Certain Microfluidic Systems and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 and To Extend the Target Date; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions, 56835-56837 [2019-23072]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2019 / Notices Arizona; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona). • Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona; Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; YavapaiApache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona; and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the YavapaiPrescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona) hereafter referred to as ‘‘The Aboriginal Land Tribes.’’ • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Aboriginal Land Tribes. Additional Requestors and Disposition Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Kayci Cook Collins, Superintendent, Wupatki National Monument, 6400 N Highway 89, Flagstaff, AZ 86004, telephone (928) 526–1157 ext. 227, email Kayci_Cook@ nps.gov, by November 22, 2019. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to The Aboriginal Land Tribes may proceed. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Wupatki National Monument is responsible for notifying The Tribes that this notice has been published. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:10 Oct 22, 2019 Jkt 250001 Dated: September 26, 2019. Melanie O’Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program. [FR Doc. 2019–23078 Filed 10–22–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–52–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1100] Certain Microfluidic Systems and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 and To Extend the Target Date; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part the Administrative Law Judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial determination (‘‘ID’’), issued on July 12, 2019, finding a violation of section 337 in the abovereferenced investigation and to extend the target date for completion of the above-referenced investigation to December 19, 2019. The Commission requests briefing from the parties on certain issues under review, as indicated in this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin S. Richards, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–5453. 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 https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https:// 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: On February 21, 2018, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by 10X Genomics, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA. 83 FR 7491 (Feb. 21, SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 56835 2018). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain microfluidic systems and components thereof and products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,644,204 (‘‘the ’204 patent’’); 9,689,024 (‘‘the ’024 patent’’); 9,695,468 (‘‘the ’468 patent’’); and 9,856,530 (‘‘the ’530 patent’’). Id. The Commission’s notice of investigation named as the sole respondent Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. of Hercules, CA. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is participating in this investigation. Id. On July 12, 2019, the ALJ issued the final ID. The ID found a violation of section 337 by virtue of Bio-Rad’s indirect infringement of the ’024, the ’468, and the ’530 patents. The ID found that 10X had not established a violation with respect to the ’204 patent. The ID also found that Bio-Rad failed to establish invalidity of any of the asserted claims of any patent. The ID further found that the domestic industry requirement was satisfied for each of the asserted patents. Finally, the ID found that Bio-Rad had not carried its burden with respect to various additional affirmative defenses, including improper inventorship and ownership. On July 25, 2019, the ALJ issued her recommended determination on remedy and bonding. The ALJ recommended, upon a finding of violation, that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, issue a cease and desist order, and impose a bond in the amount of twenty-five percent of the entered value of any covered products imported during the period of Presidential review. On July 29, 2019, 10X, Bio-Rad, and OUII submitted petitions seeking review of the ID. On August 6, 2019, 10X, BioRad, and OUII submitted responses to the others’ petitions. On August 26, 2019, 10X and Bio-Rad submitted comments on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the ID with respect to (1) all findings related to a violation based on the ’024 patent; (2) all findings related to a violation based on the ’468 patent; (3) noninfringement of the ’204 patent; (4) all findings related to a violation based on the ’530 patent; (5) Bio-Rad’s inventorship and ownership defenses; and (6) a typographical error on page 91. E:\FR\FM\23OCN1.SGM 23OCN1 56836 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2019 / Notices The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID. The Commission has further determined to extend the target date in this investigation to December 19, 2019. The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the following issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record: 1. With respect to Bio-Rad’s ownership defense, would Drs. Hindson and Saxanov be considered inventors of the asserted patents based only on the ‘‘ideas’’ they developed at QuantaLife/ Bio-Rad? Your response should address how, if at all, those ‘‘ideas’’ correspond to the particular inventions claimed in the asserted patents. 2. Was the ALJ correct to focus on the ‘‘inventive concept’’ of the asserted patents in determining whether Bio-Rad has ownership rights in the asserted patents? If not, what is the correct focus? 3. The ID construed the term ‘‘amplification’’ in the ’024 and ’468 patent claims to mean ‘‘increasing the number of copies of the target sequence to be detected, including by reverse transcription.’’ Explain whether the ID’s construction is supported by the Application No. PCT/US 99/01705 (‘‘the ’705 application’’), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/ 0053798 (‘‘the ’798 application’’), or the specifications of the ’024 and ’468 patents. Please cite and explain each section that supports or detracts from this construction as well as any expert testimony that interprets those sections. 4. If the Commission determined to construe ‘‘amplification’’ to exclude reverse transcription, consistent with OUII’s petition, what effect, if any, would that have on the ID’s finding of infringement of the asserted claims of the ’024 and ’468 patents? 