What does it mean that Hon Hai, Delta and Quanta are named in Vicor's ITC case?

本文另有中文版：鴻海、台達電、廣達被列入 Vicor 337 調查，代表什麼？

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced on October 9, 2026 that the Commission had voted to institute investigation 337-TA-1526, on a complaint from Vicor. The press release’s list of respondents includes Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd., Delta Electronics, Inc. and Quanta Computer Inc. Taiwan’s Central News Agency (CNA) reported that Hon Hai, Delta and Quanta were named.

The natural question is whether those companies’ products are now about to be blocked from the U.S.

The record supports a narrower answer. The list shows whom Vicor accused. It does not yet show whose imports will be restricted. The best yardstick is Vicor’s earlier case, 337-TA-1370, filed in 2023. That case has a final determination from the Commission, and the entities on its respondent list ended up with different results.

What follows looks first at the new list, then uses the old case to show what stands between being named and having imports blocked. This article uses documents available through October 12, 2026.

The new list: who is named, and what is alleged

Vicor is a company in Andover, Massachusetts. It describes itself as developing, designing, manufacturing and selling efficient, high-density power converters. Its complaints rest on Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which covers unfair acts in importing goods. Patent infringement is one of those acts.

Vicor filed the 1526 complaint on September 9 and supplemented it on September 10. The press release says the complaint alleges that vertical power delivery systems, their components, and computing systems containing them infringe certain claims of the asserted patent. Vicor asks for a limited exclusion order, which bars goods from entering the United States, and for cease-and-desist orders, which direct a named entity to stop an act found to be unfair. The press release also says that, in instituting, the Commission had not yet made any decision on the merits of the case.

The press release does not give the patent number. CNA reported that Hon Hai’s statement said the investigation involves U.S. patent 10903734. Google Patents lists Vicor as that patent’s assignee, under the title “Delivering power to semiconductor loads.”

The press release lists respondents line by line. This article counts lines, because one line in the 1484 list carries two company names. The 1526 list has 20 lines, and the USITC gives Taiwan as the location for 5 of them. Locations are the USITC’s. They do not show corporate group. Table 2 in the appendix lists every line.

On October 11, CNA reported responses from all three companies. Their wording differs.

Hon Hai’s statement says the USITC has decided only to start an investigation and has made no substantive finding on Vicor’s infringement claims. It lists four related companies named as respondents: Foxconn Industrial Internet Co., Ltd., FII USA Inc., Ingrasys Technology Inc. and Ingrasys Technology USA Inc. It says Hon Hai has formed a professional team to clarify the patents and products involved. CNA puts one sentence in quotation marks. After a preliminary assessment, Hon Hai said (in translation from the Chinese), the investigation “has not at present had a material effect on the production and operations, product shipments, or customer cooperation of the company and its related enterprises.” The statement adds that later results remain uncertain.

Delta said the case has entered legal proceedings, that it cannot comment further now, and that its related products are currently unaffected. Quanta said it would ask the relevant suppliers to handle the components involved in the investigation appropriately, and that its related products and operations are unaffected. CNA relayed both statements.

All three are the companies’ own accounts. None is a finding by the USITC or anyone else.

The old case, 1370: one list, several different results

This article covers three Vicor cases under Section 337: 1370 (2023), 1484 (January 2026) and now 1526. Only 1370 has a final determination from the Commission.

Vicor filed 1370 on July 12, 2023. The press release lists 13 respondent lines, 6 of them in Taiwan. Vicor asserted three patents, which this article names by the last three digits of the patent number: ‘481 (digital control of resonant power converters), ‘761 (an encapsulated modular power converter) and ‘950 (a power distribution architecture with a series-connected bus converter).

The accused products are power converter modules used in data center servers, AI and cloud computing systems, powering AI accelerators, TPUs, GPUs and CPUs, along with computing systems that contain them.

On September 27, 2024 the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued the final initial determination (the Final ID) and found a violation. On February 13, 2025 the Commission voted its final determination, also finding a violation of Section 337. That verdict only makes sense once it is split into patents, orders and the license.

The patents: three patents, different results

The USITC’s orders group Delta Electronics, Inc., Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd. and DET Logistics (USA) Corporation, which was added as a respondent in 2024, under the label “Delta.” This article uses “Delta” in that sense. Claim numbers are in parentheses.

• ‘481 (claim 1). The accused modules of Cyntec (Hsinchu, Taiwan) infringe. Delta’s accused modules do not.
• ‘761 (claims 1-7). Delta’s accused modules infringe. The Commission reversed the Final ID’s finding that claims 1-3 and 7 were invalid. Its wording is that claims 1-7 “have not been shown invalid.”
• ‘950. The Commission affirmed that the accused Delta and Cyntec products do not infringe. It also affirmed that Vicor failed to show its domestic industry products practice at least one asserted claim. The domestic industry requirement means that patent infringement counts under Section 337 only where a related industry exists, or is being established, in the United States.

The orders: the exclusion order covers products, the cease-and-desist orders cover entities

The limited exclusion order (LEO) bars the unlicensed entry of infringing power converter modules, and of computing systems containing them, manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, the respondents or their affiliated companies. The text of the order limits its scope to products that infringe claim 1 of ‘481 or claims 1-7 of ‘761.

