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
<![CDATA[
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