5. In its response to OUII’s petition on the construction of ‘‘amplification,’’ BioRad argues that, if the ID’s construction of ‘‘amplification’’ is modified to exclude reverse transcription, then the ID’s infringement findings with respect to the ’024 patent should be reversed. Bio-Rad’s argument focuses particularly on whether amplification occurs in a droplet. Explain how, if at all, modifying the ID’s construction of ‘‘amplification’’ to exclude reverse transcription could give rise to a noninfringement finding based on the location where amplification occurs. 6. Has Bio-Rad waived its noninfringement argument for the ’024 patent based on the location where amplification occurs, as described in question 5, by failing to raise the argument in its petition for review? If VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:10 Oct 22, 2019 Jkt 250001 you contend that the argument is not waived, provide citations to where this issue was raised in Bio-Rad’s prehearing brief, posthearing brief, and petition for review. 7. Does the evidence of record support the conclusion that [[ ]] in the context of the products accused of infringing the ’204 patent? 8. Claim 1 of the ’530 patent includes the clause ‘‘wherein said barcode molecules become detached from said gel bead.’’ Is this clause part of step (c) of the claimed method such that barcode molecules must become detached from the gel bead during that step, or does the clause modify the entire method such that the barcode molecules may become detached during any step of the method? Address the significance of the separate indentation of the ‘‘wherein’’ clause and the punctuation setting it off from the rest of the claim. 9. If claim 1 of the ’530 patent is construed such that the barcode molecules must become detached from the gel bead during step (c) of the claimed method, does a preponderance of the evidence show that Bio-Rad’s accused products and/or 10X’s domestic industry products practice step (c) of claim 1? Please identify all evidence supporting your position. 10. Did any party argue in its pre- or post-hearing briefing that the ALJ’s construction of claim 1 of the ’530 patent, as laid out in orders 22 and 35, was indefinite? If they did, identify where in the briefing those arguments were made. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented in the parties’ existing filings. In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may issue: (1) An exclusion order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) a cease-and-desist order that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 (Dec. 1994). If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered. Written Submissions: The parties to this investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues identified in this Notice and on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Complainant and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission’s consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the date that the patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported. Complainant is further requested to supply the names of known importers of the Respondent’s products at issue in this investigation. The parties’ written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on October 31, 2019. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on November 7, 2019. Opening submissions are limited to 75 pages. Reply submissions are limited to 60 pages. Such submissions should address the ALJ’s recommended determination on remedy and bonding. Interested government agencies and any other interested parties are also encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Third-party submissions should be filed no later than the close E:\FR\FM\23OCN1.SGM 23OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2019 / Notices of business on October 31, 2019, 2019. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary pursuant to Section 210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337– TA–1100’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook on Filing Procedures, https:// www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary at (202) 205–2000. Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,1 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS 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 210). By order of the Commission. 1 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:10 Oct 22, 2019 Jkt 250001 Issued: October 17, 2019. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2019–23072 Filed 10–22–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–747 (Final)] Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico; Continuation of the Final Phase of an Antidumping Duty Investigation and Revised Schedule United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the continuation of the final phase of antidumping investigation No. 731–TA–747 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’). This notice also provides the revised schedule for the final phase. DATES: October 17, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher W. Robinson (202) 205– 2542), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Background On February 1, 2018, Commerce initiated and the Commission instituted their fourth five-year reviews of the suspended investigation (83 FR 4641, 83 FR 4676). On May 7, 2019, Commerce terminated the suspension agreement and resumed its antidumping investigation (84 FR 20858, May 13, PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 56837 2019). Effective May 7, 2019, the Commission terminated its fourth review (84 FR 21360, May 14, 2019) and resumed its antidumping investigation (84 FR 27805, June 14, 2019). On August 7, 2019, the Commission published a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigation (84 FR 38643). On September 24, 2019, Commerce published notice in the Federal Register suspending its antidumping investigation on the basis of a suspension agreement between Commerce and signatory producers/ exporters accounting for substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico (84 FR 49987). Effective September 24, 2019, the Commission suspended its antidumping investigation (84 FR 54639, October 10, 2019). On October 11 and 15, 2019, Commerce received timely requests, pursuant to section 734(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673c(g)), to continue its antidumping investigation on fresh tomatoes from Mexico and therefore resumed its final investigation. The Commission, therefore, is continuing its antidumping investigation and gives notice of its revised schedule. The Commission’s new schedule for its final investigation is as follows: The hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on October 24, 2019; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 31, 2019; the Commission will make its final release of information on November 18, 2019; and final party comments are due on November 20, 2019. (Requests to appear at the hearing and the deadline for prehearing briefs already occurred under the prior schedule for this final investigation.) For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission’s notices cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, C, and D (19 CFR part 207). Authority: This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: October 17, 2019. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2019–23073 Filed 10–22–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P E:\FR\FM\23OCN1.SGM 23OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56835-56837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23072]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1100]


Certain Microfluidic Systems and Components Thereof and Products 
Containing Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final 
Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 and To Extend 
the Target Date; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has determined to review in part the Administrative Law 
Judge's (``ALJ'') final initial determination (``ID''), issued on July 
12, 2019, finding a violation of section 337 in the above-referenced 
investigation and to extend the target date for completion of the 
above-referenced investigation to December 19, 2019. The Commission 
requests briefing from the parties on certain issues under review, as 
indicated in this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin S. Richards, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street 
SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5453. 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 https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed 
on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://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: On February 21, 2018, the Commission 
instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by 10X 
Genomics, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA. 83 FR 7491 (Feb. 21, 2018). The 
complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, 
the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after 
importation of certain microfluidic systems and components thereof and 
products containing same by reason of infringement of one or more 
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,644,204 (``the '204 patent''); 9,689,024 
(``the '024 patent''); 9,695,468 (``the '468 patent''); and 9,856,530 
(``the '530 patent''). Id. The Commission's notice of investigation 
named as the sole respondent Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. of Hercules, 
CA. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') is 
participating in this investigation. Id.
    On July 12, 2019, the ALJ issued the final ID. The ID found a 
violation of section 337 by virtue of Bio-Rad's indirect infringement 
of the '024, the '468, and the '530 patents. The ID found that 10X had 
not established a violation with respect to the '204 patent. The ID 
also found that Bio-Rad failed to establish invalidity of any of the 
asserted claims of any patent. The ID further found that the domestic 
industry requirement was satisfied for each of the asserted patents. 
Finally, the ID found that Bio-Rad had not carried its burden with 
respect to various additional affirmative defenses, including improper 
inventorship and ownership.
    On July 25, 2019, the ALJ issued her recommended determination on 
remedy and bonding. The ALJ recommended, upon a finding of violation, 
that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, issue a cease and 
desist order, and impose a bond in the amount of twenty-five percent of 
the entered value of any covered products imported during the period of 
Presidential review.
    On July 29, 2019, 10X, Bio-Rad, and OUII submitted petitions 
seeking review of the ID. On August 6, 2019, 10X, Bio-Rad, and OUII 
submitted responses to the others' petitions. On August 26, 2019, 10X 
and Bio-Rad submitted comments on the public interest pursuant to 
Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4).
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ID, 
the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has 
determined to review the ID with respect to (1) all findings related to 
a violation based on the '024 patent; (2) all findings related to a 
violation based on the '468 patent; (3) noninfringement of the '204 
patent; (4) all findings related to a violation based on the '530 
patent; (5) Bio-Rad's inventorship and ownership defenses; and (6) a 
typographical error on page 91.

[[Page 56836]]

The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID.
    The Commission has further determined to extend the target date in 
this investigation to December 19, 2019.
    The parties are requested to brief their positions on only the 
following issues under review with reference to the applicable law and 
the evidentiary record:
    1. With respect to Bio-Rad's ownership defense, would Drs. Hindson 
and Saxanov be considered inventors of the asserted patents based only 
on the ``ideas'' they developed at QuantaLife/Bio-Rad? Your response 
should address how, if at all, those ``ideas'' correspond to the 
particular inventions claimed in the asserted patents.
    2. Was the ALJ correct to focus on the ``inventive concept'' of the 
asserted patents in determining whether Bio-Rad has ownership rights in 
the asserted patents? If not, what is the correct focus?
    3. The ID construed the term ``amplification'' in the '024 and '468 
patent claims to mean ``increasing the number of copies of the target 
sequence to be detected, including by reverse transcription.'' Explain 
whether the ID's construction is supported by the Application No. PCT/
US 99/01705 (``the '705 application''), U.S. Patent Application 
Publication No. 2011/0053798 (``the '798 application''), or the 
specifications of the '024 and '468 patents. Please cite and explain 
each section that supports or detracts from this construction as well 
as any expert testimony that interprets those sections.
