PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, DC.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN WATER FILTERS AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`IIIV- NO- 337-TA-1126
`
`- Order No. 15 (Initial Determination)
`
`On February 1, 2019, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21, complainants Electrolux
`
`Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”) and KX Technologies, LLC (“KX”) and respondents
`
`Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd; Hong Kong Ecoaqua Co., Ltd.; and Ecolife Technologies, Inc.
`
`(collectively, the “Eco Respondents”) filed a joint motion to terminate this investigation as to
`
`Eco Respondents based on a Consent Order Stipulation (Exhibit A), proposed Consent Order
`
`(Exhibit B), and a Settlement Agreement (Exhibits C and D). Motion Docket No. 1126-17.1
`
`On February 13, 2019, the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) filed a response
`
`supporting the pending motion. No other response was filed.
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(a)(2) provides that “[a]ny party may move at any time to
`
`terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents on the basis of a
`
`settlement, a licensing or other agreement
`
`or a consent order, as provided in paragraphs (b), (c)
`
`and (d) of this section.” 19 CPR. § 210.21(a)(2). Commission Rule_210.21(c) provides in
`
`relevant part that “[a]n investigation before the Commission may be terminated pursuant to
`
`section 337(0) of the Tariff Act of 1930 on the basis of a consent order.” 19 CPR. § 210.21(c).
`
`1 As ordered by the administrative law judge, on March 5, 2019, the movants filed a confidential
`joint motion to terminate. See Motion Docket No. 1126-21 (EDIS Doc. ID No. 669037).
`
`

`

`Commission Rule 210.21 (b)(1) provides in relevant part that “[a]n investigation before the
`
`Commission may be terminated as to one or more respondents pursuant to section 337(0) of the
`
`Tariff Act of 1930 on the basis of a licensing or other settlement agreement.” 19 CPR. §
`
`210.21(b)(1).
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(0), the movants state that “[o]ther tthan the Term
`
`Sheet that is also the subject of the present motion, there are no other agreements, written or oral,
`
`express or implied, between Complainants and the Eco Respondents concerning the subject
`
`matter of this Investigation.” Mot. at 3; 19 CPR. § 210.21(c). Pursuant to Commission Rule
`
`210.21(b)(1), the movants state: “the Settling Parties represent that there are no other
`
`agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the Settling Parties concerning the
`
`subject matter of this Investigation.” Mot. at 4; 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(b)(1).
`
`The Consent Order Stipulation complies with the requirements of Commission Rule
`
`210.21(c)(3). See Mot. Exhibit A (Consent Order Stipulation), W 1-4, 6-10 (complying with 19
`
`CPR. § 210.21(c)(3)(i)(A)-(G)); id, 1111 11-12 (complying with 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c)(3)(ii)(A)-
`
`(B)); see Staff Resp. at 3-4.
`
`The proposed Consent Order complies with the requirements of Commission Rule
`
`210.21(c)(4). See Mot. Exhibit B (Proposed Consent Order), 11'” 1-13 (complying with 19 CPR.
`
`§ 210.21(c)(4)(i)-(xii)); see Staff Resp. at 4-5.
`
`The Commission’s Rules provide that in the case of a proposed termination by settlement
`
`agreement, consent order, or arbitration agreement, the parties may file statements regarding the
`
`impact of the proposed termination on the public interest, and the administrative law judge may
`
`hear argument, although no discovery may be compelled, with respect to issues relating solely to
`
`the public interest. The administrative law judge is directed to consider and make appropriate
`
`

`

`findings “regarding the effect of the proposed settlement on the public health and welfare,
`
`competitive conditions in the US. economy, the production of like or directly competitive
`
`articles in the United States, and US. consumers.” See 19 CPR. § 210.50(b)(2).
`
`The movants argue: “Entry of this consent order will also not impose an undue burden on
`
`the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, production
`
`of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or US. consumers. 19 C.F.R. § 210.5
`
`(b)(2). Entry of the proposed Consent Order would resolve any case or controversy that
`
`Complainants has with respect to the Eco Respondents and the public interest would be served
`
`by avoiding needless litigation and conserving judicial resources.” Mot. at 3. Concerning the
`
`termination based on the Settlement Agreement, the movants argue: “In view of the Term Sheet,
`
`there no longer exists a basis upon which to continue this Investigation as to the Eco
`
`Respondents. Further, termination of this Investigation as to the Eco Respondents at this stage of
`
`the proceedings poses no threat to the public interest. It is in the interest of the public and
`
`administrative economy to grant this motion to prevent fithher needless litigation.” Id. at 4-5.
`
`The Staff states that it “is not aware of any information that would indicate that termination of
`
`this investigation as to the Eco Respondents and the entry of the Proposed Consent Order would
`
`be contrary to the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the US. economy, the
`
`production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or US. consumers.” Staff
`
`Resp. at 6.
`
`The undersigned does not find any evidence that terminating this investigation as to the
`
`Eco Respondents based on the Consent Order Stipulation, proposed Consent Order, and the
`
`Settlement Agreement would be contrary to the public interest.
`
`Accordingly, it is the initial determination of the undersigned that Motion Nos. 1126-17
`
`

