## Facts

- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued a Section 337 general exclusion order (GEO) barring unlicensed importation of coaxial cable connectors that infringe claims 1 and/or 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,558,194.
- Corning Gilbert Inc. imported coaxial cable connectors marketed as UltraRange® and UltraShield™.
- CBP excluded the connectors, concluding they were covered by the GEO because the connectors allegedly included the claimed “cylindrical body member” with a deformable sleeve.
- Corning Gilbert asserted its connectors used a separate gripping ring that deforms under a compression ring and that the gripping ring is not part of the “cylindrical body member” as used in the relevant art and patent claims.
- Corning Gilbert filed a timely administrative protest and sought further review; CBP Headquarters issued a ruling directing denial of the protest and maintaining the exclusion.
- Corning Gilbert sued in the Court of International Trade under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) challenging the protest denial; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) to review CBP’s enforcement of an ITC Section 337 GEO when raised through the denial of an importer’s protest.
2. Whether the imported connectors fall within the GEO because they infringe claims 1 or 2 of the ’194 patent, including whether the accused products satisfy the “cylindrical body member”/deformable sleeve limitation under proper claim construction.

## Decision

- The court held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) to review CBP’s exclusion decision when challenged through a denied protest.
- The court granted Corning Gilbert’s motion for summary judgment and denied the government’s cross-motion.
- On the merits, the court found Corning Gilbert’s connectors did not infringe the asserted patent claims as properly construed and therefore were not covered by the GEO.
- The court ordered CBP to admit the excluded connectors.

## Legal Principles

- A CBP exclusion decision enforcing an ITC Section 337 GEO is judicially reviewable in the Court of International Trade when the importer challenges the exclusion through the protest procedure and sues from the protest denial under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a).
- In reviewing such a protest denial, the court may decide the patent questions necessary to determine the scope of the GEO, including independent claim construction and an infringement comparison to the accused imports.
- Noninfringement follows when at least one required claim limitation is absent under the court’s claim construction; goods that do not infringe are outside a GEO that bars infringing articles.

## Conclusion

The Court of International Trade held it could review CBP’s GEO-based exclusion through the protest-denial mechanism and, after independently construing the patent claims, ruled Corning Gilbert’s connectors did not meet a required “cylindrical body member” limitation, placing the goods outside the GEO and requiring their admission.


Corning Gilbert Inc. v. United States, 896 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013)