determination on Remedy and Bond (April 22, 2020) (correcting typographical error in list of
infringed claims on page 92 of the ID).
4 Petition of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations for Limited Review of Order No. 12:
Initial Determination Granting Summary Determination (May 1, 2020) (“OPet.”).

PUBLIC VERSION
6
Id. at 4-5 (reproducing ’531 patent, Fig. 14). Figure 2 of the shared specification, which is
reproduced below, “shows an embodiment of the claimed slider 1 having a flexible tab 2 with
torpedo 3”:
Id. at 5 (reproducing ’531 patent, Fig. 5).
C. The Accused Products
The accused products are child-resistant zippers for opening and closing plastic bags. Id.
at 6. “To open the zipper, a tab must be held down to engage a torpedo and separate the zipper

PUBLIC VERSION
7
tracks.” Id. Images of Physical Exhibits 1 and 2 to the complaint, which exemplify the accused
products, are reproduced below:
Physical Exhibit 1 – Sample of Accused Product
Front Back
Top View 1
(red slider with a torpedo on
a white zipper track)
Top View 2
(torpedo flexed upward from
the zipper track)
Id. (citing Compl. Phys. Ex. 1).

PUBLIC VERSION
8
Physical Exhibit 2 – Sample of Accused Product
Front Back
Top View 1
(red slider with a torpedo on
a white zipper track)
Top View 2
(torpedo flexed upward from
the zipper track)
Id. at 7 (citing Compl. Phys. Ex. 2; see also OResp. at 7-8).
D. The Domestic Industry Products
The DI products, which practice the asserted claims, are child-resistant zippers for
opening and closing plastic bags. See id. at 8. Presto manufactures the tracks for child-resistant

PUBLIC VERSION
9
bags, and its contractors produce the sliders used on the tracks. Id. (citing Petkovsek Aff.7 ¶ 5;
Hansen Decl.8 ¶ 5). Id. Presto grants its customers permission to incorporate the patented slider
closure in their packaging. Id. (citing CMemo. at 98 n.5). The following image is an exemplary
DI product that was produced with Presto’s permission:
Id. (citing Thomas Decl.9 Ex. 1 at 1).
7 Affidavit of Greg Petkovsek, attached as Exhibit 6 to Presto’s motion (“Petkovsek Aff.”). Mr.
Petkovsek is Presto’s Director of Research & Development. Petkovsek Aff. ¶ 1.
8 Declaration of Brad Hansen Concerning the Economic Prong of Domestic Industry, attached as
Confidential Exhibit 11 to the complaint (“Hansen Decl.”). Mr. Hansen is President of Presto’s
Specialty Business Unit. Hansen Decl. ¶ 1.
9 Declaration of Toby Thomas, attached as Exhibit 2 to Presto’s motion (“Thomas Decl.”).
Presto retained Mr. Thomas as an expert witness in this investigation. Thomas Decl. ¶ 1.

PUBLIC VERSION
10
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard on Review
Commission Rule 210.45(c) provides that “[o]n review, the Commission may affirm,
reverse, modify, set aside or remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part, the initial
determination of the [ALJ]” and that “[t]he Commission also may make any findings or
conclusions that in its judgment are proper based on the record in the proceeding.” See 19
C.F.R. § 210.45(c). In addition, as explained in Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Yarn &
Prods. Containing Same, “[o]nce the Commission determines to review an initial determination,
the Commission reviews the determination under a de novo standard.” Inv. No. 337-TA-457,
Comm’n Op., 2002 WL 1349938, at *5 (June 18, 2002) (citations omitted). This is “consistent
with the Administrative Procedure Act which provides that once an initial agency decision is
taken up for review, ‘the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule.’” Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 557(b)).
B. Summary Determination
Under Commission Rule 210.18, summary determination “shall be rendered if [the]
pleadings and any depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a summary determination as a matter of law.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.18(b).
“[I]n deciding a motion for summary judgment, ‘the evidence of the nonmovant is to be
believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.’” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). “The summary judgment movant has the initial responsibility of
identifying the legal basis of its motion, and of pointing to those portions of the record that it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Novartis Corp, v. Ben

PUBLIC VERSION
11
Venue Labs., Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
C. Violation of Section 337(a)(1)(B)
Section 337(a)(1)(B) provides that the Commission has authority to investigate and
adjudicate unfair trade practices relating to “[t]he importation into the United States, the sale for
importation, or the sale within the United States after importation . . . of articles that . . . infringe
a valid and enforceable United States patent.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B). Thus, a violation of
section 337(a)(1)(B) requires a showing of: (1) importation; (2) infringement of a valid and
enforceable patent; and (3) an industry in the United States relating to the articles protected by
the asserted patent. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B), (a)(2), and (a)(3).
D. Domestic Industry: Technical and Economic Prongs
When a section 337 investigation is based on allegations of patent infringement, the
complainant must show that an industry “relating to the articles protected by the patent . . . exists
or is in the process of being established” in the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). This
domestic industry requirement of section 337 is often described as having a “technical prong”
and a “economic prong.” InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295,
1298 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
The “technical prong” requires that the complainant practice the patented invention.
Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The test for
determining whether the technical prong is met through the practice of the patent “is essentially
same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted claims.”
Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). It is sufficient that the
domestic industry product practices at least one valid claim of each patent that serves as a basis
for relief; it is not necessary for the complainant to practice the same claims it is asserting against

PUBLIC VERSION
12
the respondent. Certain Male Prophylactic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-546, Comm’n Op. at 38
(Aug. 1, 2007).
The “economic prong” requires, with respect to the products protected by a patent, either:
(a) “significant investment in plant and equipment”; (b) “significant employment of labor or
capital”; or (c) “substantial investment in [the patent’s] exploitation, including engineering,
research and development, or licensing.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3). The Commission has clarified
that its decisions as to the existence of a domestic industry are not based on the amount of an
investment divorced from the circumstances of a particular case. Rather, the Commission
evaluates the significance or substantiality of domestic industry expenditures “based on a proper
contextual analysis in the relevant timeframe such as in the context of” the complainant’s or its
licensee’s “operations, the marketplace, or the industry in question.” Certain Solid State Storage
Drives, Stacked Elecs. Components, & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1097,
Comm’n Op., 2018 WL 4300500, at *18 (June 29, 2018).
The Commission has also explained that this contextual analysis can reflect “a number of
factors and approaches.” Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes & Cartridges Containing the
Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1012, Comm’n Op., 2018 WL 8648372, at *75 (Apr. 2, 2018). The
Commission has “sought to place the value of domestic investments in the context of the relevant
marketplace, such as by comparing a complainant’s domestic expenditures to its foreign
expenditures or considering the value added to the product from a complainant’s activities in the
United States.” Certain Carburetors & Prods. Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-1123,
Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 5622443, at *12 (Oct. 28, 2019) (“Carburetors”). Section 337(a)(3)
does not require a minimum monetary expenditure, nor does it obligate the complainant “to
define or quantify the industry itself in absolute mathematical terms.” Certain Stringed Musical

PUBLIC VERSION
13
Instruments & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-586, Comm’n Op., 2008 WL 2139143, at
*14 (May 16, 2008) (“Stringed Instruments”).
III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
The ID grants Presto’s motion for a summary determination of violation of section 337.
The Commission determined to review the ID only with respect to its economic prong analysis.
85 Fed. Reg. 35662, 35663 (June 11, 2020). The Commission did not request further briefing
from the parties on this issue. Id.
A. The ID
The ID finds that Presto “proffered substantial, reliable, and probative evidence showing
that Presto satisfies the economic prong of the [DI] requirement under section 337(a)(3)(A), (B),
and (C)” with respect to each of the patents in suit. ID at 74; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2).
1. Plant and Equipment (Subsection 337(a)(3)(A))
As to plant investments, the ID finds that Presto “invested in significant domestic facility
space dedicated to its production of child-resistant closures.” Id. The ID finds that Presto (i)
“has facilities in [ ] that manufacture all the track for its
child-resistant closures,” id. (citing Petkovsek Aff. ¶ 18), and (ii) “contracts the manufacture [of]
the slider portion of the closure from [ ],” id. (citing Hansen Decl. ¶ 5). In
addition, the “[ ] []
and the [ ] for the
child-resistant closures.” Id. (citing Hansen Decl. ¶ 8).
As to equipment investments, the ID finds that that “Presto spent [
] on equipment for these plants,” as shown in the following table:

PUBLIC VERSION
14
[
]
Id. at 74-75; Mitra Decl.10 Ex. E. Further, because all of this equipment “is used exclusively for
producing child-resistant closures under Presto’s authority,” the ID finds that “investments in
that machinery are investments related to articles protected by the asserted patents within the
meaning of section 337(a)(3)(A).” Id. at 75 (citing Mitra Decl. Ex. E).
The ID also finds that Presto’s investments in building insertion machines—i.e.,
machines for inserting the slider devices onto the reclosable track—is “an investment in
equipment related to articles protected by the asserted patents.” Id. (citing Presto’s First Suppl.
Interrog. Resps.11 at 23-30 (Interrog. No. 6); Athans Aff.12 ¶ 8). It appears the ID may have
inadvertently omitted this investment from its summary table on page 78, reproduced below, of
10 Declaration of Sudip K. Mitra, attached as Exhibit 9 to Presto’s motion (“Mitra Decl.”). Mr.
Mitra is counsel for Presto. Mitra Decl. ¶ 1.
11 Complainant’s Supplemental Answers to Commission Investigative Staff’s First Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 1-21) (Oct. 4, 2019), attached as Exhibit 10 to Presto’s motion (“Presto’s
First Suppl. Interrog. Resps.”).
12 Affidavit of John Athans, attached as Exhibit 3 to Presto’s motion (“Athans Aff.”).

PUBLIC VERSION
15
investments in the articles protected by the Asserted Patents under section 337(a)(3)(A). See id.
at 78.
2. Labor and Capital (Subsection 337(a)(3)(B))
The ID finds that the evidence shows that (i) Presto’s suppliers, [
], employ “[ ]” in the U.S. to
make [ ] sliders for incorporation into the DI products, id. at 76 (citing Mitra Decl. Ex. F;
Hansen Decl. ¶ 8), and (ii) Presto [ ] employs “[ ]” in the U.S.
to make track for the DI products, id. at 76-77 (citing Mitra Decl. Ex. F; Hansen Decl. ¶ 8). The
ID finds that “this is an employment of labor related to articles protected by the asserted patents
within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(B).” Id. at 76-77.
3. Engineering, Research and Development, and Licensing (Subsection
337(a)(3)(C))
The ID finds that the evidence shows that Presto “spent [approximately] [
] in research and development related to child-resistant closures.” Id. at 77 (citing
Presto’s Second Suppl. Interrog. Resps.13 at 42-45 (Interrog. No. 8)). The ID finds “these
expenditures to be relevant under section 337(a)(3)(C).” Id.
4. Whether Presto’s Domestic Investments Are Significant and
Substantial
The ID finds that, “based on the undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
outlined above,” Presto met its burden of showing that a DI exists in the U.S. under sections
337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C). Id. at 78. Specifically, the ID finds that the “evidence demonstrates
that Presto is a domestic company with minimal operations abroad and that all of its products are
13 Complainant’s Second Supplemental Answers to Commission Investigative Staff’s First Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 1-21) (Nov. 11, 2019) (“Presto’s Second Suppl. Interrog. Resps.”), attached
as Exhibit 11 to Presto’s motion.

