UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION
`SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`INCLUDING CONTROL SYSTEMS,
`CONTROLLERS, VISUALIZATION
`HARDWARE, MOTION CONTROL
`SYSTEMS, NETWORKING EQUIPMENT,
`SAFETY DEVICES, AND POWER
`SUPPLIES
`
`Inv. N0. 337-TA-1074
`
`ORDER NO. 42:
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION TERMINATING RESPONDENT
`RADWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. BY ENTRY OF CONSENT
`ORDER; SUSPENDING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`(July 20, 2018)
`
`' On July 12, 2018, Respondent Radwell International, Inc. (“Radwell”) filed a motion to
`
`terminate the investigation based on a consent order (Motion Docket No. 1074-O38). The
`
`response time for the motion was shortened pursuant to Order No. 40 (Jul. 13, 2018). A Consent
`
`Order Stipulation and Proposed Consent Order was attached to the motion, and Radwell filed an
`
`Amended Consent Order Stipulation and Amended Proposed Consent Order on July 17, 2018.
`
`Complainant Rockwell Automation Inc. (“Rockwell”) filed a response in opposition on July 17,
`
`2018. The Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) also filed a response on July 17, 2018,
`
`supporting the termination except for minor issues in the language of the Consent Order
`
`Stipulation and Proposed Consent Order. Radwell filed a reply brief on July 18, 2018, with a
`
`Second Amended Consent Order Stipulation and a Second Amended Proposed Consent Order,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the “Final Stipulation”) and Exhibit 2 (the “Final Consent Order”).
`
`

`

`Commission Rule 210.21(a)(2) states in relevant part that “[a]ny party may move at any
`
`time for an order to terminate an investigation in Whole or in part as to any or all respondents on
`
`the basis of.
`
`. . a consent order.” 19 C.F.R. § 21O.21(a)(2). Commission Rule 21O.21(c)(1)(ii)
`
`provides in relevant part that “[i]n investigations under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a
`
`proposal to terminate by consent order shall be submitted as a motion to the administrative law
`
`judge with a stipulation that incorporates a proposed consent order.” 19 C.F.R. §
`
`210.21(c)(1)(ii). In compliance with this rule, the motion includes a Consent Order Stipulation
`
`and Proposed Consent Order, which were subsequently amended in additional filings. See
`
`Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2. The motion contains a statement that there are no other agreements, written
`
`or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation,
`
`in compliance with Commission Rule 21O.21(c). Motion at 2; 19 C.F.R. § 21O.21(c).
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3) sets forth the information that must be included in the
`
`consent order stipulation. 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c)(3). Radwell’s Second Amended Consent Order
`
`Stipulation (the “Final Stipulation”) was signed by a representative for Radwell on July 18, 2018
`
`Exhibit 1 at 4. The Staff reviewed the original Consent Order Stipulation and found that it
`
`complied with the majority of the requirements in Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3). Staff Resp. at
`
`2-5. Staff found that the Amended Consent Order Stipulation was only missing a portion of the
`
`language in the Commission’s Notice of Institution. IQ’.at 9. Radwell has made this correction
`
`in the Final Stipulation. See Exhibit 1 at fl 2.
`
`The Final Stipulation contains statements that correspond to the subsections of
`
`Commission Rule 21O.21(c)(3). Consistent with subsection (i)(A) of Commission Rule
`
`210.21(c)(3), the Final Stipulation contains an admission of all jurisdictional facts. Exhibit 1 at
`
`111. Consistent with subsection (i)(B), the Final Stipulation contains a statement identifying the
`
`2
`
`

