UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`-----------------------------------------------------
`In the Matter of,
`
`43+- I 7
`Investigation NO. i
`
`X
`
`I. EMERGENCY APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF
`RESPONDENT-NEMOTO KYORINDO CO. LTD. TO
`SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS IN INVESTIGATION NO. 337-
`TA-434 OR ALTERNATIVELY TO AMEND ORDER NO. 16
`TO
`STATE THAT THIS
`INVESTIGATION
`IS
`TERMINATED, AND
`11.
`RESPONSE
`TO
`COMPLAINANT-MEDUD’S
`EMERGENCY MOTION TO SUSPEND ORDER NO. 6
`MODIFYING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`r.3
`a
`-a
`..
`Le J
`;....I 4
`
`I.
`
`Emergency Application by Respondent Nenioto Kvorindo Co. Ltd.
`
`This EMERGENCY APPLICATION is submitted on behalf of Respondent Nemoto
`
`Kyorindo Co. Ltd.(“Nemoto”) in support of an immediate suspension of this proceeding and a
`
`resetting of the dates set forth in Order Nos. 3 and 6, or in the alternative an amendment to Order
`
`No. 16 to specifically state that the Order terminates the investigation and therefore vacates the
`
`remaining dates in Order Nos. 3 and 6.
`
`The Complainant’s verified complaint, alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff
`
`Act of 1930, as amended, was filed on April 25,2000. The Complainant sought a permanent
`
`exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order against importation and sale of
`
`Respondents’ accused systems and components, which allegedly infringe U.S. Patent Number
`
`Re. 36,648 (the “648 reissue patent”). This investigation was instituted on May 22, 2000.
`
`NEWYORK411301Svl
`
`

`
`On June 13, 2000 pursuant to Order No.3 “ Setting Target Date of May 29, 2001,” this
`
`Court based “on the present record” set a target date and stated that the final determination was
`
`due no later than February 26,2001 (Exhibit A) , The Court then issued, on July 10,2000, Order
`
`No.6 “ Modifying Procedural Schedule,” which order set a series of dates by which the parties
`
`were to take specific actions and set the Hearing in this action for December 4,2000 (Exhibit
`
`B) *
`
`On August 25,2000, Nemoto moved for a summary determination that the ’648 reissue
`
`patent is invalid (Motion Docket No.434-6). This motion was followed, on September 11,2000,
`
`by respondents Liebel-Flarsheim and Mallinckrodt also moving for summary determination that
`
`the Medrad ’648 reissue patent is invalid (Motion Docket No.434-11). Medrad and the Staff
`
`responded to each of these motions.
`
`By Order No. 16, issued September 26,2000, the Court granted Respondents’ motions
`
`for summary determination (Exhibit C, pages 24-25), resulting in an Initial Determination under
`19 C.F.R. 5 210.42(c), that the ’648 reissue patent is invalid. Absent a valid patent, there can be
`no infringement, and consequently, no violation of 5 337(a)(l)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930.
`
`As stated on page 24 of the Initial Determination, the Court has “CERTIFIED to the
`
`Commission” and, if the Commission does not order review or change the effective date of the
`
`Initial Determination, it will become final within thirty days pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
`5 210.42(h)(3).
`
`However, by its own terms, this Initial Determination does not relieve the parties or the
`
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations from the expense and time-consuming involvement in
`
`NEWYORK4113015vl
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`ongoing discovery scheduled to occur during the period in which the Commission is considering
`
`the Court’s Initial Determination. As stated in the Initial Determination order:
`
`investigation is set to coinmcnce on
`The hearing in this
`December 4, 2000. The fact that this Initial Determination finds
`the ‘648 reissue patent invalid does not alter said hearing date.
`The parties should continue to prepare for said hearing. It is only
`upon final disposition by the Commission that the ‘648 reissue
`patent is invalid that the parties may assume that the hearing date
`set would no longer apply.
`Exhibit C, page 25, fn. 9.
`
`To date, this Investigation has involved intensive written and deposition discovery in
`
`both the United States and Japan (domicile of Respondent Nemoto ), in compliance with the
`
`schedule set forth in Order Nos. 3 and 6.
`
`In order to complete discovery by the ordered completion date of October 23, 2000, the
`
`parties have scheduled and are attempting to: i) schedule numerous depositions of party
`
`witnesses, third parties and experts in several states; ii) complete review of tens of thousands of
`
`produced and subpoenaed documents; iii) resolve multiple privilege log and other discovery
`disputes, each with a requisite meet and confer - all within the next 30 days. An example of the
`
`depositions which Nemoto has scheduled is set forth in a recent letter to the Staff Attorney. (See
`
`Exhibit D).
`
`Nemoto respectfully requests that, effective immediately, this proceeding be stayed, and
`
`that all the dates set forth in Order Nos. 3 and 6 (Exhibits A and B), including the close of
`
`discovery, the Hearing and the Target Date, be extended. A reasonable time period to extend the
`
`dates appears to be sixty (60) days, which would allow the Commission to make its final
`
`determination and allow time for the parties to reschedule, if necessary, the remaining
`
`NEWYORK 41 130 15vl
`
`-3 -
`
`