PUBLIC VERSION
16
made domestically.” Id. (citing Petkovsek Aff. ¶ 5; Hansen Aff.14 ¶ 3; Hansen Decl. ¶ 5). The
ID provides the following table summarizing Presto’s investments and expenditures in the
articles protected by the Asserted Patents, according to sub-prongs A, B, and C:
[
]
Id.
The ID concludes that “the magnitude and quantity of these expenses and investments
alone is significant and substantial in any context.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Lelo Inc. v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 786 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).15 The ID also noted that “even when
considering the qualitative significance of Presto’s domestic expenditures in context, its
investments, employments, and activities are clearly significant and substantial.” Id. at 78-79
(citing Stringed Instruments).16
B. OUII’s Petition
OUII petitioned for review of a “very limited portion” of the ID’s economic prong
analysis concerning the significance and substantiality of Presto’s investments and submitted
that, on review, the Commission should affirm the ID’s conclusion with modified reasoning.
14 Affidavit of Bradford Hansen, attached as Exhibit 4 to Presto’s motion (“Hansen Aff.”). As
noted above, Mr. Hansen is President of Presto’s Specialty Business Unit. Hansen Aff. ¶ 1.
15 In Lelo, the Federal Circuit explained that “[t]he plain text of § 337 requires a quantitative
analysis in determining whether a petitioner has demonstrated a ‘significant investment in plant
and equipment’ or ‘significant employment of labor or capital.” Lelo, 786 F.3d at 883.
16 In Stringed Instruments, the Commission explained that analyzing the significance of the
complainant’s investment “will depend on the industry in question, and the complainant’s
relative size.” Stringed Instruments, Comm’n Op., 2008 WL 2139143, at *14

PUBLIC VERSION
17
OPet. at 1. Specifically, OUII asserted that one sentence from the ID—“‘It is further determined
that the magnitude and quantity of these expenses and investments alone is significant and
substantial in any context.’”—could be taken out of context in subsequent investigations. Id. at
5-6 (quoting ID at 78 (OUII’s emphasis)).
In OUII’s view, “this statement is overly broad, and does not acknowledge Commission
decisions in which domestic investments must be evaluated, not in any context, but in the context
of the [c]omplainant’s operations, the relevant marketplace, or the industry in question.” Id. at 6
(citing Carburetors, Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 5622443, at *11-12). That is, per OUII, “rather
than rely on the absolute value of the domestic expenditures, context is ‘necessary to understand
whether the value of [the] domestic activities is significant or substantial.’” Id. (quoting
Carburetors, Comm’n Op., 2019 WL 5622443, at *13).
OUII asserts that, instead of providing a quantitative analysis involving the context of
Presto’s investments and expenditures, the ID finds “that certain investments and expenditures
are merely related or relevant to the domestic products.” Id. OUII agreed, however, with the
ID’s conclusion that Presto has a DI within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(A) because “the
evidence demonstrates that Presto’s investments in plant and equipment are both qualitatively
and quantitatively significant.” Id. at 7 (citing ID at 74-75, 78).17
C. Analysis
The Commission has determined to affirm with modified reasoning the ID’s finding that
Presto satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Specifically, the
17 OUII explained in a footnote that it “does not dispute the [ID’s] factual findings concerning
the investment and expenditure totals under section 337(a)(3)(B) and (C).” Id. at 8 n.5 (citing ID
at 78). “Nevertheless, OUII maintains the view that there are insufficient facts on which the
investments and expenditures in these categories (i.e., (B) and (C)) may be quantitatively
analyzed.” Id. (citing OResp. at 39-40 n.23). “Such [an] analysis is unnecessary, however,
because Presto has satisfied the [DI] requirement under subprong (A).” Id.

PUBLIC VERSION
18
Commission (i) affirms with modified reasoning the ID’s finding that Presto’s investments in
plant and equipment satisfy section 337(a)(3)(A), and (ii) takes no position on the ID’s findings
that Presto satisfies the economic prong under section 337(a)(3)(B) or (C).
As to Presto’s investments in plant and equipment, the evidence shows that Presto has
[ ] that manufacture all the track for its domestic industry products and
that Presto’s [ ] that manufacture all the sliders used in
these products. ID at 74; CMemo. at 70. The ID finds, and the Commission agrees, that Presto’s
[ ] between [ ] in equipment used at these [
]—which are “used exclusively for producing the [domestic industry products] under
Presto’s authority”—are properly credited under section 337(a)(3)(A). ID at 74-75
The Commission also clarifies that Presto’s asserted investments, circa [ ], for
the [ ] insertion machines (which Presto’s customers use to insert sliders onto the
reclosable tracks to make the domestic industry products) are properly credited under section
337(a)(3)(A). See id. at 75; OResp. at 37 (citing CMemo. at 71, 74-75; SOF at ¶¶ 48-49; Athans
Aff. ¶ 8).18 Presto reported the total value of the [ ], and it further
explained that [ ]
parts were sourced domestically. Id. at 71, 74. Presto discounted the value of the insertion
machines by excluding the value of the foreign sourced parts, which yielded a [
]. Id. (relying solely on Presto’s investments in domestically sourced parts for the
machines). While a complainant is not normally required to segregate the value of foreign-
18 Although the ID expressly finds that these investments are “related to articles protected by the
asserted patents,” these investments were not incorporated into the final sum reported in the ID’s
summary table. See ID at 75, 78.

PUBLIC VERSION
19
sourced components of its domestic equipment investments, see 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(A), the
Commission will credit the discounted investments that Presto has claimed here.
The Commission therefore relies on Presto’s track manufacturing equipment ([
]), its contractors’ slider manufacturing equipment ([ ]), and the [
] insertion machines (which Presto provides to its customers to put together the closures) in
concluding that Presto has satisfied the domestic industry requirement under section
337(a)(3)(A). These investments are summarized in the following table:
Equipment
Category
Investment
Amount (USD)
Percentage of
Investment
Claimed by
Presto (%)
Investment
Amount
Claimed by
Presto (USD)
Investment
Amount the
Commission
has Credited
(USD)
Equipment to
manufacture
sliders and track
$[ ] [ ]% $[ ] $[ ]
[ ] insertion
machines
$[ ] [ ]% $[ ] $[ ]
Totals $[ ] [ ]% $[ ] $[ ]
See CMemo. at 74-75; SOF at ¶ 55.
As to the ID’s analysis of whether Presto’s investments are significant, the Commission
strikes the ID’s statement that “[i]t is further determined that the magnitude and quantity of these
expenses and investments alone is significant and substantial in any context.” ID at 78
(emphasis added). This language erroneously suggests that the absolute magnitude of
investments can be dispositive of the economic prong determination, with no context-dependent
considerations. This would be contrary to Federal Circuit precedent and prior Commission
decisions. See Lelo, 786 F.3d at 883-84 (noting that the Commission “[has] found that the word
‘significant’ denote[s] ‘an assessment of the relative importance of the domestic activities’”)
(quoting Certain Concealed Cabinet Hinges & Mounting Plates, Inv. No. 337-TA-289, 1990 WL

PUBLIC VERSION
20
10608981, Comm’n Op., at *11 (Jan. 8, 1990)); Printing Devices, Comm’n Op. at 31
(recognizing that “the magnitude of the investment cannot be assessed without consideration of
the nature and importance of the complainant’s activities to the patented products in the context
of the marketplace or industry in question”); Certain Movable Barrier Operator Sys. &
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1118, Comm’n Order Vacating and Remanding Order
No. 38 at 5 (Apr. 22, 2020) (“Order No. 38 does not appropriately evaluate the relative
significance of [complainant’s] investments in labor and capital or plant and equipment, as
opposed to their absolute value”); Carburetors, Comm’n Op. at 8-10.
Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with the ID’s ultimate conclusion that the record
evidence demonstrates that Presto’s investments in plant and equipment are quantitatively
significant. The undisputed evidence shows that, since [ ], Presto’s investments led to the
domestic manufacture of all the tracks ([ ]) and all the sliders
([ ]) that have been used in the domestic industry products. OResp. at 35-36
(citing CMemo. at 69-72, 74; SOF ¶¶ 47, 51-53; Hansen Decl. ¶ 5; Petkovsek Decl. ¶ 5).19 The
Commission therefore determines that Presto’s investments are significant within the context of
Presto’s operations.
Consequently, the Commission has determined to affirm with modified reasoning the
ID’s finding that Presto has shown, through substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, that its
investments are significant under section 337(a)(3)(A). The Commission takes no position on
19 Presto states that the only non-U.S. parts related to Presto’s domestic industry products are
“off-the-shelf parts (i.e., bowls or funnels) used in manufacturing to allow the customer to sort
the slider components of the [domestic industry] [p]roducts prior to inserting them onto the
track.” Athans Aff. ¶ 3.

PUBLIC VERSION
21
the ID’s findings that Presto satisfies the economic prong under section 337(a)(3)(B) or (C).
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984).20
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that undisputed, substantial, reliable, and
probative evidence supports the ID’s conclusion that Presto demonstrated a violation of section
337. See ID at 10 (finding the importation requirement satisfied), 13-57 (finding the asserted
claims infringed), 58-74 (finding the technical prong of the DI requirement satisfied); see also
supra at 18-21 (determining to affirm with modified reasoning the finding that the economic
prong of the DI requirement is satisfied).
IV. REMEDY, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING
A. Remedy
The Commission has “broad discretion in selecting the form, scope, and extent of the
remedy.” Viscofan, S.A. v. Int’1 Trade Comm’n, 787 F.2d 544, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
1. General Exclusion Order
Where, as here, no respondent appeared to contest the complainant’s allegations, the
Commission may issue a GEO if “a violation is established by substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence” and “the requirements of subsection (d)(2)” of section 337 are met, subject to
consideration of the public interest. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(g)(2). Section 337(d)(2), in turn,
provides:
The authority of the Commission to order an exclusion from entry of
articles shall be limited to persons determined by the Commission to be
violating this section unless the Commission determines that—
(A) a general exclusion from entry of articles is necessary to prevent
circumvention of an exclusion order limited to products of named
persons; or
20 While Commissioner Schmidtlein agrees with the majority, she notes that she takes no
position with respect to prongs (B) and (C) for reasons of administrative efficiency.