`

`asserted trademarks, copyrights, and alleged unfair trade practices, and a statement that Radwell
`
`will not import or sell articles infringing the asserted trademarks and copyrights or through the
`
`alleged unfair methods of competition. Id. at fl 2. The Final Stipulation further states that
`
`Radwell will not sell or otherwise transfer any remaining inventory in the United States. Id. at
`
`1[3. Consistent with subsection (i)(C), the Final Stipulation contains an express waiver of
`
`Radwell’s rights to seek judicial review. Id. at 1i4. Consistent with subsection (i)(D), the Final
`
`Stipulation contains a statement that Radwell will cooperate with and will not seek to impede the
`
`Commission’s efforts to gather information. Id. at fl 5. Consistent with subsection (i)(E), the
`
`Final Stipulation contains a statement that the enforcement, modification, and revocation of the
`
`consent order will be carried out pursuant to the Commission’s rules. Id. at fll6. Consistent with
`
`subsection (i)(F), the Final Stipulation includes a statement that its signing is for settlement
`
`purposes only and does not constitute admission by Radwell that an unfair act has been
`
`committed. Id. at '4]7. Consistent with subsection (i)(G), the Final Stipulation contains a
`
`statement that the consent order shall have the same force and effect as is provided in section 337
`
`of the Tariff Act of 193O,and that the Commission may require periodic compliance reports.‘
`
`Id. at 1]8. Consistent with subsection (ii)(A), the Final Stipulation contains a statement that the
`
`consent order shall not apply with respect to any trademark or copyright that has expired or been
`
`found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable. Id. at 1]9. Consistent with subsection (ii)(B), the
`
`Final Stipulation contains a statement that Radwell will not seek to challenge the validity or
`
`enforceability of the asserted trademarks or copyrights in any administrative or judicial
`
`1Rockwell argues that the consent order should include a reporting requirement, Rockwell Opp.
`at 14-16, but Rockwell has not shown any special circumstances in this investigation that would
`warrant the imposition of a reporting requirement. See Reply at 9.
`
`3
`
`

`

`proceeding to enforce the consent ordcr. Id. at 1]10. Accordingly, I find that Radwell’s Final
`
`Stipulation complies with the requirements of Commission‘Rule 210.21(c)(3).
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4) sets forth the information that must be included in a
`
`consent order. 19 C.F.R. § 210.2l(c)(4). A consent order may not include terms beyond or
`
`inconsistent with those set forth by Commission Rule 2l0.21(c)(4).
`
`Id. The Staff reviewed
`
`Radwcll’s original Proposed Consent Order and found certain terms to be inconsistent with the
`
`Comn1ission’s rules. Staff Resp. at 5-8. Staff found that the Amended Proposed Consent Order
`
`addressed these issues and was only missing a portion of the language in the Commission’s
`
`Notice of Institution. Id. at 9. Radwell has made this correction in its Second Proposed Consent
`
`Order (the “Final Consent Order”). See Exhibit 2, Preamble.
`
`The Final Consent Order contains terms that correspond to the subsections of
`
`Commission Rule 210.2l(c)(4). Consistent with subsection (i) of Commission Rule
`
`21O.21(c)(4), the Final Consent Order contains a statement identifying Complainant Rockwell,
`
`Respondent Radwell, and the allegations of violations of section 337 based upon the importation
`
`into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale after importation of certain industrial
`
`automation systems and components thereof including control systems, controllers, visualization
`
`hardware, motion and motor control systems, networking equipment, safety devices, and power
`
`supplies. Exhibit 2, Preamble. Consistent with subsection (ii), the Final Consent Order contains
`
`a statement that Radwell has executed a consent order stipulation. Id., Preamble at 2. Consistent
`
`with subsection (iii), the Final Consent Order contains a statement that Radwell shall not sell for
`
`importation, import into the United States, and/or sell in the United States after importation, any
`
`of the subject articles. Id. at Y 1. Consistent with subsection (iv), the Final Consent Order
`
`further contains a statement that Radwell will not sell within the United States or otherwise
`
`4
`
`

