Foundry Coke Section 337 Case Narrows to One Patent

The foundry coke Section 337 investigation has narrowed, but the commercial risk has not disappeared. With one patent removed and additional claims added against five respondents, foundries, importers, traders, and customs brokers need a precise view of the current scope, potential remedies, and practical steps for protecting supply continuity.

What Changed in the Foundry Coke Investigation

The U.S. International Trade Commission voted on November 4, 2026, not to review an administrative law judge's decision granting an unopposed motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. The amendment adds claims 1-5 and 7-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,600,915 against five entities collectively identified as the MTX Group.

Those respondents are MTX Group a.s., OKK Koksovny a.s., METALIMEX a.s., METALIMEX Deutschland GmbH, and AMEX Coal Sp. z o.o. The investigation also includes Italiana Coke S.r.l. and Terminal Alti Fondali Savona S.r.l., bringing the total number of named respondents to seven.

At the same time, the investigation has been terminated as to all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,331,367 for every respondent. This removes one patent from the proceeding, but it does not end the case. The investigation continues under the '915 patent, including the newly added claims against the MTX Group respondents.

The Procedural Change Is Not a Violation Finding

SunCoke Technology and Development LLC and Jewell Coke Company L.P. filed the amendment motion on September 21, 2026. The administrative law judge granted the motion in Order No. 10 on October 5, and no petitions for review were filed. The investigation itself was instituted on July 20, 2026.

This procedural development does not establish infringement, a Section 337 violation, or an entitlement to an import remedy. It changes the patent claims and respondents at issue as the proceeding moves forward. Importers should therefore avoid treating the amendment either as a final enforcement action or as evidence that the commercial risk has passed.

Why the Case Matters to Importers and Customs Brokers

Section 337 investigations can affect the admissibility of imported products, even though they are not customs duty proceedings. If the Commission eventually finds a violation, it may generally issue a limited exclusion order covering infringing products imported by named respondents. In appropriate circumstances, broader exclusionary relief or cease and desist orders may also be considered.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection typically enforces exclusion orders at the border. That enforcement role makes accurate product descriptions, supplier identities, producer records, purchase contracts, and technical specifications important to importers and customs brokers. Commercial names alone may not be sufficient to determine whether a shipment falls within the scope of a future order.

The investigation concerns imported foundry coke products alleged to have nonconventional properties. Foundries and metal casters that depend on particular coke specifications may have fewer commercially interchangeable suppliers than buyers of standardized commodities. A sourcing change could therefore affect cupola performance, melting operations, quality controls, production costs, and customer commitments.

Section 337 Risk Is Different From Tariff Risk

A Section 337 remedy is not an additional tariff. Paying ordinary customs duties does not provide a right to import merchandise that is subject to an exclusion order. Likewise, tariff classification, country of origin, and duty payment do not resolve whether a product falls within the scope of a patent-based import restriction.

Brokers should distinguish routine entry compliance from Section 337 scope analysis. The importer remains responsible for admissibility, while brokers need sufficiently clear instructions and records to file entries accurately. If an exclusion order is eventually issued, entry documentation and supplier representations may become central to determining whether affected merchandise can be admitted.

No violation has been found in this investigation. Current shipments are not automatically excluded merely because they are supplied by a named respondent. However, the long lead times common in industrial raw material procurement make early contingency planning commercially prudent.

Compliance and Sourcing Actions for Affected Companies

The first step is to map the complete foundry coke supply chain. Importers should identify the contracting seller, producer, exporter, trading company, freight counterparty, and importer of record for each shipment. This analysis is particularly important when the commercial invoice identifies a trader while production records identify a different corporate entity.

Supplier mapping should cover all seven respondents, with focused attention on the five MTX Group entities subject to the newly added patent claims. Purchase orders, mill or producer certificates, technical data, quality specifications, bills of lading, and entry records should use consistent entity names wherever possible.

Build a Product-Level Exposure File

Importers should create a product-level file that connects each imported grade or specification to its producer and supporting technical documentation. The file should be designed to support three related questions:

1. Which legal entity produced and supplied the merchandise?
2. What physical and technical characteristics define the imported product?
3. Could those characteristics place the product within the scope of a future remedial order?

Legal teams may need to assess patent and order scope, but trade compliance teams can improve that analysis by maintaining reliable transaction and product data. Customs brokers should establish escalation procedures for shipments involving named respondents, especially if descriptions or producer information are incomplete.

Importers should also monitor the investigation schedule, substantive determinations, claim construction issues, and any proposed remedy. The target completion date is currently March 20, 2028, but procurement decisions often must be made well before a final determination.

Contingency sourcing should account for qualification time, production testing, capacity, transportation, and contract terms. Companies should also review whether agreements allocate the risk of exclusion, delayed entry, storage, reexportation, or substitute supply. A backup supplier is only useful if its material can satisfy operational requirements and be delivered at the required volume.

Finally, companies should keep Section 337 planning separate from drawback analysis. Ordinary customs duties paid on qualifying imports may still be eligible for drawback when merchandise is later exported or used in exported articles, subject to the requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1313. Section 337 itself does not create a refundable duty.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Is the Current Status of the Foundry Coke Section 337 Investigation?

The case remains active. All asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,331,367 have been removed for all seven respondents. The investigation continues under U.S. Patent No. 12,600,915, and claims 1-5 and 7-13 have been added against the five MTX Group respondents. No Section 337 violation has been found.

Are Foundry Coke Imports From the Named Respondents Currently Banned?

No automatic import ban results from the amendment. A restriction would generally require a later Commission determination and issuance of a remedial order. Importers should nevertheless monitor developments because existing contracts and long production lead times can create exposure before a final decision is issued.

What Would an Exclusion Order Mean for Importers?

An exclusion order could direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to deny entry to covered merchandise. The practical effect would depend on the order's wording, the identity of the producer or respondent, and the characteristics of the imported product. Importers may need detailed records to establish that a shipment is outside the order's scope.

Should Customs Brokers Stop Filing Entries for These Suppliers?

Not solely because the suppliers are named as respondents. There is currently no violation finding or exclusion order identified in the proceeding. Brokers should obtain complete producer and product information, follow importer instructions, avoid making unsupported admissibility conclusions, and establish an escalation process for potentially affected entries.

Can Duties on Foundry Coke Still Qualify for Drawback?

Potentially. Section 337 is not a customs duty, so it does not itself create a drawback refund. Ordinary duties paid on imported foundry coke may generally qualify when the merchandise is exported or used in the production of exported articles and the claim satisfies the applicable drawback requirements. Eligibility depends on the transaction structure, records, timing, and drawback provision used.

How Stable Software Can Help

Support a Broker-Led Drawback Program

The foundry coke investigation highlights the importance of keeping import restrictions, ordinary customs duties, and refund opportunities analytically separate. When imported merchandise is later exported or used to produce exported goods, qualifying duties may represent a recoverable cost even though Section 337 remedies themselves are not drawback-eligible.

DrawbackAI is flat-license duty drawback software that U.S. customs brokers can white-label for importer clients and use to file claims under their own filer code. Stable Software charges a flat software license and never takes a percentage of the refund. Brokers evaluating drawback opportunities for industrial importers can explore whether this model fits their client service and filing strategy.

Resources