    4. If the Commission determined to construe ``amplification'' to 
exclude reverse transcription, consistent with OUII's petition, what 
effect, if any, would that have on the ID's finding of infringement of 
the asserted claims of the '024 and '468 patents?
    5. In its response to OUII's petition on the construction of 
``amplification,'' Bio-Rad argues that, if the ID's construction of 
``amplification'' is modified to exclude reverse transcription, then 
the ID's infringement findings with respect to the '024 patent should 
be reversed. Bio-Rad's argument focuses particularly on whether 
amplification occurs in a droplet. Explain how, if at all, modifying 
the ID's construction of ``amplification'' to exclude reverse 
transcription could give rise to a noninfringement finding based on the 
location where amplification occurs.
    6. Has Bio-Rad waived its noninfringement argument for the '024 
patent based on the location where amplification occurs, as described 
in question 5, by failing to raise the argument in its petition for 
review? If you contend that the argument is not waived, provide 
citations to where this issue was raised in Bio-Rad's prehearing brief, 
posthearing brief, and petition for review.
    7. Does the evidence of record support the conclusion that [[ ]] in 
the context of the products accused of infringing the '204 patent?
    8. Claim 1 of the '530 patent includes the clause ``wherein said 
barcode molecules become detached from said gel bead.'' Is this clause 
part of step (c) of the claimed method such that barcode molecules must 
become detached from the gel bead during that step, or does the clause 
modify the entire method such that the barcode molecules may become 
detached during any step of the method? Address the significance of the 
separate indentation of the ``wherein'' clause and the punctuation 
setting it off from the rest of the claim.
    9. If claim 1 of the '530 patent is construed such that the barcode 
molecules must become detached from the gel bead during step (c) of the 
claimed method, does a preponderance of the evidence show that Bio-
Rad's accused products and/or 10X's domestic industry products practice 
step (c) of claim 1? Please identify all evidence supporting your 
position.
    10. Did any party argue in its pre- or post-hearing briefing that 
the ALJ's construction of claim 1 of the '530 patent, as laid out in 
orders 22 and 35, was indefinite? If they did, identify where in the 
briefing those arguments were made.
    The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are 
adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the 
Commission may issue: (1) An exclusion order that could result in the 
exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, 
and/or (2) a cease-and-desist order that could result in the respondent 
being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the 
importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 
interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of 
remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of 
an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than 
entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide 
information establishing that activities involving other types of entry 
either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, 
see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. 
No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (Dec. 1994).
    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must 
consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The 
factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an 
exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the 
public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. 
economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 
consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written 
submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in 
the context of this investigation.
    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve 
or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of 
July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the 
subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under 
bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in 
receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be 
imposed if a remedy is ordered.
    Written Submissions: The parties to this investigation are 
requested to file written submissions on the issues identified in this 
Notice and on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 
Complainant and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders 
for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is also requested to 
state the date that the patents expire and the HTSUS numbers under 
which the accused products are imported. Complainant is further 
requested to supply the names of known importers of the Respondent's 
products at issue in this investigation.
    The parties' written submissions and proposed remedial orders must 
be filed no later than the close of business on October 31, 2019. Reply 
submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on 
November 7, 2019. Opening submissions are limited to 75 pages. Reply 
submissions are limited to 60 pages. Such submissions should address 
the ALJ's recommended determination on remedy and bonding. Interested 
government agencies and any other interested parties are also 
encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the 
public interest, and bonding. Third-party submissions should be filed 
no later than the close

[[Page 56837]]

of business on October 31, 2019, 2019. No further submissions on any of 
these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the 
Commission.
    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document 
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit eight 
true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary pursuant to Section 
210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (``Inv. 
No. 337-TA-1100'') in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the 
first page. (See Handbook on Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions 
regarding filing should contact the Secretary at (202) 205-2000.
    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in 
confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information 
has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All 
such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and 
must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should 
grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents for which 
confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated 
accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must 
also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All 
information, including confidential business information and documents 
for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the 
Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and 
used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract 
personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a 
related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, 
and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of 
the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 
government employees and contract personnel,\1\ solely for 
cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will 
be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and 
on EDIS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure 
agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 17, 2019.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2019-23072 Filed 10-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P