ITC Issues Glow Fish Tape Exclusion Order

The ITC's glow fish tape exclusion order creates an immediate import compliance issue for Milwaukee products that fall within its patent-based scope. Importers, distributors, retailers, and customs brokers must now distinguish covered merchandise, prepare for a 100 percent bond during Presidential review, and anticipate CBP enforcement.

What the ITC Glow Fish Tape Determination Does

The U.S. International Trade Commission found a Section 337 violation involving glow fish tape systems and components imported or sold by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation. The violation is based on infringement of claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,187,573, held by Klein Tools, Inc.

The Commission issued both a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Milwaukee. It also terminated Investigation No. 337-TA-1442. The Commission voted on November 4, 2026, with publication of the final determination scheduled for November 9, 2026.

Scope of the Limited Exclusion Order

The limited exclusion order covers Milwaukee glow fish tape products and components that infringe the specified patent claim. It is not a general prohibition against all glow fish tape products, all electrical tools, or products supplied by unrelated manufacturers.

A limited exclusion order generally follows the products of the named respondent rather than prohibiting every product within a broad commercial category. Importers should therefore avoid relying solely on a tariff classification, product name, or general description. The relevant analysis may require review of the manufacturer, model, technical characteristics, component configuration, and relationship to the patent claim.

Safety helmet systems are not covered by the final remedy. Although helmet patents were part of the investigation, the Commission determined that the asserted claims of one helmet patent were invalid as obvious and that the relevant claims of another helmet patent were not infringed. The resulting exclusion order is limited to the infringing glow fish tape systems and components.

The Commission also determined that public interest considerations did not prevent the remedy. As a result, affected supply chains should treat the order as an operational import restriction rather than assume that product availability or market demand will delay enforcement.

Why the Commission's Reversal Matters for Importers

The final determination differed significantly from the earlier findings of the presiding Chief Administrative Law Judge. The earlier determination had found no violation involving the glow fish tape patents and had identified a violation only in connection with a helmet patent. The Commission reversed those central conclusions.

Preliminary Findings Do Not Control Final Exposure

The Commission found infringement of claim 6 of the '573 glow fish tape patent, while maintaining a finding of no infringement for claim 6 of the related '209 patent. It also found the asserted claims of the '265 helmet patent invalid as obvious. The final remedy therefore applies to glow fish tape products rather than safety helmets.

This reversal illustrates an important compliance principle. Preliminary and initial findings can inform contingency planning, but they do not eliminate import risk while Commission review remains pending. Importers that continued ordering merchandise based only on the earlier outcome may now face goods in production, in transit, or awaiting entry that require additional analysis.

Trade compliance teams should identify affected purchase orders and shipments by SKU, model, supplier, manufacturer, country of origin, expected port, and estimated arrival date. That review should extend beyond finished retail packages. The order expressly reaches infringing components, so parts imported separately or included in kits may also require assessment.

Commercial agreements deserve parallel attention. Importers and distributors may need to evaluate indemnification clauses, delivery obligations, title transfer, rejected merchandise procedures, and responsibility for storage, exportation, or other costs. Customs brokers should obtain clear written instructions and sufficient product information before transmitting entries. A broad product description such as electrical hand tool or fish tape may not provide enough information to determine whether the merchandise falls within the exclusion order.

Managing the Bond and CBP Enforcement Risk

Covered products entered during the 60-day Presidential review period are subject to a bond set at 100 percent of entered value. For a shipment with an entered value of $250,000, the applicable bond amount would generally be $250,000, separate from ordinary duties, taxes, and fees.

The Bond Is a Material Financial Exposure

A 100 percent bond can affect working capital, customs bond capacity, shipment economics, and relationships with sureties. Importers should not treat it as a routine duty deposit. The bond secures obligations associated with importation during the review period and does not convert prohibited merchandise into unrestricted merchandise after the review process concludes.

Before entry, affected parties should coordinate with customs counsel, patent counsel, their customs broker, and their surety as appropriate. Relevant questions include whether the specific model is covered, whether sufficient bond capacity exists, and what will happen if CBP detains or excludes the shipment.