PUBLIC VERSION
22
(B) there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to
identify the source of infringing products.
19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2).
The Commission agrees with the ALJ’s recommendation to issue a GEO against
infringing products. Specifically, undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
supports a finding that Presto demonstrated a violation of section 337. In addition, the
Commission finds that the requirements of section 337(d)(2) are met and that a GEO is
warranted in this investigation.
a. Circumvention of a Limited Exclusion Order
The Commission finds that a GEO is necessary to prevent circumvention of an LEO. See
RD at 80-84; 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(A).
The undisputed record demonstrates the Dalian Respondents’ use of alter egos and sham
corporate entities with respect to the infringing products supports “a conclusion that the Dalian
[R]espondents intend to circumvent lawful enforcement of Presto’s patent rights.” RD at 83.
The Commission also agrees with the RD that the Dalian Respondents “likely will use different
corporate names and addresses to circumvent exclusion orders limited to specific corporate
entities.” Id. (citing Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters & Prods. Containing Same, Inv.
No. 337-TA-739, Comm’n Op. at 88-89 (June 8, 2012) (a GEO was appropriate based on
evidence that named respondents would likely circumvent an LEO by changing their corporate
identity); Certain Cases for Portable Elec. Devices, Inv. No. 867, Comm’n Op. at 9 (June 20,
2014) (a GEO was appropriate where there was evidence of “companies operating under fake
names and fake addresses”).
Presto’s unrebutted evidence also shows that (i) the “cost of manufacturing the accused
product in Asia is low,” (ii) “the costs to make relevant molds in China ‘are between one-fourth

PUBLIC VERSION
23
and one-half of the U.S. costs,’” (iii) “the setup to begin commercial production of infringing
goods in China can cost as little as $80,000,” and (iv) the “molds for producing the accused
products are portable and easily transferred between entities.” Id. at 84 (citing Athans Aff. ¶¶ 9-
14; Petkovsek Aff. ¶¶ 7-9). Therefore, the Commission agrees with the RD that “[t]hese facts
support Presto’s unrebutted assertion that the persons behind the Dalian [R]espondents could
easily circumvent limited exclusion orders by setting up new companies that continue the
infringing course of conduct.” Id. (citing Certain Toner Cartridges, & Components Thereof, Inv.
No. 337-TA-918, Comm’n Op., 2015 WL 13817122, at *4 (Oct. 1, 2015) (“Toner Cartridges”)
(noting that “if only LEOs are issued, operations could be easily replicated”)).
The evidence also shows that (i) “a product obtained from the Dalian [R]espondents []
lacks any visible origin or identification marker,” (ii) “the Dalian [R]espondents advertise [that]
their zipper closures may be incorporated into third-party packages,” (iii) “[f]inished goods
incorporating infringing closures would have no indication of their connection to the Dalian
[R]espondents,” and (iv) “finished packages may be sold in a ‘hooded’ arrangement, where an
infringing track and slider is obscured until the hood is torn off by a consumer.” Id. at 85 (citing
Complaint Phys. Ex. 1 (packaging labeled with “Blank Brand”); Herrington Report21 ¶ 42;
Hansen Aff. ¶ 10). Therefore, the Commission agrees with the RD that the “evidence supports a
conclusion that an exclusion order limited to the Dalian respondents could be circumvented by
goods lacking any marking that would connect the infringing articles to the Dalian
[R]espondents.” Id. (citing Toner Cartridges, Comm’n Op. at *5-7).
21 Expert Report of Ryan N. Herrington, attached as Exhibit 7 to Presto’s motion (“Herrington
Report”). Mr. Herrington was retained to “evaluate the likely economic effects of Complainant’s
proposed general exclusion order.” Herrington Report ¶ 4.

PUBLIC VERSION
27
consumers.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1). The statute “does not require the Commission to
determine that a remedial order would advance the public interest factors but rather requires the
Commission to consider whether issuance of such an order will adversely affect the public
interest factors.” Certain Loom Kits for Creating Linked Articles, Inv. No. 337-TA-923,
Comm’n Op., 2015 WL 5000874, *9 (June 26, 2015) (“Loom Kits”) (citation omitted).
With respect to the first public interest factor, the Commission finds that excluding the
infringing products would not adversely affect the public health and welfare. To the contrary, it
would help “ensure compliance with important child safety standards for children within the
United States.” See CSub. at 6. For example, unlike “Presto’s domestic industry products [that]
have been tested for, and comply with federal guidelines for child resistance[,] . . . [t]here is no
evidence, much less any guarantee, that infringing child-resistant products from China comply
with any U.S. regulations on safety or testing.” Id. at 5-6; accord OSub. at 13-14 (citing Presto’s
Public Interest Statement at 2-4 (July 17, 2017) (“Presto’s PI Statement”)).
Nor does the record evidence suggest any adverse effect on the second (competitive
conditions in the U.S. economy), third (production of like or directly competitive articles in the
U.S.), or fourth (U.S. consumers) public interest factors. See OSub. at 13 (“OUII is not aware of
any evidence that would indicate that the issuance of [a GEO] would be contrary to [these
factors].”); id. at 14 (“Presto also explains that it manufactures products that are directly
competitive with the accused products and could seamless replace any excluded products. And
. . . Presto indicates there is a sufficient supply of competitive, non-infringing alternatives
already available to the U.S. market, ensuring that consumers have and will continue to have
access to like or directly competitive products and will not be negatively impacted by an
exclusion order.” (citing Presto’s PI Statement at 3-4)); CSub. at 6 (Presto “is currently the only

PUBLIC VERSION
29
reliable evidence upon which to base a bond amount.” Id. at 91. Thus, the RD recommends that
a 100 percent bond is necessary “to ensure that [Presto] is protected ‘from any injury’ if a
respondent attempts to import accused articles during the Presidential review period.” Id. at 91-
92; accord OSub. at 14-15 (“Given the state of the evidentiary record . . . and the fact that the
Dalian Respondents have defaulted (rather than provide any discovery), OUII agrees with the
ALJ’s recommendation that a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of the
accused products is appropriate . . . .”).
Thus, the Commission has determined to set the bond during the period of Presidential
review in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the infringing articles.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Commission has determined that Presto has
established a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 of the ’531 patent,
claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of the ’628 patent, and claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of the ’058
patent. After considering the public interest, the Commission has also determined that the
appropriate remedy is a GEO directed against infringing child resistant closures with slider
devices having a user actuated insertable torpedo for selectively opening the closures and slider
devices therefor. The Commission has further determined to impose a bond in the amount of
100 percent of the entered value of the infringing articles for importation that occurs during the
period of Presidential review.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: September 18, 2020

CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES WITH SLIDER
DEVICES HAVING A USER ACTUATED INSERTABLE
TORPEDO FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached COMMISSION OPINION has been
served via EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Megan Wantland, Esq., and the
following parties as indicated, on September 18, 2020.
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 112
Washington, DC 20436
On Behalf of Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc.:
Daniel H. Shulman, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Email: dshulman@vedderprice.com
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Email Notification
of Availability for Download
Respondents:
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd.
Room 101, Unit 2, No. 125 ChangChun Road
XiGang District, Dalian
China 116011
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants
Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd.
No. 36, North Fuquan Road, Economic and Technological
Development Zone, Dalian, Liaoning
China 116100
☐ Via Hand Delivery
☐ Via Express Delivery
☐ Via First Class Mail
☒ Other: Service to Be
Completed by Complainants

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES
WITH SLIDER DEVICES HAVING A USER
ACTUATED INSERTABLE TORPEDO
FOR SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES
THEREFOR
Investigation No. 337-TA-1171
NOTICE OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION TO REVIEW IN PART AN INITIAL
DETERMINATION GRANTING COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
DETERMINATION OF A VIOLATION OF SECTION 337; SCHEDULE FOR FILING
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON REMEDY, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, on April 21, 2020, the presiding administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”) in the above-captioned investigation,
granting summary determination on violation of section 337 that included a recommended
determination on remedy and bonding. On April 22, 2020, the ALJ issued a Notice of Errata
thereto. The Commission has determined to review the ID in part. The Commission requests
briefing from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection
with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at
https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 21, 2019, the Commission instituted this
investigation based on a complaint filed by Reynolds Presto Products Inc. (“Presto”). 84 Fed.
Reg. 43616-17 (Aug. 21, 2019). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) (“section 337”) based on the importation into the
United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of
certain child resistant closures with slider devices having a user actuated insertable torpedo for

2
selectively opening the closures and slider devices therefor by reason of infringement of certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,505,531 (“the ’531 patent”); 9,554,628; and 10,273,058 (“the ’058
patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Id. at 43616. The complaint further alleges that a
domestic industry exists. Id. The Commission’s notice of investigation names six respondents:
Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd. of Dalian, China (“Dalian Takebishi”); Dalian
Altma Industry Co., Ltd. of Dalian, Liaoning, China (“Dalian Altma”) (together, the “Dalian
Respondents”); Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan; Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Shiga, Japan;
Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd., of Shanghai, China; and Qingdao Takebishi
Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Qingdao, China. Id. at 43616-17. It also names the Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) as a party. Id. at 43617.
On October 7, 2019, the ALJ issued an ID finding the Dalian Respondents in default.
Order No. 7 (Oct. 30, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Nov. 26, 2019). On November 19,
2019, the ALJ issued an ID terminating the investigation based on Presto’s withdrawal of the
complaint as to the other four respondents (Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd.; Takebishi Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd.; and Qingdao Takebishi Packing Industry Co.,
Ltd.). Order No. 10 (Nov. 19, 2019), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Dec. 18, 2019). That ID
also terminated the investigation as to (i) claims 6 and 7 of the ’531 patent and (ii) claims 6 and 7
of the ’058 patent. Id.
On November 15, 2019, Presto filed a motion for summary determination that the
domestic industry requirement was satisfied and that a violation had been established. Presto’s
motion requested immediate entry of a limited exclusion order against the Dalian Respondents, a
general exclusion order (“GEO”), and a 100 percent bond. On November 26, 2019, OUII filed a
response to the motion supporting the summary determination motion and the requested GEO
and 100 percent bond.
On April 21, 2020, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting summary determination of
violation of section 337 by the Dalian Respondents. The ID also contains the ALJ’s
recommendation on remedy and bonding, in which the ALJ recommends issuance of a GEO or,
in the alternative, a limited exclusion order directed to each of the Dalian Respondents, and that a
100 percent bond be set for importation during the Presidential review period.
On May 1, 2020, OUII filed a petition seeking review of portions of the ID’s analysis of
the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. No other party petitioned for review
of the ID, and no party filed a response to OUII’s petition.
The Commission has determined to review the ID in part with respect to the ID’s analysis
of the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission has determined
not to review the remaining findings in the ID. The Commission is not requesting any briefing
on the issue under review.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes
issuance of: (1) an exclusion order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from
entry into the United States, and/or (2) one or more cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) that could
result in the Dalian Respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts
in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in

3
receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 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 Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-
TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7-10 (December 1994). In addition, if a party
seeks issuance of any CDOs, the written submissions should address that request in the context
of recent Commission opinions, including those in Certain Arrowheads with Deploying Blades
and Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-977, Comm’n Op. (Apr. 28,
2017) and 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). The written
submissions should respond to the following:
1. Is Presto still seeking CDOs against the Dalian Respondents?
2. If Presto is still seeking CDOs, please address the following questions:
a. Can the Commission grant CDOs if a complainant has not argued for them
in its remedy briefing before the ALJ? Has the Commission ever granted
CDOs under such circumstances?
b. What prejudice have the Dalian Respondents suffered as a result of Presto
seeking CDOs in its complaint but not requesting them before the ALJ?
c. Please identify with citations to the record any information regarding
commercially significant inventory in the United States as to each
respondent against whom a CDO is sought. If Presto also relies on other
significant domestic operations that could undercut the remedy provided
by an exclusion order, identify with citations to the record such
information as to each respondent against whom a CDO is sought.
d. In relation to the infringing products, please identify any information in
the record, including allegations in the pleadings, that addresses the
existence of any domestic inventory, any domestic operations, or any
sales-related activity directed at the United States for each respondent
against whom a CDO is sought.
e. Please discuss any other basis upon which the Commission could enter a
CDO.
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of any remedy upon the
public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that
an exclusion order and/or CDO 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 of this investigation.