`

`and 1126-21 are granted. The procedural schedule is stayed as to Eco Respondents while any
`
`Commission review is pending.
`
`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 of the initial
`
`determination pursuant to 19 CPR. § 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to 19 CPR.
`
`§ 210.44, orders on its own motion a review of the initial determination or certain issues
`
`contained herein.
`
`
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`Issued: March 5, 2019
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, DC
`Honorable David P. Shaw
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN WATER FILTERS
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337—TA-1126
`
`JOINT MOTION OF COMPLAINANTS AND RESPONDENT ECOPURE FILTER CO.,
`LTD., HONG KONG ECOAQUA CO., LTD., AND ECOLIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`BASED ON CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION, PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER, AND
`W
`
`Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1337 (c) and 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.21(a)(2), 210.21(c)(l)(ii) and
`
`210.21 (b), Complainants Electrolux North America, Inc. (“Electrolux”) and KX Technologies,
`
`LLC (“KX”) (collectively, “Complainants”) and Respondents Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd, Hong
`
`Kong Ecoaqua CO., Ltd., and Ecolife Technologies, Inc. (collectively, the “Eco Respondents”),
`
`hereby jointly move to terminate this investigation as to the Eco Respondents. First,
`
`the
`
`Commission should terminate the investigation as tO the Eco Respondents based on the attached
`
`Consent Order Stipulation (Exhibit A) and Proposed Consent Order (Exhibit B). Second, the
`
`Commission should terminate the investigation as to the Eco Respondents according to a Term
`
`Sheet (the “Term Sheet”) resolving the present disputes between Complainants and the Eco
`
`Respondents (the “Settling Parties”). A true and correct copy of the Term Sheet, redacted to
`
`protect the disclosure of confidential business information,
`
`is attached to this submission as
`
`Public Exhibit C, and an unredacted version for service on the ALJ and OUII is attached as
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`22135378-V2
`
`

`

`I.
`
`THE ECO RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE TERMINATED FROM THE
`INVESTIGATION BASED ON A STIPULATED CONSENT ORDER
`
`The Eco Respondents stipulate to the entry of the Proposed Consent Order and requests
`
`that the Proposed Consent Order be entered for the purpose of resolving the investigation.
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(c)(1)(ii) provides that, at any time prior to the commencement of the
`
`hearing in an investigation, one or more of the respondents may move to terminate the
`investigation by consent order. See 19 C.F.R. §210.21(a)(2) (“[a]ny party may move at any time
`
`to terminate an investigation .
`
`.
`
`. as to any or all respondents on the basis of .
`
`.
`
`. a consent order”);
`
`Comm’n Comments on Rule 210.21(c), 57 Fed. Reg. 52830, 52838 (Nov. 5, 1992). Commission
`
`policy and the public interest generally favor settlements, which preserve resources for both the
`
`Commission and the private parties, and termination based on a settlement agreement/consent
`
`order is routinely granted. See, e. g, Certain Safety Eyewear and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`
`337—TA-433, Order No. 37 at 2 (Nov. 3, 2000); Certain Synchronous Dynamic Random Access
`
`Memory Devices, Microprocessors and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-43l, Order
`
`No. 11 at 2 (July13, 2000); Certain Integrated Circuit Chipsets and Products Containing Same,
`
`Inv. N0. 337—TA—428, Order No. 16 at 5 (Aug. 22, 2000); Certain Telephonic Digital Added
`
`Mainline Systems Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, N0. 337—TA-400, Notice
`
`To The Parties at 3 (Feb. 12, 1998); Certain Screen Printing Machines, Vision Alignment Devices
`
`Used Therein, and Component Parts Thereof, Inv. No. 337—TA-394, Order N0. 13 at 4 (Oct. 6,
`
`1997)
`
`This Commission should grant the instant joint motion to terminate the investigation as to
`
`the Eco Respondents based on a stipulated consent order. In the Consent Order Stipulation, the
`
`Eco Respondents represent that upon entry of the Consent Order, they shall not to sell for
`
`importation, import, or sell after importation in the United States, directly or indirectly, water
`
`filter cartridges for refrigerators, including water filter cartridge assemblies and interconnection
`
`22l35378-v2
`
`2
`
`