A Product-Level Control Plan Is Essential

Importers and brokers should generally establish a control process that includes:

• Mapping Milwaukee glow fish tape SKUs and component numbers to open purchase orders and inbound shipments.
• Separating potentially covered products from safety helmets and other merchandise outside the remedy.
• Collecting technical specifications, photographs, model information, bills of materials, and manufacturer records.
• Reviewing entry descriptions to ensure they identify the merchandise accurately.
• Confirming the financial impact of the 100 percent bond before authorizing entry during Presidential review.
• Creating escalation procedures for CBP inquiries, detention notices, exclusion decisions, and requests for supporting information.

CBP enforcement may continue after the review period if the order remains in effect. Compliance teams should therefore build controls into item master data and import workflows rather than rely on a temporary shipment list. Products introduced under new model numbers or revised packaging may still require technical review if their underlying characteristics remain relevant to the patent claim.

Brokers should also preserve the distinction between tariff classification and admissibility. A correct Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification does not establish that merchandise is admissible under a Section 337 exclusion order.

Duty Drawback Treatment of Excluded Merchandise

A Section 337 exclusion order is not a customs duty. The order itself does not create an amount that can be recovered through duty drawback, and the 100 percent bond during Presidential review should not be treated as an ordinary import duty merely because it is calculated using entered value.

Ordinary Duties May Still Be Eligible

Ordinary customs duties paid on merchandise that is later exported or destroyed may still qualify for drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313 when all applicable requirements are satisfied. Eligibility generally depends on the drawback provision used, the merchandise history, the nature of the exportation or destruction, available records, and compliance with applicable filing deadlines.

The existence of an exclusion order does not automatically make ordinary duties eligible or ineligible. The analysis should separate three different concepts:

1. The Section 337 remedy, which governs admissibility and prohibited conduct.
2. The bond required during Presidential review, which secures import-related exposure during that period.
3. Ordinary customs duties, taxes, and fees, some of which may receive different treatment under drawback law.

If merchandise is refused entry and never entered for consumption with duties paid, there may be no paid duty on that transaction to recover through drawback. If previously entered merchandise is subsequently exported or destroyed, a drawback opportunity may exist, but only if the underlying statutory and documentary requirements are met.

Importers should maintain records linking entries, duty payments, inventory movements, exports, and destruction activity. Brokers handling both entry and drawback work should avoid coding the exclusion order or review-period bond as a drawback-eligible duty without a legal and transactional basis. Accurate separation of these amounts is essential for defensible claims and reliable refund forecasting.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Products Are Covered by the Glow Fish Tape Exclusion Order?

The order covers Milwaukee glow fish tape systems and components that infringe claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,187,573. Coverage generally requires a product-specific technical assessment. The order does not prohibit every glow fish tape product in the U.S. market.

Are Milwaukee Safety Helmets Included in the Import Restriction?

No. The final remedy does not cover safety helmet systems. The Commission's final patent findings shifted the violation from the helmet products identified in the earlier determination to specific infringing glow fish tape systems and components.

What Does the 100 Percent Bond Mean?

During the 60-day Presidential review period, covered imports are subject to a bond equal to 100 percent of entered value. This requirement can create substantial surety and working capital demands in addition to ordinary duties, taxes, fees, and logistics costs.

Can an Importer Claim Drawback on the Exclusion Order or Bond?

Generally, no. An exclusion order is not a customs duty, and the review-period bond does not itself create a drawback refund. Ordinary customs duties paid on qualifying merchandise may remain eligible when a subsequent exportation or destruction satisfies 19 U.S.C. 1313 and other applicable requirements.

What Should Customs Brokers Do Before Filing an Entry?

Brokers should obtain the manufacturer, model, product description, component information, and written importer instructions. Potentially covered entries should be escalated before transmission. Classification accuracy alone does not resolve admissibility under a Section 337 order.

How Stable Software Can Help

Support for Qualifying Duty Recovery

The exclusion order itself does not create a drawback opportunity, but ordinary customs duties on qualifying merchandise may still be recoverable after eligible exportation or destruction. Stable Software's DrawbackAI helps U.S. customs brokers provide duty drawback services under their own filer codes and white-label the software for importer clients.

Stable Software charges a flat software license and never takes a percentage of the refund. This structure allows brokers to retain control of their client relationships and filing operations while avoiding refund-based software fees. Brokers evaluating potential drawback activity connected with exported or destroyed inventory can explore whether DrawbackAI fits their service model.

Resources