The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain coated confectionery products and components thereof. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Promotion in Motion, Inc. of Park Ridge, New Jersey, on April 8, 2026. The complaint was supplemented on May 6, 2026.  The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain coated confectionery products and components thereof that infringe certain claims of the patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Cibo Vita, Inc., Totowa, New Jersey
• Cibo Vita Founders, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware
• New Cibo Vita, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware
• AnaBio Technologies, LTD, Dublin, Ireland 

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1501), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) has released a report on the global nonfat milk solids (NFS) market and the export competitiveness of the nonfat milk solids industries in the United States and other major suppliers including Australia, Canada, select EU member states, and New Zealand.

This investigation, Nonfat Milk Solids: Competitive Conditions for the United States and Major Foreign Suppliers (Investigation No. 332-607), was requested by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) in a letter received on April 23, 2025.

The request states that the report should cover the following:

• An overview of the global market for products containing high NFS levels in their various forms, including such factors as product end uses, consumption, production, and trade.
• Profiles of the industries producing and exporting products containing high NFS levels in the United States, Australia, Canada, selected European Union (EU) member states, New Zealand, and other countries that may be relevant, including information about domestic production, consumption, and export trends in these countries.
• A comparison of the competitive strengths and weaknesses of producers and exporters of NFS products from the United States and other major exporting countries, focusing on factors affecting delivered costs, product differentiation, and reliability of supply, as well as government policies and programs that directly or indirectly affect the production and exports of NFS products from these countries.
• An overview of the competitiveness of U.S. NFS products relative to exports from the highlighted countries both in the U.S. market and in third-country markets.

Major Findings of the Investigation

• Raw milk is the main input to NFS processing and accounts for approximately 80-90 percent of NFS processing costs. As a result, an industry’s milk pricing system and associated government milk pricing policies affect the competitiveness of major NFS processors and exporters.
  • In Australia, the EU, and New Zealand, pricing of raw milk is largely the result of direct negotiations between milk producers and dairy processors.
  • The United States and Canada both use milk class pricing systems to influence raw milk and milk component prices, but Canada’s system unlinks its relatively high farmgate price of milk from the price that NFS processors pay for milk components in Cananda.
• Access to a large, stable and ideally growing supply of raw milk and milk components—particularly protein—is a key driver of competitiveness in NFS processing. Among the industries profiled, the United States has the greatest capacity for milk supply and component growth, while growth in the EU’s milk supply stagnated and Australia’s milk pool shrank over the period.
• Global production and trade of NFS products with higher protein levels are increasing, driven by rising consumer demand for protein.
• Global exports of NFS products were dominated by three major suppliers during the 2019–24 period: the EU, the United States, and New Zealand. Together, they accounted for nearly 85 percent of total exports in 2024, and averaged about 83 percent from 2019 to 2024.
• The United States is a major supplier of NFS products to the largest importing regions of such products—including East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the U.S. domestic market. The United States is a major producer and exporter of bulk, commodity NFS products as well as high-protein NFS products.

Nonfat Milk Solids: Competitive Conditions for the United States and Major Foreign Suppliers (Investigation No. 332-607, USITC Publication 5732, April 2026) is available on the USITC website.

About Factfinding Investigations

USITC general factfinding investigations, such as this one, cover matters related to tariffs, trade and competitiveness and are generally conducted under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 at the request of the U.S. Trade Representative, the House Committee on Ways and Means or the Senate Committee on Finance. The resulting reports convey the Commission’s objective findings and independent analyses on the subjects investigated. The Commission makes no recommendations on policy or other matters in its general factfinding reports. Upon completion of each investigation, the USITC submits its findings and analyses to the requester. General factfinding investigation reports are subsequently released to the public unless they are classified by the requester for national security reasons.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders for crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China and the antidumping duty on Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determinations, the existing orders on imports of these products from China and Taiwan will remain in place. 

Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns voted in the affirmative. 

Today’s action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See the attached page for background on these five-year (sunset) reviews.

The Commission’s public report, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from China and Taiwan (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-511 and 731-TA-1246-1247 (Second Review), USITC Publication 5748, May 2026), will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the reviews.

The report will be available on the USITC website by July 6, 2026.

BACKGROUND

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

The Commission’s institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the Commission concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information. Generally, within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC’s notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.

The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews. Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission’s prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the reviews, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.

The five-year (sunset) reviews concerning Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from China and Taiwan were instituted on August 1, 2025.

On December 22, 2025, the Commission determined to conduct expedited five-year reviews. Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns concluded that the domestic interested party group responses were adequate and the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate. Chair Karpel and Commissioner Kearns voted for expedited reviews of both countries; Commissioner Johanson voted for full reviews of both countries.

A record of the Commission’s vote to conduct expedited reviews is available on the investigations page for Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products from China and Taiwan; Inv. No. 701-TA-511 and 731-TA-1246-1247 (Review 2).

The United States International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined there is a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is materially injured due to imports of tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and Turkey that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the government of China.

Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns voted in the affirmative.

As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determinations, the U.S. Department of Commerce will continue its investigations of imports of tin mill products from China, Taiwan, and Turkey.

The Commission’s public report, Tin Mill Products from China, Taiwan, and Turkey (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-792 and 731-TA-1786-1788 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 5745, June 2026), will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigations.

The report will be available on the USITC website by June 30, 2026.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on non-oriented electrical steel (NOES) from China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

As a result of the Commission’s affirmative determinations, the existing orders on imports of this product from China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan will remain in place. 

Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns voted in the affirmative. 

Today’s action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See the attached page for background on these five-year (sunset) reviews.

The Commission’s public report, Non-Oriented Electrical Steel (NOES) from China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-506 and 508 and 731-TA-1238-1243 (Second Review), USITC Publication 5736, May 2026), will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the reviews.

The report will be available by June 5,2026; when available, it may be accessed on the USITC website.

BACKGROUND

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

The Commission’s institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the Commission concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information. Generally, within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC’s notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.

The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews. Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission’s prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the reviews, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.

The five-year (sunset) reviews concerning Non-Oriented Electrical Steel (NOES) from China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan were instituted on December 1, 2025.

On March 6, 2026, the Commission determined to conduct expedited five-year reviews. Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns concluded that the domestic interested party group responses were adequate and the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate. Chair Karpel and Commissioner Kearns voted for expedited reviews for all countries; Commissioner Johanson voted for full reviews for all countries.

A record of the Commission’s vote to conduct expedited reviews is available on the investigations page for Non-Oriented Electrical Steel (NOES) from China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan; Inv. No. 701-TA-506 and 508 and 731-TA-1238-1243 (Second Review). 

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain semiconductor devices, products containing same, and components thereof. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. of Malta, New York, on March 26, 2026 and supplemented on April 1, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain semiconductor devices, products containing same that infringe certain claims of the patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Tower Semiconductor Ltd., Migdal Haemek, Israel
• Tower Partners Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Uozu City Toyama, Japan
• Tower Semiconductor Italy S.R.L. (Italy), Milano, Italy
• Tower US Holdings, Inc., Newport Beach, California
• Tower Semiconductor San Antonio, Inc., San Antonio, Texas
• Tower NPB Holdings, Inc., San Jose, California
• Tower Semiconductor Newport Beach, Inc., Newport Beach, California
• Newport Fab LLC, Newport Beach, California 

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1500), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain electric aircraft, power systems for electric aircraft, and components thereof. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation*.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Archer Aviation Inc. of San Jose, California, on March 10, 2026. A supplement to the complaint was filed on March 19, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain electric aircraft, power systems for electric aircraft, and components thereof that infringe certain claims of the patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Joby Aero, Inc., Santa Cruz, California
• Joby Aviation, Inc., Santa Cruz, California

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1499), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

*UPDATE: A correction to the original notice of investigation was issued on April 17, 2026.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain over-the-counter topical lidocaine patches. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of J.A.R. Laboratories LLC of Lake Forest, Illinois, on March 10, 2026. Supplements to the complaint were filed on March 23, 2026, and March 30, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain over-the-counter topical lidocaine patches that infringe certain claims of the patent asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Veridian Healthcare LLC, Gurnee, Illinois
• Perrigo Company plc., Dublin, Ireland
• Perrigo Company, Allergan, Michigan
• Perrigo Direct, Inc., Peachtree City, Georgia
• Opella Healthcare Group SAS, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
• Opella North America, Morristown, New Jersey
• Chattem, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee
• Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., Tosu, Saga, Japan
• Hisamitsu U.S., Inc., Florham, New Jersey
• Hisamitsu America, Inc, Florham, New Jersey
• Reckitt Benckiser Group PL, Berkshire, United Kingdom
• Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Parsippany, New Jersey
• RB Health LLC, Parsippany, New Jersey 

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1498), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain screen protectors, application systems for use therewith, and components thereof. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of Belkin International, Inc., El Segundo, California, on March 9, 2026, and supplemented on March 13, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain screen protectors, application systems for use therewith, and components thereof that infringe certain claims of the patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. 

The USITC has identified the following respondent in this investigation as Superior Communications, Inc. of Irwindale, California.

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1497), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain display devices, streaming players, and components thereof. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission’s notice of investigation.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed on behalf of InnoTV Labs, LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada, on March 2, 2026. A supplement to the complaint was filed on March 17, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain display devices, streaming players, and components thereof that infringe certain claims of the patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. 

The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:

• Hisense Co., Ltd., Qingdao, China
• Hisense International Co., Ltd., Qingdao, China
• Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd., Qingdao, China
• Hisense USA Corporation, Suwanee, Georgia
• Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company, Suwanee, Georgia
• Hisense Monterrey Home Appliance Manufacturing, S. de R.L. de C.V., Nuevo Leon, Mexico
• Roku, Inc., San Jose, California
• Purple Tag Media Technology (Shanghai) Ltd., Shanghai, China
• Purple Tag Media Technology (Shanghai) Ltd. – Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong, China
• Purple Tag Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Ciudad de México, Mexico

By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1496), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission. 

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

Subscribe to United States International Trade Commission