Certain Products and Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing Recombinant Human Erythropoetin; Termination of Investigation on the Basis of Settlement, 65210-65211 [2011-27167]

Download as PDF 65210 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2011 / Notices 768, Pinedale WY 82941; 307–315– 0612; ssgregory@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PAWG was established by the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Record of Decision (ROD) for the PAPA on July 27, 2000 and carried forward with the release of the ROD for the PAPA Supplemental EIS on September 12, 2008. The PAWG is a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) chartered group which develops recommendations and provides advice to the BLM on mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management issues as oil and gas development in the PAPA proceeds. Additional information about the PAWG can be found at: http://www.blm.gov/ wy/st/en/field_offices/pinedale/ pawg.html. Mary E. Trautner, Acting State Director. [FR Doc. 2011–27148 Filed 10–19–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–22–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–568] Certain Products and Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing Recombinant Human Erythropoetin; Termination of Investigation on the Basis of Settlement U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to terminate the above-captioned investigation on the basis of settlement between the private parties. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:59 Oct 19, 2011 Jkt 226001 Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// edis.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. This investigation was instituted on May 12, 2006, based on a complaint filed by Amgen Inc. (‘‘Amgen’’) of Thousand Oaks, California. 71 FR 27,742 (May 12, 2006). The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain products and pharmaceutical compositions containing recombinant human erythropoietin by reason of infringement of various claims of six United States patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,441,868; 5,547,933 (‘‘the ’933 patent’’); 5,618,698 (‘‘the ’698 patent’’); 5,621,080 (‘‘the ’080 patent’’); 5,756,349; and 5,955,422. The complaint named Roche Holding Ltd. of Basel, Switzerland, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. of Basel, Switzerland, Roche Diagnostics GmbH of Mannheim, Germany, and Hoffman La Roche Inc. of Nutley, New Jersey (collectively, ‘‘Roche’’) as respondents. After separate remands by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of this investigation and a parallel civil action involving many of the same patents asserted in this investigation, on December 18, 2009, the private parties executed a settlement agreement that allows Roche to begin selling accused products in the United States in mid2014. Form 10–K, Amgen Inc., at 8 (Mar. 1, 2010); see also Settlement Agreement (Dec. 18, 2009). On December 21, 2009, Amgen and Roche submitted a proposed consent order to the district court in that parallel civil action, and on December 22, 2009, the district court entered judgment. On December 22, 2009, Amgen moved to withdraw certain patent claims from this investigation that had not been asserted in the district court. Unopposed Compl’t Amgen Inc.’s Mot. to Terminate Investigation as to Claims 4, 5 and 11 of the ’933 Patent, Claims 4 and 6 of the ’080 Patent, and Claims 4 and 5 of the ’698 Patent (Dec. 22, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2009). The Commission granted that motion. 75 FR 18,548 (Apr. 12, 2010). Also on December 22, 2009, Amgen moved the Commission to terminate this investigation by entry of an exclusion order based on preclusion caused by the district court judgment. Addendum to August 24, 2009 Stipulation (Dec. 22, 2009). Two Amgen motions regarding claim 7 of the ’349 patent followed. By notice on April 6, 2010, the Commission sought clarification from the parties about, among other things, the effect of the stipulated district court judgment on this investigation. 75 FR 18,548 (Apr. 12, 2010). On March 11, 2011, the Commission issued an order to show cause why the investigation should not be terminated in view of the parties’ settlement. In response, Amgen and Roche declined to pursue their request for an exclusion order and instead requested the issuance of a consent order. In support of their proposed consent order, Amgen and Roche stated that ‘‘the Commission has previously terminated investigations when there is both a settlement agreement and an executed consent order stipulation.’’ Joint Response of Complainant and Respondents to the Commission’s Order to Show Cause and Request for Termination on the Basis of a Consent Order 2–3 (Apr. 21, 2011) (‘‘Joint Response’’) (citing Notices, Certain Digital Multimeters and Products with Multimeter Functionality, Inv. No. 337–TA–588 (May 31, 2007 and July 3, 2007)). In a corrected response that the Commission hereby grants leave to file, the Commission investigative attorney did not object to the issuance of a consent order. As will be discussed further in an accompanying opinion, the facts of the 588 investigation are readily distinguished from the facts here. Amgen and Roche have offered no basis, in law or policy, to support the Commission’s issuance of a consent order under the unusual facts of this investigation. Nor is the Commission itself aware of any such basis. Accordingly, the Commission terminates this investigation on the basis of the settlement agreement between the private parties. 