`
`depositions. This sixty day period was specifically addressed by the parties and the Staff during
`
`conference calls on September 28,2000 and this proposed time period for extension was not
`
`opposed. The proposed new dates are set forth in Exhibit E, for the Court’s convenience.
`
`In the alternative, Nemoto respectfully requests that an Amendment be made to Order
`
`No. 16 affirming that
`
`Initial Determination, finding the patent-in-suit invalid, is a
`
`termination of the investigation and, as a consequence, all the dates set forth in Order Nos. 3 and
`
`6 are vacated. As was discussed in a telephone conference before the Court on September 28,
`
`2000, this outcome is what Nemoto believes is now considered appropriate by the Court and is
`
`its understanding of the underlying intent of Order No. 16. Indeed, this appears consistent with
`
`the view of all the parties and the Staff.
`
`At least one Commissioner has found inherent authority in the Commission to exercise its
`
`discretion to suspend a section 337 investigation if a conservation of Commission resources in
`
`manpower, budgeting and financing is warranted. Color Television Receiving Sets, ITC Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-23, Commission Memorandum Opinion, at 19 (1977). See also, Transport Vehicle
`
`Tires, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-390, Order 14 (Jan. 8, 1997) (granting complainant’s motion to stay
`
`pending resolution of motion to withdraw complaint).
`
`It is therefore respectfully requested that the proceedings in the captioned investigation,
`
`be stayed and that the dates listed in Order Nos. 3 and 6 be reset in accordance with Exhibit E, or
`
`in the alternative that Order No. 16 be amended to more particularly set forth that this
`
`investigation is terminated and that the dates set forth in Order Nos. 3 and 6 are vacated.
`
`Nemoto submits two alternative orders, attached hereto, for the Court’s consideration.
`
`NEWYORK4113015vl
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`11. Rcsponse to Medrad’s Emergency Motion to Suspend
`
`In response to Medrad’s emergency motion, supporting memorandum and proposed
`
`order, Nemoto makes a few observations. It is apparent that, by inadvertence, Medrad only
`
`references this Court’s Order No.6 and does not make reference to Order No. 3, despite Medrad
`
`acknowledging, both during yesterday’s telephone conferences between the parties and the Staff,
`
`as well as in its supporting memorandum at page 3 paragraph E, that it is “of course agreeable to
`
`setting a new procedural schedule to provide for completion of discovery and a new target date ”
`
`(emphasis added). Certainly, without question, should the Commission reverse Order No. 16, it is
`
`appropriate and justified that under the circumstances all dates be extended, including the
`
`procedural dates, the date of the Hearing, as well as the Target date. As stated above, Nemoto
`
`respectfully proposes a sixty day extension to all the currently scheduled dates, unless, of course,
`
`the Court believes it is otherwise preferable to suspend all dates pending the Commission’s final
`
`determination, including the Target Date. Medrad’s motion and proposed order fails to modify
`
`the Hearing Date, and the Target Date. Simply suspending the procedural calendar and not
`
`modifying or vacating the Target Date could leave Respondents with little time or no time to
`
`complete discovery if the Initial Determination is overruled by the Commission. This result
`
`would certainly materially prejudice Respondents. It is Nemoto’s understanding, that neither
`
`Medrad nor the Staff intended such a result.
`
`Further, Nemoto points out, that contrary to the statement made in Medrad’s
`
`memorandum at page 2 paragraph C, most, if not all of the depositions “scheduled” during the
`
`weeks of September 25th, October 2nd, and October 16th are Medrad witnesses that
`
`Respondents have been attempting to have Medrad schedule for the past few months. In the
`
`event that the Court’s Initial Determination is overruled by the Commission, Respondents would
`
`NEWYORK 4113015~1
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`be materially prejudiced, if these witnesses were not made available to Respondents for
`
`deposition, and Respondents’ remaining time for discovery were to be effectively eliminated
`
`(discovery is now scheduled to close during the period in which the Commission is considering
`
`the Initial Determination). In fact, Nemoto believes that, considering the amount of discovery
`
`that remains, even more time for discovery will be needed.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Respondent Nemoto respectfully requests that the Court not
`
`enter Medrad’s proposed Order, but instead enter one of the orders submitted by Nemoto.
`
`Respectftdly submitted,
`
`Philippe Bennett
`Robert H. Hanlon
`Walter Scott
`Anders Enemark
`Lisa W. Rosaya
`COUDERT BROTHERS
`11 14 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10036-7703
`Tel: (212) 626-4400
`Fax: (212) 626-4120
`Attorneys for Respondent
`Nemoto Kyorindo Co., Ud.
`
`NEWYORK4113015vl
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`c
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MAGNETIC
`RESONANCE INJECTION
`SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`I
`)
`1
`)
`)
`1
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434
`
`- -
`
`-.
`
`Order No. 3: Setting Target Date of May 29.2001
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 1, each of complainant MEDRAD, Inc. (Medrad) and respondents
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Company, Mallinckrodt Inc. (NY) and Mallinckrodt Inc. (Del.) proposed a
`
`target date of May 26,2001.
`
`Medrad argued that the patent in issue has been known to all the respondents in its original
`form for a number of years; that the Mallinckrodt L-F respondents last year filed an opposition
`
`to the European counterpart of the patent at issue and similarly, the Japanese respondent
`
`filed a patent application in Japan one-month after seeing complainant Medrad's SPECTIUS@
`
`device incorporating the patented invention at an industry trade show; and that the patent
`
`specification i.s clear and the claims are related and easy to understand.
`
`The skiff, in response to Order No. 1, represented that the notice instituting this
`
`investigation was published on May 26,2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 3423 1 (May 26,2000)). Based on a
`review of the complaint and its exhibits, it then proposed a target date of May 29,200 1 .' The
`staff argued that at this point in time, it does not appear that this investigation will be "usually
`
`' The staff notes that May 26,2001 is a Saturday, and May 28 is the Memorial Day
`holiday.
`
`
`
`L '
`
`C : c
`C.2
`I-*
`G2
`
`I
`
`

