[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4923-4924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1864]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-358]
Certain Recombinantly Produced Human Growth Hormones; Notice of
Commission Determinations (1) Not To Review Those Portions of the
Administrative Law Judge's Initial Determination Dismissing the
Complaint With Prejudice and Terminating the Investigation as a
Sanction for Complainant's Discovery Abuse; (2) To Take No Position on
the Remainder of the Initial Determination; Termination of
Investigation Based on a Finding of No Violation of Section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (Commission) has determined not to review the portion of the
presiding administrative law judge's (ALJ's) final initial
determination (ID) in the above-referenced investigation dismissing the
complaint with prejudice as a sanction for complainant's misconduct
during discovery, and to take no position on the remainder of the ID in
accordance with Beloit Corporation v. Valmet Oy, TVP Paper Machines,
Inc., and the United States International Trade Commission, 742 F. 2d
1421 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Notice is also given that the Commission has
denied complainant Genentech's motion to supplement the record, and
also denied Genentech's motion for leave to reply to an opposition to
Genentech's motion to supplement the record.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Andersen, Esq., telephone 202-
205-3099, or Cynthia Johnson, Esq., telephone 202-205-3098, Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on September 29, 1993, based on a complaint filed by Genentech, Inc. of
South San Francisco, California. 58 FR 50954. The following six firms
were named as respondents: Novo Nordisk A/S of Denmark; Novo Nordisk of
North America, Inc. of New York; Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of
New Jersey; ZymoGenetics, Inc. of Seattle, Washington (collectively,
the Novo respondents); Bio-Technology General Corp. of New York; and
Bio-Technology General Corp. (Israel) Ltd. (collectively, the BTG
respondents). The Commission also provisionally accepted Genentech's
motion for temporary relief. Id. The Commission terminated the
temporary relief proceedings as to the Novo [[Page 4924]] respondents
on the basis of a consent order. 58 FR 60672 (November 17, 1993).
The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on temporary relief from
December 13 through December 18, 1993. On January 26, 1994, the ALJ
issued an ID denying Genentech's motion for temporary relief. The
temporary relief ID was adopted by the Commission on February 25, 1994.
On March 2, 1994, the ALJ designated the permanent phase of the
investigation ``more complicated''.
The evidentiary hearing on issues concerning permanent relief
commenced on April 11, 1994, and concluded on April 24, 1994. On July
28, 1994, the ALJ issued an ID delaying the issuance of his final ID on
permanent relief until November 29, 1994. On August 22, 1994, the
Commission determined not to review that ID.
On August 29, 1994, the BTG and Novo respondents individually moved
for an order imposing sanctions against complainant Genentech for
alleged discovery abuse and reopening the record for the reception of
additional documentary evidence. In his final ID, issued on November
29, 1994, the ALJ granted the motion for sanctions, and denied the
requests to reopen the record. In the ID, the ALJ dismissed the
complainant with prejudice and terminated the investigation as a
sanction for Genentech's misconduct during discovery. Additionally, the
ALJ issued an opinion ruling on the merits of the investigation based
on the evidentiary record as it closed on April 24, 1994.
On December 12, 1994, complainant Genentech and the Commission
investigative attorney filed petitions for review of the ID. The Novo
respondents filed a contingent petition for review. On December 19,
1994, all parties filed responses to the petitions for review.
On December 12, 1994, complainant Genentech filed a motion to
supplement the Commission record. Responses to Genentech's motion were
filed by the BTG respondents, the Novo respondents, and the IA. The
Commission denied Genentech's motion on the basis that the record, as
defined by interim rule 210.43(a), already includes the documents at
issue. On December 20, 1994, Genentech moved for leave to reply to the
BTG respondents' opposition to Genentech's motion to supplement the
record. The Commission denied Genentech's motion for leave to reply as
moot in view of its denial of Genentech's motion to supplement the
record.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission interim rule 210.53,
19 C.F.R. 210.53.
Copies of the ID and all other nonconfidential 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 S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing-
impaired persons are advised that information on the matter can be
obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.
Issued: January 17, 1995.
By order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-1864 Filed 1-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