19 U.S.C. 1337(c); 19 CFR 210.21(b), 210.41. 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). Issued: October 14, 2011. E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2011 / Notices By order of the Commission. James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2011–27167 Filed 10–19–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Foreign Claims Settlement Commission [F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 11–11] Sunshine Act Meeting The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows: Friday, October 28, 2011 10 a.m. Oral hearing on objection to Commission’s Proposed Decision in Claim No. LIB–II–016 11 a.m. Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Libya Status: Open. All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Judith H. Lock, Executive Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616–6975. Jaleh F. Barrett, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. 2011–27321 Filed 10–18–11; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4410–BA–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 159th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of Meeting Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 159th open meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (also known as the ERISA Advisory Council) will be held on November 8–9, 2011. The meeting will take place in C–5515 Room 1–A, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 on November 8, from 1 p.m. to approximately 5 p.m. On VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:59 Oct 19, 2011 Jkt 226001 November 9, the meeting will start at 9 a.m. and conclude at approximately 4 p.m., with a break for lunch, in Room S–2508 at the same address. The purpose of the open meeting is for the Advisory Council members to finalize the recommendations they will present to the Secretary. At the November 9 afternoon session, the Council members will receive an update from the Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and present their recommendations. The Council recommendations will be on the following issues: (1) Current Challenges and Best Practices for ERISA Compliance for 403(b) Plan Sponsors; (2) Hedge Funds and Private Equity Investments; and, (3) Privacy and Security Issues Affecting Employee Benefit Plans (other than health care plans). Descriptions of these topics are available on the Advisory Council page of the EBSA web site, at http:// www.dol.gov/ebsa/aboutebsa/ erisa_advisory_council.html. Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written statement may do so by submitting 30 copies on or before November 1, 2011 to Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N–5623, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Statements also may be submitted as email attachments in text or pdf format transmitted to good.larry@dol.gov. It is requested that statements not be included in the body of the e-mail. Statements deemed relevant by the Advisory Council and received on or before November 1, 2011 will be included in the record of the meeting and available in the EBSA Public Disclosure room. Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory Council should send their requests to the Executive Secretary at one of the addresses provided above or call (202) 693–8668. Oral presentations will be limited to ten minutes, time permitting, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact the Executive Secretary by November 1. PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65211 Signed at Washington, DC this 14th day of October, 2011. Michael L. Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration. [FR Doc. 2011–27064 Filed 10–19–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–29–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–80,297] Steiff North America, Lincoln, RI; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application received September 26, 2011, a worker requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers Steiff North America, Lincoln, Rhode Island (Steiff North America). The negative determination was issued on September 13, 2011. The Department’s Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2011 (76 FR 61743). The workers of Steiff North America, Lincoln, Rhode Island, are engaged in activities related to the supply of distribution and sales of plush toys. The negative determination was based on the Department’s findings that Steiff North America does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a) or Section 222(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserts that subject firm produces ‘‘plush toys, clothing, wooden toys, and other children related items.’’ The Department has carefully reviewed the petitioner’s request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the petitioning workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor’s prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65210-65211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27167]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-568]