A cease-and-desist order (CDO) directs a named entity to stop an act found to be unfair. The Commission issued CDOs to five entities: Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd., FII USA Inc., Ingrasys Technology USA Inc., Quanta Computer Inc. and Quanta Computer USA Inc.

The Commission’s opinion also declines, on this record, to issue CDOs against five other respondents: Hon Hai, Foxconn Industrial Internet, Ingrasys Technology Inc., Delta Electronics, Inc. and Cyntec. The reasons differ by entity. For some, there is no evidence that they operate in the United States or sell or distribute the accused products there. For others, neither the ALJ’s recommended determination nor Vicor cited evidence of a distributor relationship with a U.S. entity.

None of that is a win or an exemption, because all five entities remain respondents named in the exclusion order. DET Logistics is not on the CDO list either. The public version of the opinion has pages without text, and this article could not read the explanation.

The license: some entities’ imports fall outside the exclusion order

The Commission reversed the Final ID on licensing. It found that FII USA Inc. and Ingrasys Technology Inc. have a license to ‘761, based on terms in the purchase orders under which they bought from Vicor. The license covers ‘761 and those two entities only.

The Commission’s opinion goes on to say that the modules and systems those two entities import fall outside the LEO. The CDO against FII USA applies to modules or systems only if they practice claim 1 of ‘481. That is the Commission’s conclusion on the products in this case. It does not extend to every Hon Hai group product, and it says nothing about future products.

Vicor has appealed the license finding to the Federal Circuit, case 2025-1616. FII USA Inc. and Ingrasys Technology Inc. joined as intervenors. Vicor’s brief, filed on January 2, 2026, says: “Foxconn’s license defense is the sole issue on appeal.” Only Vicor’s brief is available for this article. The other side’s brief, the oral argument and any decision are not, so the outcome of the appeal is unknown here.

1484 and 1526: one has a schedule, one has just begun

Vicor filed the 1484 complaint on January 12, 2026. The Commission decided to institute on February 11 and issued a press release that day. The Federal Register notice followed on February 17.

The accused products in 1484 are power converters used in data center servers, AI and cloud computing systems. Vicor asserts U.S. Patent 12,395,087 (‘087). The press release has 15 lines, one of which (the MetaPWR line) carries two names, and the USITC gives Taiwan as the location for 5 of them.

‘087 is titled “Power distribution architecture with series-connected bus converter,” the same title the Commission’s 1370 opinion gives for ‘950. The text of ‘087 says it is one of a series of continuation applications (later filings built on an earlier one), and the earliest application in the series became ‘950. So the two patents belong to the same family. Being in the same family does not make them the same patent, or the same set of claims.

The schedule for 1484 is set. On March 3, 2026 the ALJ set a 19-month target date for completing the investigation: September 20, 2027. The Commission voted on March 24 not to review. The deadline for the ALJ’s Final ID on violation is May 20, 2027. This is a schedule, not a result.

The 1526 press release gives no target date and says one will be set within 45 days after institution. The Federal Register notice of September 14 was a notice that the USITC had received the complaint. The investigation had not been instituted at that point. The Federal Register notice of institution is not among the documents available for this article, so the vote date, the institution date under the rule and the start of the 45-day count cannot be stated.

As of October 12, neither case has a finding on the merits in the documents available. The USITC’s documents contain the complaint, the respondent list and the relief Vicor requests, and for 1484 a schedule. Table 2 lists how the three respondent lists differ. The press releases give names only. They do not say why a name was added or dropped.

Is the USITC going after Taiwanese companies? Vicor is the complainant in all three cases. Instituting is a routine step: in every case, 30 days passed between the complaint and the Commission’s order (1370, 1484) or the press release (1526). The rule, 19 CFR 210.10(a)(1), says the Commission decides within 30 days after a complaint is filed whether to institute, with exceptions. Subsection (c) says the complaint is dismissed if the Commission decides not to. The statute, 19 U.S.C. 1337, says the Commission “shall investigate” any alleged violation raised in a sworn complaint. Both are on the books. These documents give no support for describing the three cases as a USITC move aimed at Taiwanese companies.

Two things these documents cannot support:

• Why Vicor filed 1484 and 1526. No Vicor explanation is available here.
• Whether the 1370 finding of no violation on ‘950 affects 1484. The USITC’s 1484 documents also do not say why Vicor chose ‘087.

Reading it: four things to check in the next headline

In 1370, entities on the same list ended up in different places. Some received a CDO. For some, the Commission expressly declined to issue one. For some, a license put their imports outside the exclusion order. So being named says whom Vicor accused. Until 1484 or 1526 produces a finding, the list does not show whom an order will land on.

Next time a headline reports a Vicor or Section 337 development, check it against this table:

“No finding” and “no order yet” mean none in the documents available.

One more question comes first: which stage is the news about? In 1370 the ALJ’s Final ID and the Commission’s final determination differed. The Commission reversed the ALJ on the validity of ‘761 and on licensing. A court ruling on appeal is another stage again.

Also, the number of Taiwan-located lines cannot measure the exposure of any Taiwanese group. The location is the USITC’s, and the companies Hon Hai’s statement names as related are located, on the USITC’s list, in China, the United States and Taiwan.

So when the next headline says a company has been named, the questions to ask are: which patent, which product, whether a license applies, and who the order is addressed to.

Frequently asked questions

Does the opening of a Section 337 investigation mean infringement has been found?

No. The USITC’s institution press release for each of the three cases says the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits.

Who filed the complaints, and could the USITC have declined to open the cases?

Vicor filed all three. The statute, 19 U.S.C. 1337, says the Commission “shall investigate” an alleged violation raised in a sworn complaint. The rule, 19 CFR 210.10(a)(1), says the Commission decides within 30 days after the filing whether to institute (with exceptions), and 210.10(c) says the complaint is dismissed if the Commission decides not to institute. Both are on the books.

What did the Commission decide in the 2023 case?

On February 13, 2025 it voted a final determination: violation on ‘481 and ‘761, none on ‘950. Cease-and-desist orders went to five entities. Vicor appealed the license finding to the Federal Circuit; the outcome is not in the documents available.

When will 1484 and 1526 have results?

1484 has a target date of September 20, 2027, and the deadline for the ALJ’s Final ID on violation is May 20, 2027. The 1526 press release gives no target date and says one will be set within 45 days after institution. Those are schedules, not results.

Appendix

Table 1: The three cases side by side

Respondent-line counts and locations come from each press release, counted line by line. Locations are the USITC’s. They do not show corporate group.

Table 2: Respondents named when each case was instituted

Entity names follow each press release. Aliases in brackets (d/b/a, a/k/a) are omitted, except for the MetaPWR row, where the press release puts two names on one line. Locations are the USITC’s. In 1370, three entities were terminated in early 2024 after Vicor withdrew its complaint, and DET Logistics was added.

Scope and version

This article uses documents available through October 12, 2026.

• The 1526 section rests on the USITC press release of October 9, the Federal Register notice of receipt of September 14, CNA’s report of October 11 and the Google Patents page for U.S. 10903734. The 1526 Federal Register notice of institution is not among them.
• The 1484 target-date notice is a PDF whose text cannot be extracted by machine. It was transcribed by hand from screenshots.
• The public version of the 1370 Commission opinion comes from a copy hosted by fedcircuitblog.com, a third-party site. The opinion is dated February 26, 2025, later than the February 13, 2025 notice of final determination. Some pages have no text, and the public version has redactions. The Commission’s explanation of why DET Logistics is absent from the CDO list may be on those pages. It is not available here. The texts of the 1370 exclusion order and CDOs come from the USITC orders reproduced in the appendix to Vicor’s appeal brief.
• For Federal Circuit case 25-1616, only Vicor’s brief of January 2, 2026 is available. The other side’s brief, the oral argument and any decision are not.
• The USITC’s EDIS case files were not read. The full complaints, the itemized accused products, the claims asserted in 1526 and Vicor’s reasons for filing 1484 and 1526 are outside this article. The claim numbers asserted in 1484 are in the notice of institution, but their content is not available. Vicor’s annual report (10-K), quarterly report (10-Q) and current report (8-K) were checked by keyword only, not read in full.
• Under 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), publication of the notice in the Federal Register is what institutes an investigation, and later USITC documents use the publication date. In this article “decided to institute” means the date of the Commission’s order. Publication dates are listed alongside.
• New documents that would change this article: a Federal Circuit decision (it would change the status of the license finding), the 1526 Federal Register notice of institution (it would supply the vote date and institution date), and any ALJ or Commission finding in 1484 or 1526.

Sources

• USITC news release 26-145 (337-TA-1526), October 9, 2026
• USITC news release (337-TA-1484), February 11, 2026
• USITC news release (337-TA-1370), August 14, 2023
• Federal Register: 337-TA-1370, Institution of Investigation, August 17, 2023
• Federal Register: 337-TA-1370, Notice of the Commission’s Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337, February 20, 2025
• Federal Register: 337-TA-1484, Notice of Institution of Investigation, February 17, 2026
• Federal Register: 337-TA-1526, Notice of Receipt of Complaint, September 14, 2026
• USITC: 337-TA-1484, Notice of a Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Setting a 19-Month Target Date, March 24, 2026 (PDF, hand-transcribed for this article)
• Commission Opinion, public version (copy hosted by fedcircuitblog.com), 337-TA-1370, issued February 26, 2025
• Vicor brief to the Federal Circuit: Corrected Non-Confidential Brief for Appellant (No. 25-1616), January 2, 2026
• CNA (Central News Agency), report on the Section 337 investigation naming Hon Hai, Delta and Quanta (Chinese-language; title translated: “US starts Section 337 investigation, Hon Hai, Delta, Quanta listed; companies say they will respond actively in accordance with procedure”), October 11, 2026
• 19 U.S.C. 1337; 19 CFR 210.10
• Google Patents: U.S. 10903734, U.S. 12,395,087