5
The Commission vote for these determinations took place on June 5, 2020.
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).
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Secretary to the Commission
Issued: June 5, 2020

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
In the Matter of
CERTAIN CHILD RESISTANT
CLOSURES WITH SLIDER DEVICES
HAVING A USER ACTUATED
INSERTABLE TORPEDO FOR
SELECTIVELY OPENING THE
CLOSURES AND SLIDER DEVICES
THEREFOR
Inv. No. 337-TA-1171
ORDER NO. 12: INITIAL DETERMINATION
GRANTING SUMMARY DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337
AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION ON REMEDY AND BONDING
PUBLIC VERSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
A. Institution of the Investigation and Procedural History ...........................................1
B. The Private Parties ...................................................................................................3
1. Complainant Reynolds Presto Products Inc. ................................................3
2. The Dalian Respondents ..............................................................................3
C. The Asserted Patents ................................................................................................4
D. The Accused Products..............................................................................................6
E. The Domestic Industry Products ..............................................................................8
II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION ........................................ 9
III. IMPORTATION AND JURISDICTION ........................................................................... 9
A. Importation ...............................................................................................................9
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction ....................................................................................10
C. In Rem Jurisdiction ................................................................................................11
D. Personal Jurisdiction ..............................................................................................11
IV. INFRINGEMENT............................................................................................................. 12
A. U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531......................................................................................13
1. Claim 1 .......................................................................................................13
2. Claim 3 .......................................................................................................16
3. Claim 5 .......................................................................................................19
4. Claim 8 .......................................................................................................20
5. Claim 9 .......................................................................................................21
6. Claim 10 .....................................................................................................28
PUBLIC VERSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
Page
ii
B. U.S. Patent No. 9,554,628......................................................................................29
1. Claim 1 .......................................................................................................29
2. Claim 4 .......................................................................................................35
3. Claim 6 .......................................................................................................36
4. Claim 7 .......................................................................................................37
5. Claim 8 .......................................................................................................38
6. Claim 11 .....................................................................................................39
7. Claim 12 .....................................................................................................40
8. Claim 15 .....................................................................................................45
9. Claim 19 .....................................................................................................46
C. U.S. Patent No. 10,273,058....................................................................................47
1. Claim 1 .......................................................................................................47
2. Claim 3 .......................................................................................................51
3. Claim 5 .......................................................................................................55
4. Claim 8 .......................................................................................................56
V. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ................................................................................................. 57
A. Technical Prong .....................................................................................................58
1. U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531..........................................................................58
2. U.S. Patent No. 9,554,628..........................................................................64
3. U.S. Patent No. 10,273,058........................................................................68
B. Economic Prong .....................................................................................................74
1. Plant and Equipment ..................................................................................74
2. Labor and Capital .......................................................................................76
PUBLIC VERSION

I. BACKGROUND
A. Institution of the Investigation and Procedural History
By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on August 21, 2019, pursuant to
subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Commission instituted
this investigation to determine:
whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(l)(B) of section 337 in the importation
into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3, and 5–10 of [U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531
(“the ’531 patent”)]; claims 1, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of [U.S. Patent No.
9,554,628 (“the ’628 patent”)]; and claims l, 3, and 5–8 of [U.S. Patent No.
10,273,058 (“the ’058 patent”)]; and whether an industry in the United States exists
as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337 . . . .
84 Fed. Reg. 43616 (Aug. 21,2019) (“Notice of Investigation”).
The Notice of Investigation named Reynolds Presto Products Inc. of Lake Forest, Illinois,
as the complainant (“Presto”) and the following companies as respondents:
• Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Dalian, China;
• Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd., of Dalian, Liaoning, China;
• Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan;
• Takebishi Co., Ltd., of Shiga, Japan;
• Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd., of Shanghai, China;
• Qingdao Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., of Qingdao, China.
Id. at 43616–17. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“Staff”) was also named as a party
to this investigation. Id. at 43617.
A 12-month target date for completion of this investigation was set for August 21, 2020.
Order No. 3 (Sept. 5, 2019).
PUBLIC VERSION

2
On November 15, 2019, Presto filed the pending Corrected Complainant’s Motion for
Summary Determination with Respect to Domestic Industry, Violation and Remedy (“Mot.”) with
a memorandum in support (“Memo.”). Motion Docket No. 1171-006 (EDIS Doc. No. 694487).
In its motion, Presto requests:
1) “summary determination of a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337”;
2) a finding Presto “has met the domestic industry requirement of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)”;
3) “immediate entry of a Limited Exclusion Order against” the defaulting respondents;
4) “imposition of a 100% bond”; and
5) “a recommendation for entry of a General Exclusion order.”
Mot. at 1. No respondent filed a response to the pending motion. Staff filed a response to the
pending motion (“Staff Resp.”) supporting the requested relief. EDIS Doc. No. 694236.
On November 26, 2019, the Commission affirmed that respondents Dalian Takebishi
Packing Industry Co., Ltd., and Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd. (collectively, “the Dalian
respondents”), had defaulted in the investigation. Order No. 7 (Oct. 30, 2019), aff’d, Notice of a
Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Finding the Dalian
Respondents in Default (Nov. 26, 2016).
On December 18, 2019, the Commission affirmed an initial determination terminating the
investigation with respect to claims 6 and 7 of the ’531 patent and claim 6 and 7 of the ’058 patent.
Order No. 10 (Nov. 19, 2019), aff’d, Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial
Determination Terminating the Investigation as to Certain Asserted Claims and Named
Respondents (Dec. 18, 2019). The Commission also affirmed the termination of the investigation
with respect to respondents Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd.; Takebishi Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Takebishi
PUBLIC VERSION

4
indicates that Dalian Altma, also based in Dalian, China, “manufactures and trades slitting
machines, printing machines, and edge trim winders, among other products.” Herrington Report
¶ 14. Dalian Altma also goes by the name Takebishi (Dalian) Industrial Co., Ltd., an entity that
has the same address and contact information as Dalian Altma. Id.
C. The Asserted Patents
Presto asserts three utility patents in this investigation: the ’531, ’628, and ’058 patents.
The asserted patents are each titled “Child Resistant Slider Having Insertable Torpedo and
Methods” and share the same named inventor and the same specification. See Complaint Exs.
1–3. The patents generally disclose a zipper closure system that may be incorporated into flexible
bags and pouches to make it difficult for children to access the contents of the packages,
particularly packages containing hazardous or otherwise dangerous contents. See, e.g., ’531 patent
at Abstract; see also id. at 1:38–45. To open the bag, a slider is moved to the vicinity of a notch
and a tab is moved or flexed in such a way that a torpedo comes between the interlocking track
profiles of the zipper causing the tracks to separate when the slider is moved. Id. at 1:45–50.
Figure 14 of the ’531 patent, reproduced below, shows an example embodiment of the
invention incorporated into bag B with the zipper closure 36 having notch 8 and slider 1:
PUBLIC VERSION

5
Figure 2 of the ’531 patent, reproduced below, shows an embodiment of the claimed
slider 1 having a flexible tab 2 with torpedo 3:
The remaining issues in the investigation concern claims 1, 3, 5, and 8–10 of the ’531
patent; claims 1, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, 15, and 19 of the ’628 patent; and claims 1, 3, 5, and 8–10 of the
’058 patent.
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

D. The Accused Products

The accused products in this investigation are child-resistant zippers for opening and
closing plastic bags. To open the zipper, a tab must be held down to engage a torpedo and separate
the zipper tracks. Physical Exhibits 1 and 2 of the Complaint, shown below, exemplify the accused

products:

Physical Exhibit 1 — Sample of Accused Product

ALL CALLER NO FILLER

CANNABIS INFUSED

100 MG THC

(506) CA

mL ALLER WO FILLER

CANNABIS INFUSED

Blank . tae

* ee

sane er *B

O171°30455" 8

Top View 1 Top View 2
(red slider with a torpedo on (torpedo flexed upward from
a white zipper track) the zipper track)

Complaint Phys. Ex. 1.

PUBLIC VERSION

Physical Exhibit 2 — Sample of Accused Product

: TAKES
Sus a) 22

TAKEBISHI
SSS rasa ee

KID-SAFETY
CHILD RESISTANT SLIDER LIPPE

Top View 1 Top View 2
(red slider with a torpedo on (torpedo flexed upward from
a white zipper track) the zipper track)

Complaint Phys. Ex. 2; see also Staff Resp. at 7-8.

8
E. The Domestic Industry Products
As discussed in more detail herein, Presto manufactures track for use with the patented
inventions in Wisconsin, and manufacturers in New York produce the sliders used on those tacks.
Affidavit of Greg Petkovsek (“Petkovsek Aff.”)3 ¶ 5; Declaration of Brad Hansen Concerning the
Economic Prong of Domestic Industry (“Hansen Decl.”) 4 ¶ 5. Presto’s customers receive
permission from Presto to incorporate the patented slider closure in their packaging. Memo. at 98
n.5. One example of a domestic industry product produced in this way is a child-resistant package
for laundry detergent, shown below:
Declaration of Toby Thomas (“Thomas Decl.”), Exhibit 1 at 1.5
3 The Affidavit of Greg Petkovsek is attached as Exhibit 6 to the pending motion.
4 The Affidavit of Bradford Hansen is attached as Exhibit 4 to the pending motion.
5 The Declaration of Toby Thomas is attached as Exhibit 2 to the pending motion. Mr. Thomas
was retained by Presto as an expert witness. Mot. Ex. 2 at 1.
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

Daliant Respondent at 2019 Global Pouch Forum

22933
oe
ey wenden
ee 7 Era oa =

Complaint Ex. 9.
I find that Presto has presented substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that the
importation requirement of section 337 has been satisfied.

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

No party has contested the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction over this
investigation. Section 337 of the Tariff Act prohibits the sale for importation and importation of
articles that infringe a valid and enforceable patent if an industry exists in the United States relating
to articles protected by the patent. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1337(a)(1)-(2). Presto’s Complaint states a cause
of action under section 337. Specifically, Presto has alleged that the Dalian respondents are selling
for importation and have imported certain child-resistant slider closures that infringe the asserted
patents. See Complaint at 8-48. The Commission, therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction over

this investigation.

12
of a cease and desist letter, and email correspondence with Presto’s counsel. See Complaint Ex.
24 ¶ 7 (hand delivery of letter); id. at Ex. 17 (cease and desist letter); id. at Ex. 22 (email
correspondence).
No party has contested the Commission’s personal jurisdiction over it. Based on the record
evidence, I find that the Commission has personal jurisdiction over all parties, including the Dalian
respondents.
IV. INFRINGEMENT
Presto seeks a finding that the imported accused products infringe various claims of the
’531 patent; the ’628 patent; and the ’058 patent. Under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), making, using, offering
to sell, selling, or importing a patented invention without consent of the patent owner infringes the
rights of the patent owner. Literal infringement of a claim occurs “when every limitation recited
in the claim appears in the accused device, i.e., when the properly construed claim reads on the
accused device exactly.” Amhil Enters., Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521
F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 366
F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vivid Tech., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
(Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, no party has raised a dispute as to the meaning of the asserted claims. See
EDIS Doc. No. 690581; see also Order No. 5 (Oct. 8, 2019) (modifying the procedural schedule
in light of the parties’ claim construction agreement). Accordingly, I need not construe any
particular claim term.
Importing an article that infringes patent rights is unlawful under section 337. 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337(a)(1)(B)(1). The complainant in a section 337 investigation bears the burden of proving
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 1. ?531 Claim 1 Infringement Chart

Claim 1 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

1. A child resistant slider zipper closure
system comprising:

Zipper Closure

(a) a reclosable zipper closure with a
male track and a female track having
complementary profiles for interlocking
and unlocking;

Track with
interlocking profiles

(b) a notch defined by the
complementary profiles; the notch
being spaced from an end of the slider
zipper closure system; and

Notch spaced from
an end of the slider
zipper closure
system

the slider including a flexible tab with a
torpedo;

Slider slidably
located on zipper
closure

Shown with flexible tap with
torpedo flexed upward

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Accused Product

Advertisement
demonstrating the
tab being selectively

moveable into a
position to be
between the male
track and female
track and result in
separation of the
interlocking
complementary
profiles as the slider
is moved in an
opening direction
along the zipper

when the slider is moved into a vicinity
of the notch, the tab being selectively

° ~ closure
moveable into a position to be between
the male track and female track
Torpedo
in notch
torpedo separates
complementary

profiles as the slide
is moved in an
and result in separation of the opening direction
interlocking complementary profiles as
the slider is moved in an opening

direction along the zipper closure.