`
`c
`
`c
`
`complex;” that there is only one patent at issue; that said patent is not particularly lengthy, and
`
`although there was a reissue proceeding, the prosecution history is not overly complex; and that
`there are three related respondents - Mallinckrodt NY, Mallinckrodt DE, and Liebel-Flarsheim -
`and a fourth respondent, Nemoto, who is allegedly the supplier to the three related respondents.
`
`Counsel for respondent Nemoto Kyorindo Co., Ltd. (Nemoto) served an entry of
`
`appearance dated June 12. Nemoto in a filing also dated June 12 supported the staffs proposal
`
`for a target date although it stated that it has “some reservations” as to whether or not twelve
`
`months would be sufficient. Thus it argued that involved in this investigation is a broadening
`
`reissue which raises a number of considerations including possible intervening rights; that there is
`
`an opposition proceeding in the European Patent Office against Medrad’s European patent which
`
`is based on the parent (U. S . Patent No. 5,494,036 (the ‘036 patent)) of the ‘648 patent in issue;
`
`that Nemoto is a Japanese corporation and many of its employees, including possible witnesses,
`
`only speak Japanese and most, if not all, of the relevant documents that will be produced will be in
`
`Japanese and much of the discovery process, with respect to Nemoto, will need to be conducted
`
`in Japan; and that the U. S . Patent and Trademark Office has, as of April 6,2000, reported that
`the file history of the ‘036 patent is lost. * It further argued that from an initial review of the ‘648
`patent file history that Medrad did file, the file is at least missing the reissue declarations of
`
`Messrs. Waddell and Stulen. Accordingly Nemoto requested that the twelve-month period to
`
`which “it is agreeing” not begin until the date that Medrad provides the certified copies of the
`
`Nemoto noted that a search of the PTO Patent Application Retrieval database reveals
`that the file history for the ‘036 patent was reported lost on April 6,2000, prior to Medrad filing
`its Verified Complaint on April 25 and that the Appendices Volumes 1 and 2 attached to the
`Verified Complaint list the contents as: Certified copy of file history of U. S. Patent No. Re.
`36,648 and Certified copy of file history of U. S. Patent No. 5,494,036, respectively, despite the
`fact that neither copy is actually certified which Medrad’s attorneys acknowledged in a letter of
`April 25 to the Secretary.
`
`I
`
`