Certain Products and Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing 
Recombinant Human Erythropoetin; Termination of Investigation on the 
Basis of Settlement

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to terminate the above-captioned 
investigation on the basis of settlement between the private parties.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are 
or will be available for inspection during official business hours 
(8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the 
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at 
http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be 
viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.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: This investigation was instituted on May 12, 
2006, based on a complaint filed by Amgen Inc. (``Amgen'') of Thousand 
Oaks, California. 71 FR 27,742 (May 12, 2006). The complaint alleged a 
violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in 
the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale 
within the United States after importation of certain products and 
pharmaceutical compositions containing recombinant human erythropoietin 
by reason of infringement of various claims of six United States 
patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,441,868; 5,547,933 (``the '933 patent''); 
5,618,698 (``the '698 patent''); 5,621,080 (``the '080 patent''); 
5,756,349; and 5,955,422. The complaint named Roche Holding Ltd. of 
Basel, Switzerland, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. of Basel, Switzerland, 
Roche Diagnostics GmbH of Mannheim, Germany, and Hoffman La Roche Inc. 
of Nutley, New Jersey (collectively, ``Roche'') as respondents.
    After separate remands by the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit of this investigation and a parallel civil action involving 
many of the same patents asserted in this investigation, on December 
18, 2009, the private parties executed a settlement agreement that 
allows Roche to begin selling accused products in the United States in 
mid-2014. Form 10-K, Amgen Inc., at 8 (Mar. 1, 2010); see also 
Settlement Agreement (Dec. 18, 2009). On December 21, 2009, Amgen and 
Roche submitted a proposed consent order to the district court in that 
parallel civil action, and on December 22, 2009, the district court 
entered judgment.
    On December 22, 2009, Amgen moved to withdraw certain patent claims 
from this investigation that had not been asserted in the district 
court. Unopposed Compl't Amgen Inc.'s Mot. to Terminate Investigation 
as to Claims 4, 5 and 11 of the '933 Patent, Claims 4 and 6 of the '080 
Patent, and Claims 4 and 5 of the '698 Patent (Dec. 22, 2009). The 
Commission granted that motion. 75 FR 18,548 (Apr. 12, 2010).
    Also on December 22, 2009, Amgen moved the Commission to terminate 
this investigation by entry of an exclusion order based on preclusion 
caused by the district court judgment. Addendum to August 24, 2009 
Stipulation (Dec. 22, 2009). Two Amgen motions regarding claim 7 of the 
'349 patent followed. By notice on April 6, 2010, the Commission sought 
clarification from the parties about, among other things, the effect of 
the stipulated district court judgment on this investigation. 75 FR 
18,548 (Apr. 12, 2010).
    On March 11, 2011, the Commission issued an order to show cause why 
the investigation should not be terminated in view of the parties' 
settlement. In response, Amgen and Roche declined to pursue their 
request for an exclusion order and instead requested the issuance of a 
consent order. In support of their proposed consent order, Amgen and 
Roche stated that ``the Commission has previously terminated 
investigations when there is both a settlement agreement and an 
executed consent order stipulation.'' Joint Response of Complainant and 
Respondents to the Commission's Order to Show Cause and Request for 
Termination on the Basis of a Consent Order 2-3 (Apr. 21, 2011) 
(``Joint Response'') (citing Notices, Certain Digital Multimeters and 
Products with Multimeter Functionality, Inv. No. 337-TA-588 (May 31, 
2007 and July 3, 2007)). In a corrected response that the Commission 
hereby grants leave to file, the Commission investigative attorney did 
not object to the issuance of a consent order.
    As will be discussed further in an accompanying opinion, the facts 
of the 588 investigation are readily distinguished from the facts here. 
Amgen and Roche have offered no basis, in law or policy, to support the 
Commission's issuance of a consent order under the unusual facts of 
this investigation. Nor is the Commission itself aware of any such 
basis. Accordingly, the Commission terminates this investigation on the 
basis of the settlement agreement between the private parties. 19 
U.S.C. 1337(c); 19 CFR 210.21(b), 210.41.
    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).

    Issued: October 14, 2011.


[[Page 65211]]


    By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-27167 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P