`

`transfer any remaining inventory of the subject articles. Id. at 1]2. Consistent with subsection
`
`(v), the Final Consent Order contains a statement that Radwell shall cease and desist from
`
`importing and distributing the subject articles? Id. at 1]3. Consistent with subsection (vi), the
`
`Final Consent Order contains a statement that Radwell shall be precluded from seeking judicial
`
`review or otherwise challenging or contesting the validity of the consent order. Id. at 1]4.
`
`Consistent with subsection (vii), the Final Consent Order contains a statement that Radwell shall
`
`cooperate with and shall not seek to impede the Commission’s efforts to gather infonnation. Id.
`
`at 1]5. Consistent with subsection (viii), the Final Consent Order contains a statement that
`
`Radwell and its officers will not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability of the asserted
`
`trademarks, copyrights, or unfair trade practice claims in any administrative or judicial
`
`proceeding to enforce the consent order. Id. at 1]6. Consistent with subsection (ix), the Final
`
`Consent Order contains a statement that when the asserted trademarks, copyrights, or unfair trade
`
`practices expire, the consent order shall become null and void. Id. at 1]7. Consistent with
`
`subsection (X),the Final Consent Order contains a statement that the order shall become null and
`
`void as to any claim of the asserted trademarks, copyrights, or unfair trade practices that is held
`
`to be invalid or unenforceable.
`
`Id. at 1]8. Consistent with subsection (xi), the Final Consent
`
`Order contains an admission that the Commission has jurisdiction over the accused products,
`
`Radwell, and the subject matter of the investigation.
`
`Id. at 1]9. Consistent with subsection (xii),
`
`the Final Consent Order contains a statement that the investigation is hereby terminated with
`
`respect to Radwell.
`
`Id. at 1]10. Therc arc no additional terms in the Final Consent Order.
`
`2Rockwell argues that the consent order should include a prohibition against soliciting U.S.
`agents and distributors, Rockwell Opp. at 13-14, but including such a tenn would be inconsistent
`with Commission Rule 2lO.2l(c)(4), which states: “The Commission will not issue consent
`orders with terms beyond those provided for in this section.” l9 C.F.R. § 21O.2l(c)(4).
`
`‘
`
`5
`
`

`

`Commission Rule 2l0.50(b)(2) directs the administrative law judge to consider and make
`
`appropriate findings regarding the effect of the proposed consent order on 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 consumers.
`
`l9 C.F.R.
`
`§ 2l0.50(b)(2). Radwell submits that termination by consent order will conserve the time and
`
`resources of the private parties and the Commission. Motion Mem. at ll-l2. Rockwell contends
`
`that termination would not be in the public interest, arguing that Radwell should remain in the
`
`investigation to aid Rockwell in its pursuit of broader remedies. Rockwell Opp; at 8-l3.
`
`Rockwell argues that a hearing is necessary to enter facts into evidence to support '
`
`Rockwell’s request for a general exclusion order and evidence regarding the statutory public
`
`interest factors. Id. at 8-9. In other investigations, however, determinations on violation and
`
`remedy have been made Without a hearing, particularly in investigations with respondents in
`
`default. See, e.g., Certain Ink Cartridges and Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-946, Initial
`
`Determination on Violation and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (Oct. '
`
`28, 2015), reviewed inpart by Comm’n Notice (Dec. 14, 2015) (affirming finding of violation),
`
`Comm’n Order (May 26, 2016) (issuing general exclusion order). Although Rockwell may
`
`prefer that Radwell participate in an evidentiary hearing, this is not a sufficient basis to deny
`
`entry of a consent order. Radwell cites numerous other investigations where consent orders were
`
`issued over complainants’ objections. See Reply at 7 (citing Certain Short-Wavelength Light
`
`Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640, Order No. 71
`
`at 2 (May 22, 2009) (collecting cases)). For example, when the complainant objected to the
`
`entry of a consent order in Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size &
`
`Prods. Containing Same (111),the administrative law judge held that “[t]he ALJ will not require
`
`6
`
`

