[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