Thomas Decl. Ex. 4 at 1-3.

Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has

demonstrated infringement of claim | of the °531 patent.

PUBLIC VERSION

2. Claim 3

Claim 3 of the ’531 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:

3. A child resistant slider zipper closure system according to claim 1 wherein:

(a) the slider includes a base having a top member and a bottom
member; the bottom member including first and second legs;

(i) the base adapted to move along top edges of the tracks with
the first and second legs straddling the tracks;

(ii) the tab extending from the top member of the base and
spaced above the first and second legs of the base; the tab
being constructed and arranged to flex relative to the base
about a pivot axis in a direction toward and away from the first
and second legs; and

(iii) the torpedo extending from a bottom surface of the tab and
flexing toward and away from the first and second legs with
flexing of the tab.
The Thomas Declaration shows each element of claim 3 of the ’531 patent in the accused

products:

Table 2. ?531 Claim 3 Infringement Chart

Claim 3 Limitation Element in Accused Product
3. A child resistant
slider zipper closure
system according to For claim 1, see Table 1.
claim 1 wherein:

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 3 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

(a) the slider includes a
base having a top
member and a bottom
member;

top
member

base

bottom
member

the bottom member

including first and

second legs; Seiateie’
second
legs
slider
base is on

(i) the base adapted to the top

al top ed f edges of

move along top edges o the tracks

the tracks with the first with the

and second legs fst and

. iC

straddling the tracks; legs
straddling
the tracks

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 3 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

(11) the tab extending
from the top member of
the base and spaced
above the first and
second legs of the base;

first

second

legs

and

the tab being
constructed and
arranged to flex relative
to the base about a pivot
axis in a direction
toward and away from
the first and second
legs; and

tab flexes about
pivot axis toward
and away from legs

tab
extends
from top
member

pivot axis

(111) the torpedo
extending from a
bottom surface of the
tab and flexing toward
and away from the first
and second legs with
flexing of the tab.

Torpedo extends from bottom surface of tab
and flexes with the flexing of the tab

PUBLIC VERSION

Thomas Decl. Ex. 4 at 4-6.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 3 of the ’531 patent.

3. Claim 5

Claim 5 of the ’531 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:
5. A child resistant slider zipper closure system according to claim 1 wherein:
(a) the notch has a length longer than a length of the torpedo.
The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 5 of the ’531 patent in
the accused products:

Table 3. °531 Claim 5 Infringement Chart

Claim 5 Limitation Element in Accused Product
5. A child resistant slider zipper
closure system according to For claim 1, see Table 1.

claim 1 wherein:

(a) the notch has a length longer
than a length of the torpedo.

The yellow bracket shows the dimension of the notch between the
complementary interlocking profiles (which are approximately midway
up the track, as shown by the dotted green line) as measured in the
direction the slider is moved along the zipper closure. The dimension is
measured at 5 mm.

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 5 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

The blue bracket shows the dimension of the

torpedo as measured in the direction the slider is

moved along the zipper closure (when the tab is

depressed, the torpedo would be rotated 90° from

its current position, but it has been flipped up to

better show the torpedo). As shown. the
dimension is 3 mm.

Thomas Decl. Ex. 4 at 6—7.

Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has

demonstrated infringement of claim 5 of the ’531 patent.

Claim 8

Claim 8 of the ’531 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:

8. A child resistant slider zipper closure system according to claim 1 wherein:

(a) the male track includes a male profile, the female track includes a
female profile, and the male and female profiles have complementary
cross-sections for interlocking and for unlocking.

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 8 of the ’531 patent in

the accused products:

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 4. ?531 Claim 8 Infringement Chart

Claim 8 Limitation Element in Accused Product
8. A child resistant
slider zipper closure
system according to
claim 1 wherein:

For claim 1, see Table 1.

(a) the male track

includes a male profile, Complementary male
the female track idl dewadiic

includes a female ee ee
profile, and the male interlocking profiles
and female profiles have

complementary cross-
sections for interlocking
and for unlocking.

Thomas Decl. Ex. 4 at 8.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 8 of the *531 patent.
5. Claim 9
Independent claim 9 is directed to a “method of operating a zippered bag,” as follows:

9. A method of operating a zippered bag having an openable and recloseable
mouth; the method comprising:

(a) providing a zippered bag having first and second panels each having a
top forming the mouth, a bottom, and first and second opposing sides, the
first and second panels being joined to each other along their respective
bottoms, their respective first opposing sides, and their respective second
opposing sides; a recloseable zipper closure including a male track and
female track with complementary profiles for interlocking and unlocking:
one profile being in proximity to the top of the first panel, and the other
profile being in proximity to the top of the second panel; the complementary

22
profiles interlocking to close the mouth and unlocking to open the mouth;
the zipper closure including a notch spaced from the first side; a slider
located on the zipper closure; and
(b) opening the mouth by:
(i) moving the slider to the notch;
(ii) pressing down on a flexible tab on the slider to position a
torpedo on the tab between the male track and female track;
and
(iii) while pressing, moving the slider in an opening direction
along the zipper closure to result in separation of the
interlocking profiles.
To show infringement of a method claim, it is Presto’s burden to prove that it is more likely
than not that “one person somewhere in the United States had performed the claimed method”
using the accused products. See Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2009).
PUBLIC VERSION

23
Here, Presto has adduced evidence of accused products on display at two trade shows in
the United States, in 2017 and 2019. Morsheimer Decl. ¶¶ 5–6; Complaint Exs. 9 and 22. The
goods displayed at the 2017 show in Anaheim, California, listed instructions for carrying out the
method of claim 9, as shown in the image below:
Complaint Phys. Ex. 2. The instructions state:
HOW DOES IT WORK
Step 1: Align the slider with the notch
Step 2: Turn& [stet.] click the hook and ensure the “hook” is placed in the notch
Step 3: Slide open
Id. The booth at the 2019 trade show in Rosemont, Illinois, had a sign with similar “HOW DOES
IT WORK” instructions for operating the accused products. Complaint Ex. 9 (sign on right side
of table).
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

Presto also submitted the Thomas Declaration, which shows how the elements of the
accused products are used to perform each step of claim 9 of the ’531 patent:

Table 5. ?531 Claim 9 Infringement Chart

Claim 9 Limitation Element in Accused Product Used to Infringe
ee — openable and recloseable
aa om — “ aH dail mouth
- a . a
99K ND WOO
9. A method of operating a KID-SAFETY teaches method of
zippered bag having an CHILD RESISTANT SLIDER ZIPPER operating zippered bag

openable and recloseable mouth;
the method comprising:

HOW DDES IT WORK

first and second panels forma

Oss Taegu mouth
(a) providing a zippered bag —
having first and second panels we a * bag is zippered

each having a top forming the
mouth, a bottom, and first and DSi
second opposing sides, the first
and second panels being joined
to each other along their
respective bottoms, their
respective first opposing sides,
and their respective second Panels joined along
bottom. first and second

opposing sides; opposing sides

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 9 Limitation

Element in Accused Product Used to Infringe

a recloseable zipper closure
including a male track and
female track with
complementary profiles for
interlocking and unlocking; one
profile being in proximity to the
top of the first panel, and the
other profile being in proximity
to the top of the second panel;

male track female track
proximate the top of proximate the top of
the first panel the second panel

the complementary profiles
interlocking to close the mouth
and unlocking to open the
mouth:

complementary
profiles interlock to
open or close the
mouth

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 9 Limitation Element in Accused Product Used to Infringe

notch spaced from first side

‘Gee TAKELSHI
See tase x

the zipper closure including a
notch spaced from the first side;

a slider located on the zipper
closure; and

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 9 Limitation | Element in Accused Product Used to Infringe

Bag instructs to
align with notch,
depress the tab to

position the torpedo.
and slide

(b) opening the mouth by:

(i) moving the slider to the
notch;

(11) pressing down on a flexible
tab on the slider to position a
torpedo on the tab between the
male track and female track; and
(111) while pressing, moving the
slider in an opening direction
along the zipper closure to result
in separation of the interlocking
profiles.

| Torpedo fits in
notch

Torpedo separates
profiles while notch
is held down into
profiles

Thomas Decl. Ex. 4 at 10-8 to 10-12.

The undisputed evidence submitted by Presto is sufficient to find that the patented method
of claim 9 has been performed in the United States without authorization from Presto.
A representative of Dalian Altma displayed an accused product designed to perform the patented
method at two trade shows in the United States. Complaint Exs. 9 and 22. The accused product

displayed a one show had instructions for performing the method written upon it. Morsheimer

28
Decl. ¶¶ 5–6; Complaint Phys. Ex. 2. The table at the other trade show had a sign with instructions
for performing the claimed method. Complaint Ex. 9. The record thus shows it is more likely
than not that Dalian Altma imported accused products into the United States and its representatives
demonstrated the patented method at the Anaheim and Rosemont trade shows using those
products. I also find it more likely than not that visitors to the Dalian Altma booths at the trade
shows also performed the method using the accused products. I therefore find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 9 of the ’531 patent by substantial, reliable, and probative
evidence. See Certain Blood Cholesterol Testing Strips and Associated Systems Containing the
Same, Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1116, Comm’n Op. at 25 (Apr. 16, 2020) (“Cholesterol Testing Strips”)
(finding a violation of section 337 based on infringement of a method claim where respondent
imported an accused product into the United States and used it to perform the claimed method).
6. Claim 10
Method claim 10 depends from claim 9 as follows:
10. A method according to claim 9 further including:
(a) closing the mouth by moving the slider in a closing direction along the
track to interlock the profiles.
The Thomas Declaration shows how the accused products are used to perform the
additional step recited in claim 10:
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 6. ’531 Claim 10 Infringement Chart

Claim 10 Limitation Element in Accused Product Used to Infringe
10. A method according to . . .
claim 9 further including: For claim 9, see Table 5 and discussion above.

complementary
profiles interlock to
open or close the
mouth depending on
direction of

(a) closing the mouth by moving movement of slider

the slider in a closing direction
along the track to interlock the
profiles.

Thomas Decl. Ex. 4 at 10-12 to 10-13.

For the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 9, and in view of the substantial,
reliable, and probative evidence submitted in connection with claim 10, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 9 of the °531 patent. See Cholesterol Testing Strips, Comm’n
Op. at 25.