`

`[respondent] to continue participating in this investigation because there is a possibility that
`
`[complainant] may be able to obtain a general exclusion order . . . especially when [respondent]
`
`has agreed to cease all unfair and infringing activities.” Inv. No. 337-TA-630, Order No. 35 at 6
`
`(Sept. 22, 2008), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Oct. 23, 2008). The circumstances here are
`
`similar, and there is no reason to require Radwell’s continued participation in this investigation
`
`as a respondent when it has agreed to a consent order complying with the Commission’s rules.
`
`Rockwell ftuther argues that terminating Radwell based on the consent order would not
`
`conserve public and private resources because there are overlapping issues between the present
`
`investigation and another pending investigation involving Rockwell and Radwell. Rockwell
`
`Opp. at 9-l3.
`
`In Certain Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC.$, Components Thereof and
`
`Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1105 (the “1105 investigation”), Radwell has
`
`asserted an antitrust claim against Rockwell, and Rockwell argues that resolving certain issues in
`
`the present investigation would allow for an earlier disposition of “intertwined” issues in the
`
`l 105 investigation. Rockwell Opp. at l0. The timing of the two investigations casts doubt on
`
`Rockwell’s arguments, however. Rockwell contends that resolution of certain issues in the
`
`present investigation will allow for summary determination on similar issues in the l 105
`
`investigation, Id. at ll-12, but the deadline for summary determination motions in the l 105
`
`investigation falls two weeks before the deadline for an initial determination in the present
`
`investigation. Compare Order No. 6 (Nov. 28, 2017) (initial determination due October l9,
`
`2018) to Inv. No. 337-TA-1105, Order No. 5 (Apr. 26, 2018) (setting October 5, 2018 deadline
`
`for summary determination motions). Moreover, the Commission’s decision to review a final
`
`determination in the present investigation is not likely to occur until after the hearing scheduled
`
`in the 1105 investigation. See 19 C.F.R. § 210.43 (d) (setting 60-day deadline for reviewing final
`
`7
`
`

`

`initial determination); Inv. No. 337-TA-1105, Order No. 5 (setting December 5-7 hearing). As
`
`currently scheduled, it is likely that the parties would need to litigate these issues in both
`
`investigations. Terminating Radwell by consent order would thus conserve public and private
`
`resources by eliminating the need for a detennination on violation by Radwell in the present
`
`investigation. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(0) (“the Commission may, by issuing a consent order . . .
`
`terminate any such investigation, in whole or in part, without making such a determination [on
`
`violation]”).
`
`Accordingly, I find that the public interest favors tennination of Radwell by consent
`
`order, because it will conserve public and private resources and avoid needless litigation. I find
`
`no public interest concerns that would weigh against RadWell’stennination and I find nothing to
`
`suggest that such termination would impose an undue burden on the public health andlwelfare,
`
`competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of similar or directly competitive
`
`articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d).
`
`_For the reasons discussed above, it is my initial detennination that Motion Docket No.
`
`1074-038 is GRANTED, and Radwell shall be terminated from this investigation pursuant to the
`
`Consent Order attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`In addition, because Radwell was the only respondent expected to participate in the
`
`evidentiary hearing,“ the procedural schedule in this investigation is hereby suspended, and the
`
`3Respondents Fractioni (Hongkong) Ltd., GreySolution Limited d/b/a Fibica, KBS Electronics
`Suzhou Co., Ltd., Shanghai EuoSource Electronic Co., Ltd., ShenZhen T-Tide Trading Co., I.td.,
`SoBuy Commercial (HK) Co. Limited, and Suzhou Yi Micro Optical Co., Ltd. were found in
`default by Order No. 17 (Feb. 1, 2018), not reviewed by Comm’n Notice (Feb. 26, 2018).
`Respondents Yaspro Electronics (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. and Can Electric Limited were fotmd in
`default by Order No. 32 (Jun. 28, 2018).
`
`4 Respondents Capnil (HK) Company Limited, Fujian Dahong Trade Co., Ltd., Huang Wei Feng
`d/b/a A-O-M Industry, PLC-VIP Shop d/b/a VIP Tech Limited, and Wenzhou Sparker Group
`Co. Were terminated by Order No. 41 (Jul. 17, 2018).
`
`8
`
`/*
`
`