`
`c
`
`patents and their respective prosecution histories to the Commission and to the parties.
`
`Based on the present record, a target date of May 29,2001 is set. Accordingly the final
`
`initial determination is due no later than February 26,2001. In proposing a procedural schedule,
`
`pursuant to Order No. 1, the parties should take notice of the February 26,2001 due date.
`
`Paul J. Luckeg '
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`Issued: June 13,2000
`
`3
`
`I
`
`

`
`c
`
`c
`
`."
`
`I..
`
`CERTAIN MAGNETIC RESONANCE INJECTION
`SYSTEMS COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434
`
`CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Donna R. Koehnke, hereby certify that the attached Order was served by hand upon
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon, Esq., and upon the following parties via frrst class mail, and air mail
`where necessary, on June 13 9 2000
`
`Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary
`U. S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`For Complainant Medrad, Inc.:
`
`Arthur Wineburg, Esq.
`Susan T. Brown, Esq.
`Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Esq.
`Janine A. Carlan, Esq.
`Shamita D. Etienne-Cummings, Esq.
`Pillsbury Madison and Sutro LLP
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`9" Floor
`Washington, DC 20005-3918
`
`

`
`-
`
`CERTAIN MAGNETIC RESONANCE INJECTION
`SYSTEMS COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SER VICE - p. 2
`
`For Respondents Liebel-Flarsheim Co., Mallinckrodt Inc. (New York Corporation) &
`Mallinckrodt Inc. (Delaware Corporation):
`
`J. Robert Chambers
`Donald F. Frei
`Theodore R. Remaklus
`Thomas W. Humphrey
`Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP
`2700 Carew Tower
`441 Vine Street
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`
`For Respondent Nemoto Kyorindo Co., Ltd.:
`
`Michael G. Davies
`Arthur Mitchell
`Philippe Bennett
`Walter Scott
`Coudert Brothers
`11 14 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-7703
`
`