`

`subassemblies that infringe one or more of claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
`
`29, 30, or 31 ofthe ‘852 patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 6, or 7 ofthe ‘146 patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12,
`
`13, 14, or 15 of the ‘322 patent, or claim 49 of the ‘551 patent (“Subject Articles”) and shall not
`
`aid, abet, encourage, participate in, or induce the sale for importation, the importation, or the sale
`
`after importation of the Subject Articles, except under consent, license from the Complainants, or
`
`to the extent permitted by a settlement agreement between Complainants and Respondent. Other
`
`than the Term Sheet that is also the subject of the present motion, there are no other agreements,
`
`written or oral, express or implied, between Complainants and the Eco Respondents concerning the
`
`subject matter of this Investigation.
`
`This motion is also timely filed before the commencement of the hearing. Entry of this
`
`consent order will also not impose an undue burden on the public health and welfare, competitive
`
`conditions in the United States economy, production of like or directly competitive articles in the
`
`United States, or US. consumers. 19 CPR. § 210.5 (b)(2). Entry of the proposed Consent Order
`
`would resolve any case or controversy that Complainants has with respect to the Eco Respondents
`
`and the public interest would be served by avoiding needless litigation and conserving judicial
`
`resources.
`
`The Eco Respondents seek to conclude this investigation without additional expense,
`
`risk, or disruption, and the Stipulation, attached as Exhibit A, contains the admissions, waivers,
`
`statements, and other requirements under Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3). The Commission
`
`should therefore grant the motion to terminate the Eco Respondents on the basis of a stipulated
`
`consent order.
`
`22135378-V2
`
`

`

`II.
`
`THE INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE TERMINATED AS TO THE ECO
`RESPONDENTS BASED ON THE TERM SHEET
`
`This Commission and the public interest generally favor settlements, which preserve
`
`resources for both the Commission and the private parties, and motions to terminate baSed on
`
`settlement such as this are routinely granted. See, e.g, Certain Graphics Processors, DDR Memory
`
`Controllers, and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA—103 7, Order No. 26 (terminating
`
`investigation as to one respondent based on settlement agreement); Certain RF Capable Integrated
`
`Circuits and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337—TA—982, Order No. 12 (August 2, 2016)
`
`(same); Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof and Vehicles Containing
`
`Same, Inv. No. 337—TA-984, Order No. 33 (May 10, 2016) (same); Certain Communications or
`
`Computing Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. N0. 337—TA—925, Order No. 37, (June 5,
`
`2015) (same).
`
`The Tenn Sheet, which has been executed by the Settling Parties and is fully effective as
`
`between them with respect to this investigation, completely resolves the dispute between the
`
`Settling Parties in this Investigation. Pursuant to 19 CPR. §210.2l(b)(l), the Settling Parties
`
`represent that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the
`
`Settling Parties concerning the subject matter of this Investigation. The Settling Parties agree that
`
`termination of this investigation on the basis of the Term Sheet as to the Eco Respondents does
`
`not constitute a determination as to the Violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
`
`including as to the merits of the claims or defenses raised during this Investigation. See 19 C.F.R
`
`§§ 210.2l(b).
`
`In View of the Term Sheet, there no longer exists a basis upon which to continue this
`
`Investigation as to the Eco Respondents. Further, termination of this Investigation as to the Eco
`
`Respondents at this stage of the proceedings poses no threat to the public interest. It is in the
`
`22135378—v2
`
`