B. U.S. Patent No. 9,554,628

Presto seeks a finding that the accused products infringe claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 12, 15, and
19 of the ’628 patent. See Memo. at 25. In support of the pending motion, Presto submitted the
Declaration of Toby Thomas, which included claim charts showing each limitation of the asserted
claims present in the accused products. See Thomas Decl. Ex. 5. I evaluate that evidence below.

1. Claim 1

Independent claim 1 of the ’628 patent recites:

1. A slider for a zipper closure having a male track and a female track with
complementary profiles for interlocking and unlocking; the slider comprising:

PUBLIC VERSION

(a) a base having a top member and a bottom member; the bottom member
including first and second legs each terminating in an end wall;

(i) the base adapted to move along top edges of the tracks with the first
and second legs straddling the tracks;

(b) a tab extending from the top member of the base and being spaced above
the first and second legs of the base such that there is a cavity of open
volume in between, the cavity being leg-free, sidewall-free, and free of
other slider structure so that the open volume of the cavity extends from the
end wall between the tab and the first and second legs; the tab being
constructed and arranged to flex relative to the base about a pivot axis in a
direction toward and away from the first and second legs;

(c) a torpedo extending from a bottom surface of the tab and moving toward
and away from the first and second legs with flexing of the tab; the torpedo
being selectively moveable into a position to be between the male track and
female track and result in separation of the interlocking profiles as the slider
is moved in an opening direction along the zipper closure; and

(d) the first and second legs having internal surfaces spaced sufficiently
close together to press the profiles into interlocking relationship as the slider
is moved in a closing direction along the zipper closure.

The Thomas Declaration shows each element of claim 1 of the ’628 patent in the accused
products:

Table 7. ’628 Claim 1 Infringement Chart

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Accused Product
1. A slider for a zipper Accused product
closure having a male includes a slider to
track and a female open and close
track with interlocking
complementary profiles profiles
for interlocking and
unlocking; the slider
comprising:

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Accused Product
top
member
(a) a base having a top base
member and a bottom
member;
bottom
member
the bottom member
including first and first and
second legs each second legs
terminating in an end terminating
wall; in end wall

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Accused Product
slider
base is on
the top
(i) the base adapted to edges of
move along top edges the tracks
of the tracks with the with the
first and second legs
straddling the tracks; masnee?s
second
legs
straddling
the tracks
tab
extends
from top
member
(b) a tab extending first and
from the top member of } | second
the base and being legs
spaced above the first
and second legs of the
base
tab
spaced
above
legs

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Accused Product
cavity of open volume
such that there js a that is leg-free, sidewall-
cavity of open volume fr a. and fri ae of other
in between, the cavity slider structure
being leg-free,
sidewall-free, and free
of other slider structure
End walls
so that the open volume Open volume extends
of the cavity extends along slider from end wall
from the end wall to end wall between tab
between the tab and the d1
first and second legs; and legs
the tab being
constructed and
arranged to flex relative
to the base about a
pivot axis in a direction
toward and away from
the first and second tab flexes about Lae
legs; pivot axis toward PIVEL Ets
and away from legs

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Accused Product

the first and second
legs with flexing of the
tab;
Torpedo extends from bottom surface of tab and
flexes with the flexing of the tab
Bag instructs to
it align with notch,
——— Fd Views 4 deprons the tab to
pe RES 7 position the torpedo.
and slide
the torpedo being
selectively moveable
into a position to be eee =
between the male track
and female track and
result in separation of
the interlocking
profiles as the slider is
moved in an opening
direction along the Torpedo separates

zipper closure; and

profiles while notch
is held down into
profiles

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Accused Product
complementary
(d) the first and second profiles mteriock to
: : Open or close the
legs having internal y Se EE
surfaces spaced dection off
sufficiently close movement of slider
together to press the Te
profiles into ;
interlocking Closing direction
relationship as the
slider is moved in a
closing direction along Track forced
the zipper closure. together by
spacing of legs

Thomas Decl. Ex. 5 at 1-6.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim | of the °628 patent.
2. Claim 4
Claim 4 of the ’628 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:

4. A slider according to claim | wherein:
(a) the tab has an end extending beyond an end of the slider.

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 4 of the 628 patent in

the accused products:

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 8. ’°628 Claim 4 Infringement Chart

Claim 4 Limitation Element in Accused Product
4.A slider according to claim 1 For claim 1, see Table 7.
wherein:
(a) the tab has an end extending
beyond an end of the slider.
Tab extends
beyond end of
slider
end of
slider

Thomas Decl. Ex. 5 at 7.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 4 of the 628 patent.
3. Claim 6
Claim 6 of the ’628 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:

6. A slider according to claim 1 wherein:
(a) the tab extends in a horizontal direction relative to the base.

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 6 of the 628 patent in

the accused products:

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 9. ’628 Claim 6 Infringement Chart

Claim 6 Limitation Element in Accused Product
6. A slider according
to claim 1 wherein:

(a) the tab extends in a
horizontal direction
relative to the base.

For claim 1, see Table 7.

Tab extends
horizontally

Thomas Decl. Ex. 5 at 7.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 6 of the °628 patent.
4. Claim 7
Claim 7 of the ’628 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:

7. A slider according to claim 1 wherein:
(a) the tab extends in an upward direction from the base.

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 7 of the 628 patent in

the accused products:

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 10. ’628 Claim 7 Infringement Chart

Claim 7 Limitation Element in Accused Product
7. A slider according to
claim 1 wherein:
(a) the tab extends in an
upward direction from
the base.

For claim 1, see Table 7.

i]
Tab extends

| upward

Thomas Decl. Ex. 5 at 8.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 7 of the ’628 patent.
5. Claim 8
Claim 8 of the ’628 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:

8. A slider according to claim 1 wherein:
(a) the tab extends in a downward direction from the base.

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 8 of the 628 patent in

the accused products:

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 11. 628 Claim 8 Infringement Chart

Claim 8 Limitation Element in Accused Product
8. A slider according
to claim 1 wherein:

For claim 1, see Table 7.

TIS COU PiIest SAILS VL IS US

(a) the tab extends in a —
downward direction Yellow horizontal
from the base line along the

topmost surface of
the base

The tab is
positioned below
the yellow
horizontal line

Thomas Decl. Ex. 5 at 8.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 8 of the ’628 patent.
6. Claim 11
Claim 11 of the ’628 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:

11. A slider according to claim 1 wherein the slider is molded a single piece.

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 11 of the ’628 patent in

the accused products:

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 12. ’628 Claim 11 Infringement Chart

aa a Element in Accused Product
Limitation

11. A slider

according to claim For claim 1, see Table 7.

wherein the slider
is molded a single
piece.

Slider is a single molded piece

Thomas Decl. Ex. 5 at 8-9.

Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 11 of the 628 patent.
7. Claim 12
Independent claim 12 of the ’628 patent recites:

12. A slider for a zipper closure having a male track and a female track with
complementary profiles for interlocking and unlocking; the slider comprising:

(a) a base having a top member and a bottom member; the bottom member
including first and second legs;

(i) the base adapted to move along top edges of the tracks with the first
and second legs straddling the tracks;

(b) a tab extending from the top member of the base and being spaced above
the first and second legs of the base; the tab being constructed and arranged
to flex relative to the base about a pivot axis in a direction toward and away
from the first and second legs, and the tab extending in a downward
direction from the base:

PUBLIC VERSION

The Thomas Declaration shows each element of claim 12 of the ’628 patent in the accused
products:

Table 13. ’°628 Claim 12 Infringement Chart

Claim 12 Limitation Element in Accused Product

12. A slider fora '
zipper closure having a Accused product
male track and a includes a slider to
female track with open and close
complementary interlocking
profiles for profiles |
interlocking and
unlocking; the slider O-NTONIRD 0 STO AND HOO
comprising:

|
top

member

(a) a base having a top
member and a bottom
member;

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 12 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

the bottom member
including first and
second legs;

first and

second

legs

slider

base is on

the top
(i) the base adapted to edges of
move along top edges the tracks
of the tracks with the with the
first and second legs first and
straddling the tracks; second

legs

straddling

the tracks

. tab

(b) a tab extending extends
from the top member | from top
of the base and being member
spaced above the first

and second legs of the
base;

first and
second
legs

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 12 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

the tab being
constructed and
arranged to flex
relative to the base
about a pivot axis ina

direction toward and 4 tab flexes about ae
ae how € UIs! an pivot axis toward sia
second legs, and away from legs _——l
Yellow horizontal
line along the
topmost surface of
and the tab extending ecene
in a downward
direction from the The tab is
ase; positioned below
the yellow
horizontal line

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 12 Limitation Element in Accused Product

the first and second
legs with flexing of the
tab;
Torpedo extends from bottom surface of tab and
flexes with the flexing of the tab |
Bag instructs to
align with notch,
depress the tab to
position the torpedo,
and slide
the torpedo being
selectively moveable
into a position to be
between the male track
and female track and
result in separation of
the interlocking
profiles as the slider is |, Tape ]
moved in an opening oricds
direction along the

zipper closure; and

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 12 Limitation Element in Accused Product

Torpedo separates
profiles while notch
is held down into
profiles

(d) the first and second

legs having internal internal surfaces of legs

surfaces spaced close the profiles when

sufficiently close moved in closing

together to press the direction (shown here

profiles into left to right)

interlocking

relationship as the

slider is moved in a

closing direction along Closing direction (left to right)

the zipper closure.

Thomas Decl. Ex. 5 at 9-15.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 12 of the 628 patent.
8. Claim 15
Claim 15 of the 628 patent depends from claim 12 as follows:

15. A slider according to claim 12 wherein:

(a) the tab has an end extending beyond an end of the slider.

PUBLIC VERSION

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 15 of the ’628 patent in

the accused products:

Table 14. 628 Claim 15 Infringement Chart

Claim 15 Limitation Element in Accused Product
15. A slider according to claim 12 For claim 12, see Table 13.
wherein:
Tab extends
beyond end of
slider
(a) the tab has an end extending
beyond an end of the slider.
end of
slider

Thomas Decl. Ex. 5 at 15.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 15 of the 628 patent.
9. Claim 19
Claim 19 of the °628 patent depends from claim 12 as follows:

19. A slider according to claim 12 wherein the slider is molded as a single
piece.

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 19 of the 628 patent in

the accused products:

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 15. 628 Claim 19 Infringement Chart

Claim 19 Limitation Element in Accused Product
D A slider according to claim For claim 12, see Table 13.

wherein the slider is molded as a
single piece.

—

Slider is a single molded piece

Thomas Decl. Ex. 5 at 15-16.

Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 19 of the 628 patent.

Cc. U.S. Patent No. 10,273,058

Presto seeks a finding that the accused products infringe claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of the 058
patent. See Memo. at 39. In support of the pending motion, Presto submitted the Declaration of
Toby Thomas, which included claim charts showing each limitation of claims 1, 5, and 8 present
in the accused products. See Thomas Decl. Ex. 6. I evaluate that evidence below.

1. Claim 1
Independent claim 1 of the ’058 patent recites:
1. A child resistant slider zipper closure system comprising:

(a) a reclosable zipper closure with a male track and a female track having
complementary profiles for interlocking and unlocking;

(b) a notch in the zipper closure; the notch being spaced from an end of the
slider zipper closure system; and

PUBLIC VERSION

(c) a slider being slidably located on the zipper closure, the slider including
a flexible tab with a torpedo; when the slider is moved into a vicinity of the
notch, the tab being selectively moveable into a position to insert the
torpedo between the male track and female track and result in separation of
the interlocking complementary profiles as the slider is moved in an opening
direction along the zipper closure.