`
`c
`
`c
`
`CERTAIN MAGNETIC RESONANCE INJECTION
`SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434
`
`PUBLIC MAILING LIST
`
`DonnaS. Wirt
`Lexis-Nexis
`1150 Eighteenth St., N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`Denise Becker
`West Services, Inc.
`901 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 200
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`(PARTIES NEED NOT SERVE COPIES ON LEXIS OR WEST PUBLISHING)
`
`I
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D .C.
`.
`.
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MAGNETIC
`RESONANCE INJECTION
`SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`)
`)
`)
`1
`)
`)
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434
`
`.-
`--
`
`~
`
`c
`k z
`
`c
`r--
`
`- -_
`
`\_
`
`_-
`-. -, I
`
`c -
`c .i
`Order No. 6: Modifiving Procedural Schedule
`c.:
`At the preliminary conference on July 6,2000, while complainant's counsel agreed to the ,.
`.c. m.
`procedural schedule (Order No. 5), his initial reaction was that "it's going to be a tough Christmas
`
`< " I
`
`holiday on briefing, but I'm a trooper" (Tr. at 173). The staff, while it did not see any problem
`
`with the schedule, expressed its desire that there be some flexibility in briefing (Tr. at 174).
`
`Accordingly the procedural schedule is modified as set forth in the following:
`
`Exchange of experts' names, expertise for which
`they are being offered and their curriculum
`vitae( s).
`Identification of any prior art upon which parties
`will rely at the hearing; and a tentative list of
`witnesses who will testify at the hearing, with an
`indication of the witness' relationship to the party
`
`Exchange of initial expert reports
`
`Submission of statements regarding the use of
`witness statements in lieu of live direct testimony,
`and statements regarding whether any party
`intends to offer expert reports into evidence
`Exchange of rebuttal expert reports
`
`Discovery request cut-off
`
`~
`
`Discovery completion
`
`August 18,2000
`
`September 8,2000
`
`September 15,2000
`
`September 29,2000
`
`October 7,2000
`
`October 11,2000
`
`October 23,2000
`
`~~~
`
`

`
`Cut-off for motions to compel discovery and
`related motions
`.
`
`October 25,2000
`
`_- P
`
`Submission and exchange of direct exhibits,
`including witness statements: Complainant and
`respondents
`
`November 2,2000
`
`Submission and exchange of direct exhibits,
`including witness statements: Staff
`Submission of prehearing statements and any
`stipulations: Complainant and respondents
`
`Objections to direct exhibits, including witness
`statements
`Submission and exchange of rebuttal exhibits,
`including witness statements:
`
`Resppnses to objections to direct exhibits,
`including witness statements
`
`November 6,2000
`
`November 13,2000
`
`November 14,2000
`
`November 14,2000
`
`November 24,2000
`
`~
`
`Submission of prehearing statement of the staff
`
`November 24,2000
`
`I
`
`Objections to rebuttal exhibits including witness
`statements
`
`Submission of declarations justifying
`confidentiality of exhibits
`
`Responses to objections to rebuttal exhibits
`including witness statements
`Submission by each party of a list (three copies) of
`its exhibits for which there are no objections
`
`Pre-hearing conference
`
`Hearing
`
`November 24,2000
`
`November 24,2000
`
`I
`
`December 1,2000
`
`~
`
`December 1,2000
`
`December 4,2000 Hearing Room A, 8:OO a.m.
`
`December 4-8,2000, commencing immediately
`after the pre-hearing conference
`
`As seen from the forgoing the pre-hearing conference and hearing are now set for
`
`December 4 thru December 8 in Hearing Room A with the pre-hearing conference set to
`
`commence at 8:OO a.m. The hearing dates now set coextend with the hearing dates of November
`
`29 thru December 5 that had been proposed by respondent Nemoto Kyorindo Co., Ltd, in its
`
`

`
`discovery statement. However the present hearing dates avoid an interruption by a weekend.
`. _.
`
`Adminktravve Law judge
`
`Issued: July 10,2000
`
`

`
`I
`
`CERTAIN MAGNETIC RESONANCE INJECTION
`SYSTEMS COMPONENTS THERJ3-0F
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434
`
`FICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Donna R. Koehnke, hereby certify that the attached Order was served by hand upon
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon, Esq., and upon the following parties via first class mail, and air mail
`where necessary, on J u l y 10, 2000.
`
`---
`Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary
`U .S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`For Complainant Medrad, Inc.:
`
`Arthur Wineburg, Esq.
`Susan T. Brown, Esq.
`Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Esq.
`Janine A. Carlan, Esq.
`Shamita D. Etienne-Cummings, Esq.
`Pillsbury Madison and Sutro LLP
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`9h Floor
`Washington, DC 20005-3918
`
`