`

`interest of the public and administrative economy to grant this motion to prevent further
`
`needless litigation. The Commission should therefore grant the motion to terminate the Eco
`
`Respondents on the basis of the Term Sheet.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the forgoing reasons, the Eco Respondents and Complainants respectfully request
`
`that
`
`this Commission grant this joint motion to terminate the investigation as to the Eco
`
`Respondents based on (1) entry of the attached Proposed Consent Order and (2)
`
`the
`
`accompanying Term Sheet.
`
`IV.
`
`GROUND RULE 5(e) CERTIFICATION
`
`Counsel for Complainants and the Eco Respondents certify that they have conferred
`
`with the Office of Unfair Import Investigation (“OUII”). OUII will take a position after
`
`reviewing the Motion, and waives the two-day notice period of Rule 5(e). Counsel for
`
`Complainants did not contact counsel for Pureza Filters Ltd. or Crystala Filters LLC, as those
`
`parties have settled and have filed a motion for termination based on a consent order stipulation
`
`and settlement.
`
`Dated: February 1, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`
`/s/ Andrew F. Pratt
`
`Andrew F. Pratt
`VENABLE LLP
`
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 344-4389
`Facsimile: (202) 344—8300
`Counselfor Complainant Electrolux North America, Inc.
`
`/s/ Ray Ashburg
`Ray Ashburg
`Associate General Counsel — IP
`
`ELECTROLUX NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`
`10200 David Taylor Drive
`
`. 5
`
`22135378-V2
`
`

`

`Charlotte, NC 28262
`Counselfor Complainant Electrolux North America, Inc.
`
`/s/ Robert Curcio
`Robert Curcio
`
`DELIO, PETERSON & CURCIO LLC
`700 State Street, Suite 402
`New Haven, CT 0651 1
`
`Telephone: (203) 787-0595
`Facsimile: (203) 787-5818
`Counselfor KX Technologies, LLC
`
`/s/ Evan H. Langdon
`Tom M. Schaumberg
`Michael L. Doane
`
`Evan H. Langdon
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, L.L.P.
`1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 12th Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 467—6300
`Facsimile: (202) 466-2006
`Counselfor Respondents Ecopure Filter Co, Ltd,
`Ecolz'fe Technologies, Inc, and Hong Kong
`EcoAqua Co, Ltd.
`
`22135378—v2
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`'
`
`CERTAIN WATER FILTERS
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1126
`
`CONSENT ORDER STIPULATION BY ECOPURE FILTER 00., LTD., HONG KONG
`ECOAQUA CO., LTD., AND ECOLIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`WHEREAS, Complainants Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”) and KX
`
`Technologies, LLC (“KXT”) (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a Complaint before the United
`
`States International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) on June 8, 2018, an Amended
`
`Complaint on June 27, 2018,‘ and a Supplement to the Amended Complaint on July 10, 2018
`
`(collectively, the “Complaint”)t
`
`WHEREAS, the Commission has instituted the above-captioned investigation under
`
`Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337), based upon the allegations
`
`in the Complaint filed by Complainants;
`WHEREAS, Complainants allege violation ofSection 337 by Respondents Ecopure
`
`Filter Co., Ltd., Hong Kong Ecoaqua Co., Ltd., and Ecolife Technologies, Inc., (collectively,
`
`“Eco” or “Respondents”) based upon the assertion that Respondents’ accused water filters are
`
`imported, sold for importation and/or sold after importation into the United States;
`
`WHEREAS, Complainants and Respondents have entered into a Term Sheet whereunder
`
`Respondents agree to the entry of a Consent Order by the Commission in the form attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit A;
`
`