`

`evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on July 30 will not proceed. See Order No. 6 (Nov. 28,
`
`2017). Accordingly, all pending motions are hereby DENIED as moot.5
`
`~ This initial determination, along with supporting documentation; is hereby certified to the
`
`Commission. Pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.42(h), this Initial Determination shall become
`
`the determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for rcview of the Initial
`
`Detennination pursuant to Commission Rule 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to
`
`Commission Rule 210.44, orders, on its own motion, a review of the Initial Determination or
`
`certain issues contained herein. 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(d).
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`._E%LflA/
`
`Dee Lord
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`5 The pending motions in this investigation are Motion Docket Nos. 1074-031, 1074-032, 1074­
`033, and 1074-035, which rclate to evidentiary issues for the hearing that has been suspended.
`
`-
`
`9
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`_
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Before The Honorable Dee Lord
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION
`SYSTEMS AND COIVIPONENTS
`THEREOF, INCLUDING CONTROL
`SYSTEMS, CONTROLLERS,
`VISUALIZATION HARDWARE, MOTION
`AND MOTOR CONTROL SYSTEMS,
`NETWORKING EQUIPMENT, SAFETY
`DEVICES, AND POWER SUPPLIES ~
`
`Investigation No. 33.7-TA-1074
`1
`
`CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION BY
`RESPONDENT RADWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`The United States International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “lTC”) on October
`
`10, 2017, (82 Fed. Reg. 48113) instituted the above-captioned Investigation (“Investigation”)
`
`under Section 337 ofthe TariffAct of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), and Section 210.10
`
`of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. §2l0.l0 (2014) based upon
`
`allegations contained in‘ a Complaint filed by Complainant Rockwell Automation,
`
`lnc.
`
`(“Rockwell”) on September 6, 2017. The Complaint alleged, inter alia, violations of section 337
`
`based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the
`
`United States after importation of certain industrial automation systems and components thereof
`
`including control systems, controllers, visualization hardware, motion and motor control systems,
`
`networking equipment, safety devices, and power supplies, by reason of infringement of U.S.
`
`Trademark Reg. No. 1,172,995 ("the '995 trademark"); U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 696,401 ("the
`
`‘40l trademark"); U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 693,780 ("the '780 trademark"); U.S. Trademark Reg.
`
`No. 1,172,994 ("the '994 trademark"); U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 712,800 ("the ‘80Otrademark“);
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 712,836 ("the '836 trademark"); U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,510,226
`
`("the ’226 trademark"); U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,671,196 ("the 'l96 trademark"); U.S.
`
`Trademark Reg. No. 2.701.786 ("the '786 trademark"); and U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,412,742
`
`("the '742 trademark")
`
`(collectively, “Asserled Trademarks”); U.S. Copyright Reg. No.
`
`TX0008389890 ("the ‘S90 copyright"); U.S. Copyright Reg. No. TX0008389887 ("the ’887
`
`copyright"); U.S. Copyright Reg. No. TX0008390098 ("the ‘O98copyright"); U.S: Copyright Reg.
`
`No. TX0008390094 ("the ‘O94copyright"); U.S. Copyright Reg. No. TX0008390077 ("the ‘O77
`
`copyright"); U.S. Copyright Reg. No. TX0008390088 ("the ‘O88copyright"); U.S. Copyright Reg.
`
`No. TX0008390l 16 ("the ‘l l6’copyright"); U.S. Copyright Reg. N0. TX00O8390084 ("the ‘O84
`
`copyright"); U.S. Copyright Reg. i\lo. TX0008390ll
`
`l ("the‘ ll 1copyright"); and U.S. Copyright
`
`Reg. No. rx000s39009 1. ("the 'o91 copyright")
`
`(collectively “Asserted Copyrights”). The
`
`complaint also alleges a violation of' Section 337 based on unfair methods of competition and
`
`unfair acts in the importation or sale of certain industrial automation systems and components
`
`thereof including control systems, controllers, visualization hardware, motion and motor control
`
`systems. networking equipment, safety devices, and power supplies, the threat or effect of which
`
`is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.by, among others, Respondent
`
`Radwell lntemational, Inc. (“Radwell”).
`
`ln order to terminate this Investigation and avoid the costs and inconveniences associated
`
`therewith, Radwell is willing to accept entry of the Consent Order submitted concurrently herewith
`
`by the Commission and agrees to all waivers and other provisions as required by I9 C.F.R.
`
`§ 210.21. Further. Radwell agrees to all terms set forth in the Consent Order.
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21 (c)(3), Radwell hereby stipulates as follows:
`
`l.
`
`The Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over this Investigation. Radwell
`
`2
`
`