`
`#
`
`CERTAIN MAGNETIC RESONANCE INJECTION
`SYSTEMS COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - p. 2
`
`For Respondents Liebel-Flarsheim Co., Mallinckrodt Inc. (New York Corporation) &
`Mallinckrodt Inc. (Delaware Corporation):
`
`J. Robert Chambers
`Donald F. Frei
`Theodore R. Remaklus
`Thomas W. Humphrey
`Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP
`2700 Carew Tower
`441 Vine Street
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`
`For Respondent Nemoto Kyorindo Co., Ltd.:
`
`Michael G. Davies
`Arthur Mitchell
`Philippe Bennett
`Walter Scott
`Coudert Brothers
`1114 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-7703
`
`

`
`I
`I
`
`CERTAIN MAGNETIC RESONANCE INJECTION
`SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434
`
`PUBLIC M AILING LIST
`
`Donna S. Wirt
`Lexis-Nexis
`1150 Eighteenth St., N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`
`Denise Becker
`West Services, Inc.
`901 Fifteenth Street, N. W., Suite 200
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`(PARTIES NEED NOT SERVE COPIES ON LEXIS OR WEST PUBLISHING)
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT C
`ORDERNO. 16
`
`COPIES ALREADY IN
`POSSESSION OF COUNSEL
`
`

`
`EXHBIIT D
`
`EXHBIIT D
`
`

`
`COUDERT BROTHERS
`
`I
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`I I I4AVENUE OF ME AMERICAS
`NEW YORK, NY 10036-7703
`TEL: (212) 626-4400
`FAX: (212) 626-4120
`URL: http://www.coudert.com
`EMAIL: HOLZMANL@COUDERT.COM
`
`September 26,2000
`
`Via Fax
`
`NOFrm AMERICA
`NEW YORK, WASHINGTON, SAN FRANCISCO,
`LOS ANGELES, SAN JOSE, DENVER. MONTREAL.
`P A L 0 ALTO
`
`EUROPE
`PARIS, LONDON, BRUSSELS, MOSCOW, BERLIN,
`ST. PETERSBURG, FRANKFURT, ANTWERP, GHENT,
`MILAN, MUNICH, BONN
`
`AS IA/PACI FIC
`HONG KONG, SINGAPORE, BEIJING, SYDNCI, TOKYO,
`BANGKOK, JAKARTA, HANOI, ALMATY
`
`ASSOCIATED OFFICES
`BUDAPEST
`NAGY ts TR~CSANYI
`CGWfDI IRODA
`
`MEXICO CITY
`RIOS FERRER Y
`GUILL~N-LLARENA, S.C.
`
`PRAGUE
`GIESE AND
`PARTNER
`
`James B. Coughlan, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street SW, Room 401-L
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Re:
`
`Dcar Jim:
`
`.: *
`In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Resonance Injection Systems and
`Components Thereof
`
`" 8
`
`As requested, enclosed is a list of depositions already scheduled over the next
`few weeks and a list of witnessedparties that Nemoto has requested to date that are still left to
`be scheduled before the close of discovery. As you know, all of these witnesses have been
`previously identified to Medrad and dates requested for these depositions. This list certainly
`raises the question of whether there is enough time remaining for the completion of all the .
`listed depositions. We appreciate your willingness to double track the depositions.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Lara A. Holzman
`
`'
`
`LAH:mc
`
`cc: Ted Remaklus, Esq.
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings, Esq.
`
`NEWYOFX 41 12691~1
`
`