The Thomas Declaration shows each element of claim 1 of the ’058 patent in the accused

products:

Table 16. ’°058 Claim 1 Infringement Chart

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Accused Product
Zipper closure
system
1. A child resistant slider zipper Adivertined wn
closure system comprising: “child-resistant
slider zipper”
. : Track with
(a) a reclosable zipper closure with a interlocking profiles
male track and a female track having
complementary profiles for
interlocking and unlocking;

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

(b) a notch in the zipper closure; the
notch being spaced from an end of the
slider zipper closure system; and

Notch spaced from
an end of the slider
zipper closure
system

the slider including a flexible tab with
a torpedo;

Shder slidably
located on zipper
closure

Shown with flexible tap
with torpedo flexed

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

when the slider is moved into a vicinity
of the notch, the tab being selectively
moveable into a position to insert the
torpedo between the male track and
female track

ir tees os
i 2.
re

ie ey

rp ‘i : * He

Advertisement
demonstrating the
tab being selectively
moveable into a
position to be
between the male
track and female
track and result in
separation of the
interlocking
complementary
profiles as the slider
is moved in an
opening direction
along the zipper
closure

Torpedo
in notch

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Accused Product

See also instructions
from other infringing
Takebishi bag stating

“ALIGN TO
NOTCH” prior to
opening

“sz JAcaistt

wi Hea

torpedo separates
complementary
profiles as the
slide is moved in
an opening

and result in separation of the
interlocking complementary profiles as
the slider is moved in an opening
direction along the zipper closure.

Thomas Decl. Ex. 6 at 1-4.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim | of the ’058 patent.
2. Claim 3
Claim 5 of the ’058 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:
3. A child resistant slider zipper closure system according to claim 1 wherein:

(a) the slider includes a base having a top member and a bottom member; the bottom
member including first and second legs;

(i) the base adapted to move along top edges of the tracks with the first and second
legs straddling the tracks;

(ii) the tab extending from the top member of the base and spaced above the first
and second legs of the base; the tab being constructed and arranged to flex relative
to the base about a pivot axis in a direction toward and away from the first and

PUBLIC VERSION

second legs; and

(iii) the torpedo extending from a bottom surface of the tab and flexing toward and

away from the first and second legs with flexing of the tab.

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 3 of the ’058 patent in

the accused products:

Table 17. 058 Claim 3 Infringement Chart

Claim 3 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

A child resistant slider
zipper closure system
according to claim 1
wherein:

For claim 1, see Table 16.

wherein: (a) the slider
includes a base having a
top member and a bottom
member:

top
member

base

bottom
member

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 3 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

the bottom member
including first and second
legs;
first and
second
legs
slider
base is on
the top
(i) the base adapted to edges of
move along top edges of the tracks
the tracks with the first with the
and second legs straddling first and
the tracks; second
legs
straddling
the tracks

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 3 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

(ii) the tab extending from
the top member of the
base and spaced above the
first and second legs of
the base;

tab
extends
from top
member

first and
second
legs

the tab being constructed
and arranged to flex
relative to the base about
a pivot axis in a direction
toward and away from the
first and second legs;

tab flexes about
pivot axis toward
and away from legs

pivot axis

and (111) the torpedo
extending from a bottom
surface of the tab

and flexing toward and
away from the first and
second legs

with flexing of the tab.

Torpedo extends from bottom surface of tab and
flexes with the flexing of the tab

PUBLIC VERSION

Thomas Decl. Ex. 6 at 7-8.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated infringement of claim 3 of the ’058 patent.

3. Claim 5

Claim 5 of the ’058 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:
5. A child resistant slider zipper closure system according to claim 1 wherein:
(a) the notch has a length longer than a length of the torpedo.
The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 5 of the ’058 patent in
the accused products:

Table 18. ’°058 Claim 5 Infringement Chart

Claim 5 Limitation Element in Accused Product
5. A child resistant slider
zipper closure system For claim 1, see Table 16.

according to claim 1 wherein:

(a) the notch has a length
longer than a length of the

torpedo.

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 5 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

The blue bracket shows the dimension of the

torpedo as measured in the direction the slider is

moved along the zipper closure (when the tab is

depressed, the torpedo would be rotated 90° from

its current position, but it has been flipped up to

better show the torpedo). As shown, the
dimension is 3 mm.

Thomas Decl. Ex. 6 at 7-8.

Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has

demonstrated infringement of claim 5 of the ’058 patent.

4. Claim 8

Claim 8 of the ’058 patent depends from claim 1 as follows:

8. A child resistant slider zipper closure system according to claim 1 wherein:

(a) the male track includes a male profile, the female track includes a
female profile, and the male and female profiles have complementary
cross-sections for interlocking and for unlocking.

The Thomas Declaration shows the additional limitation of claim 8 of the ’058 patent in

the accused products:

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 19. 058 Claim 8 Infringement Chart

Claim 8 Limitation

Element in Accused Product

8. A child resistant slider
zipper closure system
according to claim | wherein:

For claim 1, see Table 16.

(a) the male track includes a
male profile, the female track
includes a female profile, and
the male and female profiles
have complementary cross-
sections for interlocking and
for unlocking.

Complementary male
and female
interlocking profiles

Thomas Decl. Ex. 6 at 9.

Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has

demonstrated infringement of claim 8 of the ’058 patent.

V. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

In patent-based proceedings under section 337, a complainant bears the burden of

establishing that an industry “relating to the articles protected by the patent . . . exists or is in the

process of being established” in the United States. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2); John Mezzalingua

Assocs., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 660 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming the

Commission’s determination that a complainant had failed to meet its burden to establish

satisfaction of the domestic industry requirement). This domestic industry requirement of section

337 is often described as having an economic prong and a technical prong. /nterDigital Commc’ns,

LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Certain Stringed Musical
Instruments and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-586, USITC Pub. 4120, Comm’n Op. at
12–14, 2009 WL 5134139 (Dec. 2009).
The technical prong requires that the complainant practice the patented invention in the
United States. Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The
test for determining whether the technical prong is met through the practice of the patent “is
essentially same as that for infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the asserted
claims.” Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The economic prong requires, with respect to the products protected by patent, either
(a) significant investment in plant and equipment; (b) significant employment of labor or capital;
or (c) substantial investment in exploitation of the patent(s), including engineering, research and
development, or licensing activities. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3).
A. Technical Prong
Presto seeks a finding that the domestic industry products are protected by one claim of
each of the asserted patents. See Memo. at 48. I evaluate that evidence below.
1. U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531
In support of the pending motion, Presto submitted the Declaration of Toby Thomas, which
included a claim chart showing how claim 1 of the ’532 patent reads on the domestic industry
products:
PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 20. °531 Claim 1 Domestic Industry Chart

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product

1. A child resistant slider
zipper closure system

comprising: =.
G« un" ,
—_——____—+
o a - @

Package is a
Child-Guard®
child resistant

> zipper closure

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product

(a) a reclosable zipper

closure with a male track ;

and a female track A reclosable zipper

. closure with a male

having complementary track and a female

profiles for interlocking track having

and unlocking; complementary
profiles for
interlocking and
unlocking.

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product
(b) a notch defined by
the complementary ‘A notch defined |
profiles; the notch being by the
spaced from an end of complementary
the slider zipper closure profiles
system; and -
notch is spaced
from the end
(c) a slider being
slidably located on the flexible tab
zipper closure, the slider
including a flexible tab eamgeme:: |
with a torpedo;
| a slider being |
slidably
located on the
zipper
closure.

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product

when the slider is moved
into a vicinity of the
notch,

tab and torpedo
positioned over the
notch

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation

Element in Domestic Industry Product

the tab being selectively
moveable into a position
to be between the male
track and female track

tab selectively
moved down with
torpedo into notch
and pulled into
profiles

and result in separation
of the interlocking
complementary profiles
as the slider is moved in
an opening direction
along the zipper closure.

profiles are
separated as
slider moved
along zipper
closure

Thomas Decl. Ex. 1 at 19-1 to 19-4.

PUBLIC VERSION

Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has

demonstrated that the domestic industry products are protected by claim 1 of the ’531 patent.

2. U.S. Patent No. 9,554,628
In support of the pending motion, Presto submitted the Declaration of Toby Thomas, which

included a claim chart showing how claim | of the ’628 reads on the domestic industry products:

Table 21. ’628 Claim 1 Domestic Industry Chart

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product

1. A slider for a zipper closure
having a male track and a female eee | :

. slider
track with complementary profiles
for interlocking and unlocking; the
slider comprising:

slider

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation

Element in Domestic Industry Product

(a) a base having a top member and
a bottom member;

top
member

base

» bottom member

the bottom member including first
and second legs each terminating in
an end wall:

first and second lezs
each terminating in an

(i) the base adapted to move along
top edges of the tracks with the first
and second legs straddling the
tracks;

of track legs straddle the

(b) a tab extending from the top
member of the base and being
spaced above the first and second
legs of the base

tab extends
from top

tab above
legs (in blue)

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation

Element in Domestic Industry Product

such that there is a cavity of open
volume in between,

a cavity of open
volume im between.

the cavity being leg-free, sidewall-
free, and free of other slider
structure so that the open volume of
the cavity extends from the end
wall between the tab and the first
and second legs;

and free of other
slider structure so
that the open
volume of the
cavity extends from
the end wall
between the tab and
the first and second

legs.

the tab being constructed and
arranged to flex relative to the base
about a pivot axis in a direction
toward and away from the first and
second legs;

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product
(c) a torpedo extending from a Torpedo on bottom
bottom surface of the tab and surface of tab
moving toward and away from the
first and second legs with flexing of
the tab;
Torpedo 1s mtegral with
the tab and therefore
also flexes towards and
away from first and
second legs upon bemg
pressed and released
the torpedo being selectively

moveable into a position to be

between the male track and female

track and result in separation of the ee
interlocking profiles as the slider is between male and
moved in an opening direction female track
along the zipper closure; and

separation of the
interlocking profiles as the
slider is moved in an
opening direction along the
zipper closure

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product
(d) the first and second legs having
internal surfaces spaced sufficiently shder legs close track when
moved m closing direction (nght
close together to press the profiles to left)

into interlocking relationship as the
slider is moved in a closing
direction along the zipper closure.

closing direction

Thomas Decl. Ex. 2 at 20-1 to 20-8.
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated that the domestic industry products are protected by claim 1 of the ’628 patent.

3. U.S. Patent No. 10,273,058

In support of the pending motion, Presto submitted the Declaration of Toby Thomas, which
included a claim chart showing how claim 1 of the ’058 patent reads on the domestic industry

products:

PUBLIC VERSION

Table 22. 058 Claim 1 Domestic Industry Chart

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product

1. A child resistant slider
zipper closure system

comprising: =.
G« un" ,
—_——____—+
o a - @

Package is a
Child-Guard®
child resistant

> zipper closure

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product

(a) a reclosable zipper

closure with a male track ;

and a female track A reclosable zipper

. closure with a male

having complementary track and a female

profiles for interlocking track having

and unlocking; complementary
profiles for
interlocking and
unlocking.