`

`admits that the Commission has in remjurisdiction over the articles that are the subject of the
`
`Complaint and the Notice of Investigation. Radwell further admits that the Commission has in
`
`personam jurisdiction over Radwell.
`
`2.
`
`Upon entry of the proposed Consent Order, Radwell agrees not sell for importation,
`
`import into the United States, or sell in the United States after importation, or knowingly aid, abet,
`
`encourage, participate in, or induce the distribution, sale for importation, importation into the
`
`United States, or sale in the United States atter importation, of industrial automation systems and
`
`components thereof, including control systems, controllers, visualization hardware, motion and
`
`motor control systems, networking equipment, safety devices, and power supplies, that infringe
`
`U.S. Trademark No(s). l,l72,995; 696,40]; 693,780; l,l72,994; 712,800; 7l2,836; 2,510,226;
`
`2,671,196; 2,701,786; and/or 2,412,742 (“Assorted Trademarks”), or U.S. Copyright Reg. No(s).
`
`TX0008389890;
`
`TX0008389887;
`
`TX0008390098;
`
`TX0008390094;
`
`TX0008390077;
`
`TX0008390088; TX0008390l I6; TX0008390084; TX0008390ll 1; and TX000839009l
`
`(“Assorted Copyrights”), or are acquired or sold through unfair methods ofcompetition and unfair
`
`acts in importation or sale, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an
`
`industry in the United States (collectively “Accused Products”) except under consent, or a license
`
`from Rockwell, its successors or assignees.
`
`3.
`
`Upon entry of the Consent Order, Radwell will not sell within the United States or
`
`otherwise transfer (except for exportation) any remaining inventory of imported Accused Products
`
`in the United States.
`
`4.
`
`Radwell expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge
`
`or contest the validity of the Consent Order.
`
`5.
`
`Radwell will cooperate with and will not seek to impede by litigation or other
`
`3
`
`

`

`means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under Subpart l of Part 210, Title l9 of the
`
`Code of Federal Regulations.
`
`Q
`
`6.
`
`The enforcement, modification, and revocation of the Consent Order will be carried
`
`out pursuant lo Subpart l of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, l9 C.F.R. Part
`
`2l0, which are incorporated by reference herein.
`
`7.
`
`Radwell’s signing of this Stipulation is for settlement purposes only and does not
`
`constitute admission by Radwell that an unfair act has been committed.
`
`.
`
`8.
`
`The Consent Order shall have the same force and effect and may be enforced,
`
`modified, or revoked in the same manner as is provided in Section 337 of the TariffAct of I930
`
`and Part 2l0, Title l9 of the Code of Federal Regulations for other Commission actions, and the
`
`Commission may require periodic compliance reports pursuant to Subpart I of Part 210, Title 19
`
`Code of Federal Regulations to be submitted by Radwell.
`
`9.
`
`If any Asseitcd Trademark, Assertcd Copyright, or unfair trade practice claim has
`
`expired or is held invalid or unenforceable by a court or agency ofcompetentjurisdiotion or il’any
`
`article has been found or adjudicated not to infringe the asserted right in a final decision, no longer
`
`subject to appeal, this Consent Order shall become null and void as to such expired, invalid, or
`
`unenforceable claim or as to any adjudicated article.
`
`I0.
`
`Radwell will not seek to challenge the validity of the Asserted Trademarks or
`
`Asserted Copyrights in any administrative orjudicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order.
`
`SO STIPULATED:
`RADWELL INTERNATIONAL,Inc.
`
`D
`Q;
`By: Daniel Love
`Title: Senior VP Business Development- Global
`Date: July
`2018
`
`4
`
`