`
`Scheduled Depositions Of Medrad Witnesses And Third Party Witnesses
`as of September 26,2000
`
`Date
`
`Witness
`
`Location
`
`Newell
`Newell
`Murdoch
`Ziff
`Manley
`Manley
`Waddell
`
`___-
`
`--
`
`October 10,2000
`October 11 , 2000
`October 1 1 , 2000
`October 12,2000
`October 13,2000
`October 14,2000
`October 22,2000
`
`Others to be scheduled:
`
`Dedola (continuation)
`Stulen (continuation)
`Witmer
`Barbati (continuation)
`Bradley
`Misic
`Rosen
`Reilly
`
`30(b)(6) witnesses:
`Havrilla
`Kridgen
`Rosen
`Dedola
`Kress
`Bradley
`
`Third party witnesses that will likely include many of the following:
`Shadyside Hospital
`Massachusetts General Hospital
`University of Kentucky
`University of Iowa
`Cedars-Sinai Hospital
`Bracco Diagnostics, Inc.
`
`NEWYORK 41 12605~1
`
`1
`
`

`
`I
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb
`B aylor University
`Dr. Wolf
`Dr. Nadel
`Dr. Saini
`University of Washington
`Duke University
`Pittsburgh NMR
`
`Expert Witnesses:
`
`Medrad 's :
`Bruce Rosen
`
`Respondents':
`Steven Wolff
`Robert A. Bell
`Gary Thiele
`Robert Lee
`
`NEWYORK 41 12605~1
`
`2
`
`

`
`COUDERT BROTHERS
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`I I I4AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`NEW YORK, NY 10036-7703
`E L : (212) 626-4400
`FAX: (212) 626-4120
`URL: http://www.coudert.com
`September 26,2000
`
`DATE:
`
`TOTAL PAGES:
`FAX FROM:
`DIRECT DIAL:
`EMAIL:
`REFERENCE:
`
`4
`Donna C. Sobel
`(212) 626-4679
`sobeld@coudert.com
`0007657/0001
`
`RECIPIENT
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings,
`Esq.
`Ted Remaklus, Esq.
`
`James B. Coughlan, Esq.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`COMPANY
`
`FAX NO.
`
`/
`Pillsbury Madison & Sutro 202-822-0944 4
`LLP
`Wood, Herron & Evans,
`LLP
`Office of Unfair Import
`Investigations, US.
`lilt cni at; oiial TEI cl i
`Commission
`
`5 13-42 1-7269
`
`202-205-21 5 8
`
`PHONE NO.
`202-86 1-3000
`
`513-241-2324
`
`202-205-222 1
`
`IF FAX IS INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL (212) 626-4564
`
`THIS FAX MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN
`ERROR, PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE NUMBER. COLLECT CALLS WILL BE ACCEPTED. ANY USE OF THIS FAX OTHER
`THAN BY THE ADDRESSEE IS PROHIBITED.
`
`TIME COMPLETED:
`
`OPERATOR
`
`NEWYORK 41 12062~1
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`

