`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
` Inv. No. 337-TA-1279
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN FLOCKED SWABS, PRODUCTS
`CONTAINING FLOCKED SWABS, AND
`METHODS OF USING SAME
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION TERMINATING INVESTIGATION
`AS TO CERTAIN CLAIMS OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`ORDER NO. 32:
`
`(December 15, 2021)
`
`On November 18, 2021, Complainants Copan Italia S.p.A. and Copan Industries, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Copan”) filed a motion (1279-030; EDIS Doc. ID 756904) to terminate the
`
`investigation as to certain claims of the asserted patents (“Mot.”). On November 29, 2021, the
`
`Office of Unfair Import Investigation (“Staff”) filed a response (EDIS Doc. ID 757434)
`
`supporting Copan’s motion (“Staff Resp.”). No respondent filed a response to Copan’s motion.
`
`On September 2, 2021, the Commission instituted this investigation to determine
`
`“whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the
`
`United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of”
`
`certain flock swabs, products containing flocked swabs, and methods of using same by
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,011,358 (the “’358 patent”); 9,173,779 (the “’779 patent”);
`
`and 10,327,741 (the “’741 patent”). 86 Fed. Reg. 49343 (Sept. 2, 2021) (EDIS Doc. ID 750793).
`
`The asserted claims are claims 1, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19, and 21-22 of the ’358 patent; claims 1, 4-6,
`
`8, 9, 11-13,16-20, and 22-24 of the ’779 patent; and claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 18, and 20 of the ’741
`
`patent. Id. Copan is withdrawing the allegations in its complaint with respect to claim 7 of the
`
`

`

`’358 patent, claims 5 and 19 of the ’779 patent, and claim 8 of the ’741 patent and seeks
`
`termination of these claims from the investigation. Mot. at 1-2.
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), 19 CFR § 210(a)(1), states, inter alia:
`
`Any party may move at any time prior to the issuance of an initial
`determination on violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
`for an order to terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to
`any or all respondents, on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint
`or certain allegations contained therein . . . . A motion for
`termination of an investigation based on withdrawal of the
`complaint, or for good cause, shall contain a statement that there
`are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the
`parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation, or if
`there are any agreements concerning the subject matter of the
`investigation, all such agreements shall be identified, and if
`written, a copy shall be filed with the Commission along with the
`motion. . . .
`Mot. at 2. In accordance with Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), 19 CFR § 210(a)(1), Copan
`
`represents that “there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between
`
`Complainants and Respondents concerning the subject matter of the Investigation relevant to the
`
`adjudication of this motion.”1 Id. at 4. Staff submits that Copan’s motion complies with the
`
`requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), 19 CFR § 210(a)(1). Staff Resp. at 2.
`
`Both Staff and Copan note that terminating the claims will “promote judicial economy
`
`and conserve judicial resources by simplifying and streamlining this investigation for the benefit
`
`of the ALJ and the parties.” Id.; Mot. at 3 (“Withdrawal of the allegations based on the claims
`
`identified above will simplify the Investigation, streamline the hearing, and conserve judicial and
`
`private party resources.”).
`
`
`1 Copan states that this representation “is not intended to include stipulations entered into by any of
`the Respondents and Complainants during the course of the Investigation to streamline the case and
`facilitate discovery.” Mot. at 4 n. 3.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`

`

`The Commission has held that “in the absence of extraordinary circumstances,
`
`termination of an investigation will be readily granted to a complainant during the prehearing
`
`stage of an investigation.” Certain Ultrafiltration Membrane Systems, & Components Thereof,
`
`Including Ultrafiltration Membranes, Inv. No. 337-TA-107, Commission Action & Order, 1982
`
`WL 1034896, at *2 (Mar. 11, 1982). No party has identified any extraordinary circumstances
`
`that would warrant denying Copan’s motion. The undersigned finds no extraordinary
`
`circumstances that prevent terminating claim 7 of the ’358 patent, claims 5 and 19 of the ’779
`
`patent, and claim 8 of the ’741 patent from this investigation. Further, the termination of the
`
`investigation as to these claims is in the public interest, as public and private resources will be
`
`conserved. Certain Power Supplies, Inv. No. 337-TA-646, Order No. 18 (Jan. 5, 2009), not
`
`reviewed Comm’n Notice (Jan 29, 2009).
`
`It is the undersigned’s Initial Determination that Copan’s unopposed motion to partially
`
`terminate this Investigation (Mot. Docket No. 1279-030) is hereby GRANTED. Claim 7 of the
`
`’358 patent, claims 5 and 19 of the ’779 patent, and claim 8 of the ’741 patent are hereby
`
`terminated from this Investigation.2 This Initial Determination, along with supporting
`
`documentation, is hereby certified to the Commission.
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.42(h), this Initial Determination shall become the
`
`determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the Initial
`
`
`2 Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16-19, 21, and 22 of the ’358 patent; claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13,16-18,
`20, and 22-24 of the ’779 patent; and claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, and 20 of the ’741 patent remain
`in the investigation.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`

`

`Determination pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. §
`
`210.44, orders, on its own motion, a review of the Initial Determination or certain issues herein.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________________
`Monica Bhattacharyya
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`