`

`Exhibit 2
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Before The Honorable Dee Lord
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION
`SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF, INCLUDING CONTROL
`SYSTEMS, CONTROLLERS,
`VISUALIZATION HARDWARE, MOTION
`AND MOTOR CONTROL SYSTEMS,
`NETWORKING EQUIPMENT, SAFETY
`DEVICES, AND POWER SUPPLIES
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1074
`'
`
`[PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER
`
`On September 6, 2017, Complainant Rockwell Automation, Inc., located at l20l South 2“d
`
`Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204 (“Rockwell” or “‘Complainant”), filed a Complaint against
`
`Radwell International, Inc. (“Radwell”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Pennsylvania, having its principal place of business atil Millennium Drive, Willingboro, NJ
`
`08046, alleging a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Complaint
`
`was based on, inter alia, violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United
`
`States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain
`
`industrial automation systems and components thereof including control systems,_controllers,
`
`visualization hardware, motion and motor control systems, networking equipment, safety devices,
`
`and power supplies, by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 1,172,995; 696,401;
`
`693,780; 1,172,994; 712,800; 712,836, 2,510,226; 2,671,196 ; 2,701,786; and 2,412,742
`
`(collectively,
`
`“Asserted
`
`Trademarks”); U.S. Copyright Reg. Nos. TX000838989O;
`
`TX0008389887;
`
`TX0008390098;
`
`TX0008390094;
`
`TX0008390077;
`
`TX0008390088;
`
`TX0008390ll6; TXO008390084; TX000839Olll; and TX000839009l (collectively “Asserted
`
`l
`
`

`

`Copyrights”). The complaint also alleges a violation of Section 337 based on unfair methods of
`
`competition and unfair acts in the importation or sale of certain industrial automation systems and
`
`components thereof including control systems, controllers, visualization hardware, motion and
`
`motor control systems, networking equipment, safety devices, and power supplies, the threat or
`
`effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.by, among
`
`others, Respondent Radwell. The Commission determined to institute the Investigation on October
`
`10, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 48113) (Oct. 16, 2017).
`
`Radwell has executed a Consent Order Stipulation in which it agrees to entry of this
`
`Consent Order and to all waivers and other provisions as required by Commission Rule of Practice
`
`and Procedure 2l0.21(c) (19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c)). Radwell has filed a Motion for Termination of
`
`the Investigation based on a Consent Order.
`
`l'l‘ lS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`
`3
`
`l.
`
`Effective upon entry of this Consent Order, Radwell shall not sell for importation
`
`into the United States,
`
`import into the United States, or sell within the United States alter
`
`importation, directly or indirectly, and shall not aid, abet, encourage, participate in, or induce the
`
`sale for importation, the importation, or the sale after importation of industrial automation systems
`
`and components thereof, including control systems, controllers, visualization hardware, motion
`
`and motor control systems, networking equipment, safety devices, and power supplies, that
`
`infringe U.S. Trademark No(s). 1,172,995; 696,401; 693,780; 1,172,994; 712,800; 712,836;
`
`2,510,226; 2,671,196; 2,701,786; and/or 2,412,742 (“Asserted Trademarks”) or U.S. Copyright
`
`Reg. No(s). TX00083 89890; TX0008389887; TX0008390098; TXO0O8390094;TX0008390077;
`
`TX0008390088; TX000839Oll6; TX0008390084; TX0008390ll1;
`
`and TX0008390091
`
`(“Asserted Copyrights”) and/or are acquired or sold through unfair methods of competition and
`
`2
`
`­
`