`
`December 26,2000
`
`January 2,2001
`
`January 8,2001
`
`January 16, 200 1
`
`January 17,200 1
`January 17,2001
`
`January 26,2001
`
`January 26,200 1
`January 26, 200 1
`January 26,200 1
`
`January 30,2001
`
`January 30,2001
`
`February 2,2001 Hearing Room A, 8:OO
`a.m.
`February 2, and February 543,2001,
`commencing immediately after the pre-
`hearing conference
`April 27, 2001
`July 27,2001
`
`Cut-off for motions to compel discovery and related
`motions
`Submission and exchange of direct exhibits, including
`witness statements: Complainant and respondents
`Submission and exchange of direct exhibits, including
`witness statements: Staff
`Submission of prehearing statements and any stipulations:
`Complainant and respondents
`Objections to direct exhibits, including witness statements
`Submission and exchange of rebuttal exhibits, including
`witness statements:
`Responses to objections to direct exhibits, including
`witness statements
`Submission of prehearing statement of the staff
`Objections to rebuttal exhibits including witness statements
`Submission of declarations justifying confidentiality of
`exhibits
`Reponses to objections to rebuttal exhibits including
`witness statements
`Submission by each party of a list (three copies) of its
`exhibits for which there are no objections
`Pre-hearing conference
`
`Hearing
`
`Final Initial Determination
`Target Date
`
`NEWYORK 4113318~1
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`Before the Honorable Paul J. Luckern
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`Order No. 17: ModifyinP Procedural Schedule
`
`The procedural schedule is modified as set forth in the following:
`I Exchange of rebuttal expert reports
`
`Discovery request cut-off
`Discovery completion
`Cut-off for motions to compel discovery and related
`motions
`Submission and exchange of direct exhibits, including
`witness statements: Complainant and respondents
`
`Submission of prehearing statements and any stipulations:
`Complainant and respondents
`Objections to direct exhibits, including witness statements
`Submission and exchange of rebuttal exhibits, including
`witness statements:
`Responses to objections to direct exhibits, including
`witness statements
`Submission of prehearing statement of the staff
`Objections to rebuttal exhibits including witness statements
`Submission of declarations justifying confidentiality of
`exhibits
`Reponses to objections to rebuttal exhibits including
`witness statements
`
`December 26,2000
`
`-
`January 2,2001
`
`-
`January 8,2001
`
`-
`January 16,200 1
`
`January 17,2001
`January 17,2001
`
`- January 26,200 1
`
`January 26,2001
`
`January 26,2001
`
`January 30,2001
`
`NEWYORK 41 13394vl
`
`I
`
`I
`
`

`
`Submission by each party of a list (three copies) of its
`exhibits for which there are no objections
`Pre-hearing conference
`
`Hearing
`
`Final Initial Determination
`Target Date
`
`January 30,2001
`
`February 2,2001 Hearing Room A, 8:OO
`a.m.
`-
`February 2, and February 54,2001,
`commencing immediately after the pre-
`hearing conference
`April 27, 2001
`July 27,2001
`
`-
`
`I
`I
`
`Issued: September -, 2000
`
`Paul J. Luckern
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`NEWYORK 41 13394~1
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`Before the Honorable Paul J. Luckern
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MAGNETIC RESONANCE
`INJECTION SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434
`
`Order No. 17: Vacating Order Nos. 3 and 6
`
`Having considered Respondent Nemoto Kyoriiido Co., Ltd. 's Emergency Application
`
`filed on September 29,2000, this Court's Order Nos. 3 and 6 are vacated.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Issued: September -,2000
`
`Paul J. Luckern
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`NEWYOFK 41 13392~1
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the Foregoing I. Emergency Application on
`Behalf of Respondent-Nemoto Kyorindo Co. Ltd To Suspend Proceedings In
`Investigation No. 337-TA-434 or Alternatively To Amend Order No. 16 To State That
`This Investigation Is Terminated, and 11. Response To Complainant-Medrad's
`Emergency Motion To Suspend Order No. 6 Modifying Procedural Schedule and
`Proposed Order No. 17: Modifying Procedural Schedule and Proposed Order No. 17:
`Vacating Order Nos. 3 and 6 has been served on this 29'h day of September, as indicated, on
`the following:
`
`Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary (original and 6 copies by hand)
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 112
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`The Honorable Paul J. Luckern (2 copies by hand)
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317A
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`James B. Coughlan, Esq. (by hand)
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 401-L
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Arthur Wineburg, Esq. (by hand)
`Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, LLP
`1 1 10 New York Avenue, N. W., Ninth Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Attorneys for Complainant
`Medrad, Inc.
`
`J. Robert Chambers, Esq. (by overnight delivery)
`Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP
`2700 Carew Tower
`441 Vine Street
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`Attorneys for Respondents
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co.,
`Mallinckrodt, Inc. (NY) and
`Mallinckrodt, Inc. (DE)
`
`Dated: September 29,2000
`
`WASHINGTON 22 1097~4
`
`nU1 R&Jw$i
`
`Lisa W. Rosaya