`

`NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(3),
`
`Respondents stipulate and agree as follows in connection with Complainants’ Motion to
`
`Terminate Investigation as to Eco Based on Settlement Agreement and Consent Order:
`
`.
`
`l.
`
`The Respondents covered by this Consent Order Stipulation are Ecopure Filter
`
`Co., Ltd., a company organized under the laws of China having its headquarters at No. 195 Hong
`
`Kong East Rd., Laoshan District, Qingdao, Shandong, China 266000, Hong Kong Ecoaqua Co.,
`
`Ltd., a company organized under the laws of Hong Kong having its headquarters at Hong Kong
`
`Rm 2105 JQD2732 Trend Centre, 29-31 Cheng Lee St., Wan Chai, Hong Kong, China, Area
`
`Code 852, and Ecolife Technologies, Inc., a California company having its headquarters at
`
`17910 Ajax Circle, City of Industry, CA 91748.
`
`2.
`
`The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 8,673,146 (“the ‘ 146 patent”), U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,137,551 (“the ‘551 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,233,322 (“the ‘322 patent”), and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,901,852 (“the ‘852 patent”) (collectively “Asserted Patents”).
`
`3.
`
`The products accused of infringement in the Amended Complaint are water filters
`
`that are capable of replacing the ULTRAWF filters and WF3CB filters.
`
`4.
`
`The Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the Subject Articles and in
`
`personam jurisdiction over Respondents solely for purposes of the Consent Order, and subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over this Investigation.
`
`5.
`
`Respondents agree not to sell for importation, import, or sell after importation in
`
`the United States, directly or indirectly, water filter cartridges and components thereof for use in
`
`refrigerators that infringe one or more of claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
`
`29, 30, or 31 of the ‘852 patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 6, or 7 ofthe ‘146 patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,
`
`12. 13, 14, or 15 of the ‘322 patent, or claim 49 of the ‘551 patent (“Subject Articles”) and shall
`
`

`

`not aid, abet, encourage, participate in, or induce the sale for importation, the importation, or the
`
`sale after importation of the Subject Articles, except under consent, license from the
`
`Complainants, or to the extent permitted by a settlement agreement between Complainants and
`
`Respondents.
`
`6.
`
`Respondents agree to the entry of a Consent Order by the Commission in the form
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`7.
`
`Respondents expressly waive all'rights to seek judicial review or otherwise
`
`challenge or contest the validity of the Consent Order.
`
`8.
`
`Respondents will cooperate with and will 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, 19 C.F.R. Part 210.
`
`9.
`
`Enforcement, modification, or revocation of the Consent Order will be carried out
`
`pursuant to Subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part 210,
`
`which are incorporated by reference herein.
`
`10.
`
`The signing of this Consent Order Stipulation is for settlement purposes only and
`
`does not constitute an admission by Respondents of infringement of any or all of the Asserted
`
`Patents by Respondents or that any unfair act has been committed by Respondents.
`
`ll.
`
`The Consent Order shall have the same force and effect and may be enforced,
`
`modified, or revoked in the same manner as is provided in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
`
`and 19 C.F.R. Part 210 for other Commission actions, and the Commission may require periodic
`
`compliance reports pursuant to Subpart I of 19 C.F.R. Part 210 to be submitted by Respondents.
`
`12.
`
`If any asserted claim of the Asserted Patents has expired or is held invalid or
`
`unenforceable by the Commission or a court Or agency of competent jurisdiction or if any article
`
`

`

`has been found or adjudicated not. to infringe any asserted claim of the Asseited Patents in a final
`
`decision, no longer subject to appeal, the Consent Order shall become null and void as to such
`
`expired, invalid or unenforceable claim or adjudicated article.
`
`13.
`
`Respondents will not seek to challenge the validity or enforceability of the
`
`Asserted Patents in any administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce the Consent Order.
`
`IT IS SO STIPULATED.
`
`Dated:
`
`______a_._______
`Feb 1*“ 2019
`
`Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd.
`By:
`zhibm Zou
`
`Title:
`
`General Manager
`
`Hong Kong Ecoaqua Co., Ltd.
`
`By:
`
`zhibm Zou
`
`Title: __General Manager
`
`Ecolife Technologies, Inc.
`
`By:
`
`Zhibin Zou
`
`Title:
`
`General Manager
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, DC
`Honorable David P. Shaw
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`CONSENT ORDER
`
`The International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) has instituted the above-
`
`captioned investigation under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19 U.S.C. §
`
`1337), based upon the allegations contained in the Complaint filed by Complainants Electrolux
`
`Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”) and KX Technologies, LLC (“KXT”) (collectively,
`
`“Complainants”) which alleges Violations of Section 337 by, among others, Respondents
`
`Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd, Hong Kong Ecoaqua Co., Ltd, and Ecolife Technologies, Inc, (“Eco”
`
`or “‘Respondents”).
`
`Respondents have executed a Settlement Agreement with Complainants and executed a
`
`Consent Order Stipulation, to which this Consent Order is attached, in which they agree to the
`
`entry of this Consent Order and to all waivers and other provisions as required by the
`
`Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
`
`NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission issues the following Consent Order:
`
`1.
`
`The Complainants in this Investigation are Electrolux Home Products, Inc. a
`
`corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its headquarters at 10200 David
`
`Taylor Drive, Charlotte, NC 28262 and KX Technologies LLC, a limited liability company
`
`

`

`formed under the laws of Delaware having a principal place of business at 55 Railroad Avenue,
`
`West Haven, Connecticut 06516 (collectively, as also defined above, “Complainants”).
`
`2.
`
`The Respondents covered by this Consent Order are Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd., a
`
`company organized under the laws of China having its headquarters at No. 195 Hong Kong East
`
`Rd, Laoshan District, Qingdao, Shandong, China 266000, Hong Kong Ecoaqua Co., Ltd., a
`
`company organized under the laws of Hong Kong having its headquarters at Hong Kong Rm
`
`2105 JQD2732 Trend Centre, 29-31 Cheng Lee St, Wan Chai, Hong Kong, China, Area Code
`
`852, and Ecolife Technologies, Inc., a California company having its headquarters at 17910 Ajax
`
`Circle, City of Industry, CA 91748 (collectively, “Eco” or “Respondents”).
`
`3.
`
`The Complaint alleges that Eco imports, sells for importation, and/or sells after
`
`importation in the United States water filter cartridges and components thereof for use in
`
`refrigerators that infringe one or more of claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
`
`29, 30, or 31 of the ‘852 patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 6, or 7 ofthe ‘146 patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9,
`
`12, 13, 14, or 15 of the ‘322 patent, or claim 49 of the ‘5 5 l patent (the “Subject Articles”).
`
`4.
`
`In their Complaint, Complainants allege that Respondents import, sell for
`
`importation and/or sell after importation in the United States the Subject Articles in violation
`
`Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337) by reason of infringement
`
`of one or more ofclaims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, or 31 ofthe
`
`‘852 patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 6, or 7 ofthe ‘146 patent, claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, or 15 of
`
`the ‘322 patent, or claim 49 of the ‘55 l patent (the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`5.
`
`Respondents executed a Consent Order Stipulation and stipulate to the entry of
`
`this Consent Order.
`
`

`

`6.
`
`Respondents shall not sell for importation, import, or sell after importation the
`
`Subject Articles, 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 the Subject Articles,
`
`except under consent, license from the Complainants, or to the extent permitted by the
`
`Settlement~Agreement between Complainants and Respondents.
`
`7.
`
`Respondents shall be precluded from seeking judicial review or otherwise
`
`challenging or contesting the validity of the Consent Order.
`
`8.
`
`Respondents 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, 19 C.F.R. Part 210.
`
`9.
`
`Respondents and their officers, directors, employees, agents and any entity or
`
`individual acting on their behalf and with their authority shall not seek to challenge the validity
`
`or enforceability of any asserted claims of the Asserted Patents in any administrative or judicial
`
`proceeding to enforce the Consent Order.
`
`10. When an Asserted Patent expires, this Consent Order shall become null and void
`as to each such expired patent.
`
`11.
`
`If any asserted claim of the Asserted Patents is held invalid or unenforceable by
`
`the Commission or a court or agency of competent jurisdiction or if any article has been found or
`
`adjudicated not to infringe any asserted claim of the Asserted Patents in a final decision, no
`
`longer subject to appeal, this Consent Order shall become null and void as to such invalid or
`
`unenforceable claim or adjudicated article.
`
`
`
`

`

`12.
`
`Respondents admit that the Commission has in rem jurisdiction over the Subject
`
`,
`
`Articles and in personam jurisdiction over Respondents solely for purposes of the Consent
`
`Order, and subject matter jurisdiction over this Investigation.
`
`13.
`
`This Investigation is hereby terminated with respect to Respondents; provided,
`
`however, that enforcement, modification, or revocation of this Consent Order shall be carried out
`
`pursuant to Subpart I of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. Part 210.
`
`Dated:
`
`BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
`
`
`
`Lisa Barton
`
`Secretary
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`TERM SHEET
`
`Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd. ("Ecopure"), HongKong Ecoaqua Co., Ltd. ("Ecoaqua"), and
`Ecolife Technologies, inc. (“Ecolife”) (collectively, “Eco“) agree to, within three business
`
`days (the ”Effective Date”), stop manufacturing, distributing, selling, offering for sale,
`
`advertising, importing and selling for or after importation products that are capable of
`replacing the ULTRAWF filters, WF3CB filters (including, without limitation, each product
`identified by Eco in Respondents' Joint Response to Complainants' List of Proposed
`
`Representative Products), and EPTWFUOl filters (“Accused Products”).
`
`Eco agrees to
`
`Eco agrees to I.
`
`Eco agrees to
`
`. The parties to this Term Sheet (“Parties") cannot disclose to any third party any other
`party’s confidential information or documents from this Investigation, the settlement
`process, this Term Sheet, or the signed settlement agreement other than as required by
`law or as directed by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction.
`
`Complainants and their affiliates will not bring any further lawsuits against Eco based on
`federal or state law causes of action (e.g., patent, trademark, copyright, federal or state
`unfair competition, and Lanham Act) in connection with Eco’s Accused Products for
`causes of action that could have been brought by EX/KXT as of the Effective Date,
`
`subject to the conditions specified in Paragraph 11.
`
`Eco agrees to enter into a standard Consent Order Stipulation with the ITC.
`
`

`

`10.
`
`Complainants and Eco acknowledge and agree that this Agreement
`
`.
`
`and Complainants
`
`reserve all rights in such products with respect to any and all third-party sellers,
`suppliers, and importers or any other party whose actions with respect to such products
`could be considered violation of one or both Complainants’ rights. Complainants
`
`covenant not to sue Eco for its past sales of the Accused Products, or for any past or
`
`future actions of third parties with respect to such products.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`lf Eco (including its principals) materially breaches the settlement agreement, such as by
`
`directly, or indirectly through another company or through associates, advertising or
`selling ULTRAWF, WF3CB, and EPTWFU01 cartridges, Complainants may revoke the
`
`covenant not to sue after a 15-day notice and cure period. During said 15-day notice
`
`and cure period, Complainants and Eco have the obligation to discuss in good faith
`
`regarding the alleged breach(es).
`
`Complainants agree to not disparage Eco as to its past sales of products bearing
`Complainants’ marks and brandings (e.g., Frigidaire, Electrolux, Kenmore) so long as Eco
`
`is not in material breach of the settlement agreement.
`
`This Agreement is made and entered into within and shall be governed by, construed,
`
`interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws ofthe State of North Carolina,
`
`USA, without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws. Any action to enforce this
`
`Agreement shall be brought only in Mecklenburg County Court, North Carolina, USA.
`
`Eco will further designate a domestic agent for service of process only for such
`enforcement actions.
`
`The parties to this Agreement agree to execute a final settlement agreement, and
`
`submit motion for entry of a consent order, and submit a motion to terminate the
`
`investigation based on settlement agreement to the WC, by no later than January 10,
`2019.
`
`By the next business day after the execution of this Term Sheet, Eco will withdraw from
`
`any joint defense agreement with any other party concerning the patents asserted in
`the Investigation (”Asserted Patents”), and Eco will not (a) commence or otherwise
`
`voluntarily participate in any action or proceeding challenging or denying the validity of
`any Asserted Patent or any patent related to the Asserted Patents, or (b) direct, support
`
`

`

`or actively assist any other party in bringing or prosecuting any such action or
`proceeding.
`
`16. By the next business day following the execution of this Term Sheet, the parties to this
`Term Sheet shall submit a joint motion seeking to stay the Procedural Schedule as to
`Eco, and further contact the Administrative Law Judge to advise him of the parties’
`settlement in principle.
`
`17. Complainants covenant not to sue Eco based on the Asserted Patents, or any
`continuations, continuations in part, or divisionals thereof, or any other patent owned
`or controlled by Electrolux or KX regarding all sales, offers for sale, production, use, and
`importation into the United States (including sales for and after importation) against Eco
`with respect to any water filters sold as replacement filters by any third party that were
`manufactured and sold by Eco as replacement filters for Electrolux brands that occurred
`prior to the Effective Date, subject to paragraph 11.
`
`18. if either Electrolux or KX become aware of any Eco product that either Electrolux or KX
`believe infringes that party’s intellectual property rights, the owner of the intellectual
`property shall notify Eco or its designated representative in writing. Thereafter the
`parties shall negotiate in good faith for 30 days in an attempt to informally resolve the
`dispute. During this period, neither party shall commence an action in any court or
`agency concerning the dispute or the intellectual property at issue, and the assartlon by ‘
`Electrolux or KX shall not be used by Eco as the