`

`unfair acts in importation or sale, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure
`
`an industry in the United States (collectively, “Accused Products”), except under consent, or a
`
`license from Rockwell, its successors or assigns.
`
`2.
`
`Effective upon entry of this Consent Order, Radwell will not sell within the United
`
`States or otherwise transfer (except for exportation) any remaining inventory of imported Accused
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`3.
`
`Effective upon entry of this Consent Order, Radwell shall cease and desist from
`
`importing into the United States and distributing the Accused Products.
`
`4.
`
`Radwell shall be precluded from seekingjudicial review or otherwise challenging
`
`or contesting the validity of this Consent Order.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`5.
`
`Radwell shall cooperate with and shall not seek to impede by litigation or other
`
`means the Commission’s efforts to gather information under Subpart I of the Commission’s Rules
`
`of Practice and Procedure, Part 210, Title l9 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
`
`6.
`
`Radwell and its officers,‘directors, employees, agents, and any entity or individual
`
`acting on its behalf and with its authority shall not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability
`
`of any Asserted Copyright, Asserted Trademark, or unfair
`
`trade practice claim in any
`
`administrative orjudicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order;
`
`7.
`
`When the Asserted Copyrights, Asserted Trademarks, or unfair trade practice
`
`expires, the Consent Order shall become null and void as to such;
`
`‘
`
`8.
`
`If any Asserted Copyright, Asserted Trademark, or unfair trade practice claim is
`
`held invalid or unenforceable by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction or if any article has
`
`been found or adjudicated not to infringe the asserted right in a final decision, no longer subject to
`
`3
`
`

`

`appeal, this Consent Order shall become null and void as to such invalid or unenforceable Claim
`
`or adjudicated article;
`
`9.
`
`Radwell admits that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the Accused
`
`Products and in personam jurisdiction over Radwell, and subject matter jurisdiction over this
`
`Investigation;
`
`l0.
`
`The Investigation is hereby terminated with respect to Radwell; provided, however,
`
`that enforcement, modification, or revocation of the Consent Order shall be carried out pursuant
`
`to Subpart I ofthe Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, l9 CFR part i210.
`
`BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION:
`
`Issued:July_,
`
`2018
`
`Lisa A. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`
`' 4
`
`

`

`.Z
`
`CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION SYSTEMS AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF INCLUDING CONTROL _
`SYSTEMS, CONTROLLERS, VISUALIZATION
`HARDWARE, MOTION CONTROL SYSTEMS, '
`NETWORKING EQUIPMENT, SAFETY DEVICES, AND
`POWER SUPPLIES
`
`C
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Inv. N0. 337-TA-1074
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served by hand upon
`the Commission Investigative Attorney, Brian Koo, Esq., and the following parties as indicated,
`on 7/20/2018
`
`‘W
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`.
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`On Behalf of Complainants Rockwell Automation. Inc.:
`
`Adam D. Swain
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`950 F Street NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`On Behalf of Respondent Radwell International
`d/b/a PLC Center:
`
`Deanna Tanner Okun
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG LLP
`1133 Connecticut Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Respondents:
`
`Can Electric Limited
`No. 2 Danan Rd, Yueziu District
`Guangzhou, Guangdong, 5101 15
`China
`
`Capnil (HK) Company Limited
`Unit 603 6/F Koon Wah Mirrow
`Factory 3 Ind Bldg 5-9 Ka Hing
`Rd Kln Hk
`:
`Hong Kong
`
`Cl Via Hand Delivery
`El’Via Express Delivery
`Cl Via First Class Mail
`[:1 Other:
`
`U)/ia HandDelivery
`' Via ExpressDelivery
`U Via First Class Mail
`U Other:
`
`[II Via Hand Delivery
`lZfVia Express Delivery
`U Via First Class Mail
`U Other:
`
`U Via