ITC Reviews in Part the Violation Finding Against ASUS and Plume in Estelgia's 337-TA-1454 Wi-Fi Router Investigation.

The investigation

The Commission instituted Certain Wi-Fi Routers, Wi-Fi Devices, Mesh Wi-Fi Network Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1454, on June 23, 2025 (90 FR 26608-09) on a complaint filed on behalf of Estelgia, LLC of Dover, Delaware. The complaint, as supplemented, alleged infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patents 7,936,714; 11,246,016; 10,735,973; 10,531,518; 9,775,164; and 9,277,591. The notice of investigation named seven respondents: Linksys Holdings, Inc. and Linksys USA, Inc.; ASUStek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International (together, ASUS); D-Link Corporation and D-Link Systems, Inc.; and Plume Design Inc. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also a party.

The Commission terminated the Linksys respondents based on a settlement agreement on December 19, 2025, and terminated the D-Link respondents based on a consent order on April 27, 2026. After Estelgia withdrew allegations, the Commission terminated a set of claims on January 29, 2026 and then the '016, '518, '164, and '591 patents on March 17, 2026, leaving the '714 and '973 patents.

The final initial determination

On August 6, 2026, the administrative law judge issued a final initial determination finding a violation of section 337 by ASUS and Plume. ASUS and Plume and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations each petitioned for review on August 18, 2026, and Estelgia filed a contingent petition.

What the Commission is reviewing

The Commission voted on October 28, 2026 to review the final initial determination's findings on (1) the construction of the preamble of claim 13 of the '714 patent and related subsidiary findings, including infringement by ASUS and Plume and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement; (2) indirect infringement by ASUS of claim 13 of the '714 patent; (3) infringement and the technical prong for the '973 claim elements "prioritizing the one or more channels . . . based on the measured channel condition" and "assigning . . . at least one channel having a lower priority to a second UE having a lower priority for communication"; (4) written description and obviousness of the '973 patent; and (5) the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.

The Commission determined not to review, and adopted, the findings on invalidity of the '714 patent. On the finding that Sorrells-836 in view of Sorrells-296 does not render claim 13 obvious, it determined that ASUS and Plume had not presented in their post-hearing briefs the additional motivation arguments in their petition, and so waived them. The rest of the final initial determination is not under review.

The Commission's questions

The Commission asked whether the "based on" language in '973 claim elements 1[d] and 8[f] differs in meaning from "based, at least in part, on" in other elements; whether the written description finding can be reconciled with the obviousness finding on channels versus bands; and whether Estelgia put in evidence any foreign plant and equipment or labor or capital investments, including contract manufacturing, relating to manufacturing of its domestic industry products, and whether it provided an economic prong analysis that considers such foreign investments. It also asked the parties to address whether "plant and equipment" in 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) is limited to land, buildings, machinery, apparatus, and fixtures employed in physical production or industrial activity in the United States; whether "employment of labor" in section 1337(a)(3)(B) is confined to wage earners engaged in that activity; whether "employment of . . . capital" is confined to "the employment of capital goods and capital expenditures not otherwise accounted for by categories of capital assets and expenditures other than those recited in subsections 337(a)(3)(A) or (C)"; and whether investments in the categories so defined are "significant."

What to watch next

Initial written submissions on the Commission's questions and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding are due November 12, 2026, with replies due November 19, 2026. The target date is January 14, 2027. If the Commission orders a remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative has 60 days to review it, and the articles may enter under bond during that period. Estelgia also filed suits on May 16, 2025 in the District of Delaware against ASUStek Computer Inc. (No. 1:25-cv-00614), D-Link Corporation (No. 1:25-cv-00615), Linksys USA, Inc. (No. 1:25-cv-00616), and Plume Design, Inc. (No. 1:25-cv-00618). The court stayed those cases (under 28 U.S.C. 1659(a) in the ASUStek and D-Link cases) and administratively closed them pending the investigation. The Linksys case was voluntarily dismissed on October 15, 2025, and on September 24, 2026 the court lifted the stay in the D-Link case.