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation

(b) a notch in the zipper
closure; the notch being
spaced from an end of
the slider zipper closure
system; and

Element in Domestic Industry Product

Notch spaced
from end

flexible tab

!
a slider being
slidably
located on the
zipper
closure.

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product

when the slider is moved
into a vicinity of the
notch,

tab and torpedo
positioned over the
notch

PUBLIC VERSION

Claim 1 Limitation Element in Domestic Industry Product

the tab being selectively
moveable into a position
to insert the torpedo
between the male track
and female track

tab selectively
moved down with
torpedo into notch
and pulled into
profiles
and result in separation
of the interlocking profiles are
complementary profiles separated as
as the slider is moved in slider moved
ine directi along zipper
an opening direction aaa

along the zipper closure.

Thomas Decl. Ex. 3 at 21-1 to 21-5.

74
Based on this undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, I find Presto has
demonstrated that the domestic industry products are protected by claim 1 of the ’058 patent.
B. Economic Prong
As discussed below, Presto has proffered substantial, reliable, and probative evidence
showing that Presto satisfies the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under
section 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C).
1. Plant and Equipment
The evidence shows that Presto has invested in significant domestic facility space
dedicated to its production of child-resistant closures. Presto has facilities in
Petkovsek
Aff. ¶ 18. Presto contracts
. Declaration of Brad Hansen Concerning the Economic Prong of Domestic Industry
(“Hansen Decl.”) 7 ¶ 5. The have about
for the and
producing sliders for the child-resistant closures. Id. ¶ 8. Presto spent
, as shown below.
7 The Affidavit of Bradford Hansen is attached as Exhibit 4 to the pending motion.
PUBLIC VERSION

75
Project No Project Name 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
L2681-14-
A14005 - - -
00007360 - - - -
00007361 - - - -
00007364 - - - -
RCP00090 - - - -
Total -
Declaration of Sudip K. Mitra (“Mitra Decl.”)8 Ex. E. Because all of the equipment listed above
is used exclusively for producing child-resistant closures under Presto’s authority, id., I find
investments in that machinery are investments related to articles protected by the asserted patents
within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(A).
Additionally, Presto assembles machines in the United States for inserting the slider
devices onto the recloseable track. First Supp. Interogs, No. 6; Affidavit of John Athans (“Athans
Aff.”)9 ¶ 8. From 2015 to 2019, Presto , which
are then used by Presto’s customers. Id. I find Presto’s investment in the insertion machines is an
investment in equipment related to articles protected by the asserted patents within the meaning of
section 337(a)(3)(A).
8 The Declaration of Sudip K. Mitra is attached as Exhibit 9 to the pending motion. Mr. Mitra is
counsel for Presto. Mitra Decl. ¶ 1.
9 The Affidavit of John Athans is attached as Exhibit 3 to the pending motion.
PUBLIC VERSION

76
2. Labor and Capital
The evidence shows that Presto’s suppliers employ people in the United
States to make authorized sliders for incorporation into the domestic industry products. Mitra
Decl. Ex. F; Hansen Decl. ¶ 8. The chart below shows the number of full-time employee (“FTE”)
equivalents producing sliders for Presto’s child-resistant closures by year and location:
Year FTE Location Mfg Footprint (ft2)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019 (up to July 18)
Id. As can be seen from the chart above, recent
. I find this is an employment of labor related to articles protected by the
asserted patents within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(B).
Presto itself employs people to produce track for the domestic industry products. As
explained by John Athans, Director of Converting Engineering and Development for Presto’s
Slide-Rite Business Unit, Presto’s
. Athans Aff. ¶¶ 6–7. The number of Presto employees producing tack
each year is shown in the chart below:
Year FTE Location Mfg Footprint (ft2)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019 (up to July 18)
PUBLIC VERSION

77
Mitra Decl. Ex. 7; Hansen Decl. ¶ 8. As can be seen from the chart above,
. I find this is an employment of labor related to
articles protected by the asserted patents within the meaning of section 337(a)(3)(B).
3. Engineering, Research and Development, and Licensing
Presto has adduced evidence of its expenditures on engineering and research that is directly
related to its child-resistant closures. Specifically, Presto adduces the following:
Year
R&D Expense Location
Track Slider/Application
Equipment Track Slider/Application
Equipment
2013 -
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019 (up
to Nov.
11)
Total - -
Complainant’s Second Supplemental Answers to Commission Investigative Staff’s First Set of
Interrogatories (“Second Supp Interogs”),10 No. 8.
As shown in the charts above, Presto has
to child-resistant closures. I find these expenditures to be relevant under
section 337(a)(3)(C).
10 Complainant’s Second Supplemental Answers to Commission Investigative Staff’s First Set of
Interrogatories is attached as Exhibit 3 to the pending motion.
PUBLIC VERSION

78
4. Presto’s Domestic Investments Are Significant and Substantial
I find, based on the undisputed, substantial, reliable, and probative evidence outlined
above, that Presto has met its burden to show that a domestic industry exists in the United States.
Presto has shown a significant investment in plant and equipment under section 337(a)(3)(A), a
significant employment of labor and capital under section 337(a)(3)(B), and a substantial
investment in research, development, and engineering under section 337(a)(3)(C). The evidence
demonstrates that Presto is a domestic company with minimal operations abroad and that all of its
products are made domestically in the United States. Petkovsek Aff. ¶ 5; Hansen Aff. ¶ 3; Hansen
Decl. ¶ 5. The chart below summarizes Presto’s investments and expenditures in the articles
protected by the asserted patents:
Section 337(a)(3)(A):
Plant & Equipment
Section 337(a)(3)(B):
Labor & Capital
Section 337(a)(3)(C):
Exploitation
Memo. at 49.
It is further determined that the magnitude and quantity of these expenses and investments
alone is significant and substantial in any context. See Lelo Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 786 F.3d
879, 883 (“The plain text of § 337 requires a quantitative analysis in determining whether a
petitioner has demonstrated a ‘significant investment in plant and equipment’ or ‘significant
employment of labor or capital.’”). Nevertheless, even when considering the qualitative
significance of Presto’s domestic expenditures in context, its investments, employments, and
activities are clearly significant and substantial. See Certain Stringed Musical Instruments and
Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-586, Comm’n Op., 2009 WL 5134139 at *16 (Dec. 2009)
PUBLIC VERSION

80
1. Circumvention of Limited Exclusion Orders
A limited exclusion order restricts the activities of named respondents but not others.
Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2008). If the
evidence shows that named respondents would circumvent a limited exclusion order, a general
exclusion order is appropriate. See Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters & Prod. Containing
Same, Comm’n Opinion, Inv. No. 337-TA-739, Comm’n Op. at 88–89, 2012 WL 2394435 at *56
(June 8, 2012) (“Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters II”) (finding a general exclusion order was
appropriate based on evidence that named respondents would circumvent a limited exclusion order
by changing their corporate identity). Presto has adduced evidence that a general exclusion order
is necessary to prevent the respondents named in this investigation from circumventing a limited
exclusion order.
a. Corporate Alter Egos
The record contains substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that the Dalian
respondents are likely to use corporate alter egos to circumvent a limited exclusion order. For
example, an employee of respondent Dalian Altma lists in his email signature line three corporate
alter egos having the same address:
PUBLIC VERSION

81
Complaint Ex 22.
Representatives of respondent Dalian Altma entered the United States to attend trade shows
in Anaheim, California, and Rosemont, Illinois, under another corporate alter ego, Takebishi
(Dalian) Industrial Co., Ltd. See Herrington Report ¶ 14. When counsel for Presto referred to
people at the Takebishi trade show booths in Anaheim and Rosemont as representatives of Dalian
Altma, Dalian Altma did not dispute the assertion. See Complaint Ex. 22.
Moreover, an accused product that was displayed by Dalian Altma at the trade show in
Anaheim in December 2017 listed five different corporate entities across China and Japan under
the “Takebishi” heading:
PUBLIC VERSION

82
Complaint Phys. Ex. 2. The package listed a sixth entity named Takebishi Packing America as
“Coming Soon.” Id. The corporate entities and addresses listed on this product were the basis for
naming the respondents in Presto’s Complaint. Complainants’ Unopposed Motion for Partial
Termination of the Investigation Regarding Claims 6–7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,505,531 and Claims
6–7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,273,058 and Against Unserved Respondents, EDIS Doc. ID 693597,
Ex. A. Presto attempted to serve each of the entities at the addresses listed on the package, but
PUBLIC VERSION

89
been taken down. The quick removal of online evidence after an importer catches wind of legal
proceedings makes it difficult to identify the source of infringing goods.
c. Conclusion
In sum, Presto has established by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence a pattern of
violation of section 337 by sources that are difficult to identify. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2)(B);
see also Pocket Lighters, Initial Determination at 40–47 (recommending a general exclusion order
based on widespread unauthorized online sales and difficulty in identifying the source of infringing
goods). I therefore recommend a general exclusion order issue in this investigation should the
Commission find a violation of section 337.
B. Limited Exclusion Orders
After a respondent has been found in default, a complainant may file with the Commission
“a declaration that it is seeking immediate entry of relief against the respondent[s] in default.”
19 C.F.R. § 210.16(c)(1). The facts alleged in the Complaint will be considered true with respect
to the defaulting respondent. Id.
As noted above, the only remaining respondents—the Dalian respondents—are in default.
See Order No. 7 (Oct. 30, 2019) (finding Dalian Respondents in default), aff’d, Notice of a
Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Finding The Dalian
Respondents in Default (Nov. 26, 2016). Following the direction of 19 C.F.C. § 210.16(c), I
presume the facts alleged against the Dalian respondents in the Complaint to be true, and those
facts demonstrate a violation of section 337. The condition precedent for limited exclusion orders
set by statute and regulation has been satisfied. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d), (g)(1); 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.16(c)(1). Accordingly, should the Commission find a violation in this investigation, I
PUBLIC VERSION

93
The Secretary shall serve the confidential version of this Initial Determination upon
counsel who are signatories to the Protective Order (Order No. 1) issued in this investigation. A
public version will be served at a later date upon all parties of record.
Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(h), this Initial Determination shall become the
determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.43(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 therein.
Within seven days of the date of this document, the parties must jointly submit a statement
to Cheney337@ustic.gov stating whether or not each seeks to have any portion of this document
redacted from the public version. Should any party seek to have any portion of this document
redacted from the public version thereof, the parties shall attach to the statement a copy of a joint
proposed public version of this document indicating with red brackets any portion asserted to
contain confidential business information. 12 To the extent possible, the proposed redactions
should be made electronically, in a PDF of the issued order, using the “Redact Tool” within Adobe
Acrobat, wherein the proposed redactions are submitted as “marked” but not yet “applied.” The
12 If the parties submit excessive redactions, they may be required to provide an additional written
statement, supported by declarations from individuals with personal knowledge, justifying each
proposed redaction and specifically explaining why the information sought to be redacted meets
the definition for confidential business information set forth in Commission Rule 201.6(a).
19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a).
PUBLIC VERSION

94
parties’ submission concerning the public version of this document should not be filed with the
Commission Secretary.
Issued: April 21, 2020
PUBLIC VERSION

Certain Child Resistant Closures With Slider Devices Having a User Actuated Insertable Torpedo for Selectively Opening the Closures and Slider Devices Therefor, Inv. 337-TA-1171

Full text

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude