# Certain Processed Slabs and Methods for Making Same; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Motion To Intervene
**AGENCY:**
U.S. International Trade Commission.
**ACTION:**
Notice.
**SUMMARY:**
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 9) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting a motion to intervene as a respondent filed by non-party C&C North America, Inc. d/b/a Cosentino North America (“Cosentino”).
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:**
Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3459. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at *https://edis.usitc.gov.* For help accessing EDIS, please email *[email protected].* General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at *https://www.usitc.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:**
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 27, 2026, based on a complaint filed by Cambria Company LLC of Belle Plaine, Minnesota (“Cambria”). 91 FR 3539-40 (Jan. 27, 2026). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States of certain processed slabs and methods for making same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,195,762; 10,252,440; and 12,370,718. The complaint, as supplemented, further alleges that a domestic industry exists in the United States. *Id.* The Commission's notice of investigation names the following as respondents: Architectural Surfaces Group LLC of Spicewood, Texas; Arizona Tile, LLC of Tempe, Arizona; Caesarstone Ltd. of Kibbutz Sdot-Yam, Israel; Caesarstone USA, Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina; Dal-Tile, LLC of Dallas, Texas; LX Hausys, Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; LX Hausys America, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia; Mohawk Industries, Inc. of Calhoun, Georgia; M S International Inc. d/b/a MSI of Orange, California; OHM International Inc. of Monroe Township, New Jersey; and Surface Warehouse, L.P. d/b/a US Surfaces and d/b/a Vadara Quartz Surfaces of Austin, Texas (collectively, “Respondents”). *Id.* The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also participating in the investigation. *Id.*
On March 6, 2026, Cosentino filed a motion to intervene as a respondent, arguing that certain processed slab products sold by Cosentino could be subject to a general exclusion order requested by Cambria, and that disposition without Cosentino may impair or impede its ability to protect its interests in its products. Cosentino also represented that Respondents do not oppose the motion.
On March 18, 2026, OUII filed a response supporting Cosentino's motion to intervene. On the same day, Cambria also filed a response stating that it does not oppose Cosentino's motion, provided that such intervention will not delay the target date or the procedural schedule of the investigation.
On March 19, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 9) pursuant to Commission Rule 210.19, 19 CFR 210.19, granting Cosentino's motion to intervene as a respondent. The ID finds that the Commission looks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 when considering a motion to intervene, and every factor in Rule 24 favors granting the motion. That is, (1) Cosentino filed its motion early in discovery; (2) Cosentino has an interest in the subject of the investigation because its products could be subject to a general exclusion order; (3) disposition without Cosentino may impair or impede its ability to protect its interests regarding its products; (4) Cosentino is not adequately represented by any other party because it is the sole U.S. distributor for its products and thus no other party will present noninfringement defenses for its products; and (5) there is no evidence that intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights. ID at 2-3.
No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID. Consentino is granted respondent status in this investigation.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on April 8, 2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: April 8, 2026.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.