8034 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 14 / Thursday, January 23, 2025 / Notices 

patent, the FID finds that asserted 

claims 16 and 17 are not infringed and 

are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 

103 (‘‘section 103’’), that no domestic 

industry product practices either claim, 

and that the economic prong of the 

domestic prong requirement would have 

been satisfied under 35 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(3)(B) (‘‘section 337(a)(3)(B)’’) 

but for the invalidity of the asserted 

claims. With regard to the ’654 patent, 

the FID finds that asserted claims 1, 3, 

and 16 are ineligible for patenting under 

35 U.S.C. 101 (‘‘section 101’’), that 

claims 1 and 3 are invalid as anticipated 

under 35 U.S.C. 102, and that claims 1, 

3, and 16 are invalid as obvious under 

section 103. The FID finds that, but for 

the invalidity of its claims, the ’654 

patent would have been infringed and 

both the technical and economic prongs 

of the domestic industry requirement 

would have been satisfied under section 

337(a)(3)(B). The FID rejects 

Respondents’ license defense. 

On November 29, 2024, Respondents 

filed a contingent petition for review, 

arguing that if the Commission were to 

review the FID, it should also review: (i) 

the FID’s rejection of Respondents’ 

license defense; (ii) the FID’s narrow 

construction of the term ‘‘detect’’ recited 

in the asserted claims of the ’178 patent 

and its resultant rejection of certain 

obviousness defenses; and (iii) the FID’s 

narrow ordering of the claim steps in 

the ’654 patent claims and its resultant 

rejection of certain anticipation 

arguments. Respondents did not 

petition for review of the FID’s findings 

on non-infringement, patent 

ineligibility, or domestic industry. On 

December 9, 2024, Ericsson filed a 

response opposing Respondents’ 

petition for review of the license 

defense, but it did not address any of 

the other issues raised by Respondents. 

Ericsson did not file a petition for 

Commission review of any findings in 

the FID. 

Having reviewed the record of the 

investigation, including the FID, the 

parties’ petitions for review and related 

submissions, the Commission has 

determined to review the FID in part as 

to the FID’s finding that the asserted 

claims of the ’654 patent are ineligible 

for patenting under section 101, that 

Ericsson has satisfied the economic 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement under section 337(a)(3)(B), 

and concerning Respondents’ licensing 

defense. On review, the Commission has 

determined to adopt the FID’s findings, 

including its no-violation 

determination, with the exception that 

the Commission takes no position on 

whether the asserted claims of the ’654 

patent are ineligible under section 101, 

whether Ericsson has satisfied the 

economic prong of domestic industry 

requirement under section 337(a)(3)(B), 

or the FID’s findings regarding 

Respondents’ licensing defense. See 19 

CFR 210.45(c); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet 

Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 

1984). Additionally, the Commission 

has determined to reconsider, and on 

reconsideration, to vacate Order No. 32 

and take no position on whether 

Ericsson has satisfied the economic 

prong of domestic industry under 

section 337(a)(3)(A). See 19 CFR 210.47; 

Beloit, 742 F.2d at 1423. The 

Commission notes that there can be no 

domestic industry if the asserted patent 

claims are either invalid or withdrawn. 

See Order No. 34 (July 15, 2024), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Aug. 6, 

2024) (terminating investigation as to 

certain claims forming the basis or the 

grant of summary determination in 

Order No. 32). 

The investigation is hereby 

terminated with a finding of no 

violation. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on January 16, 

2025. 

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 part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 16, 2025. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01564 Filed 1–22–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1351 (Remand)] 

Certain Active Matrix Organic LightEmitting Diode Display Panels and 

Modules for Mobile Devices, and 

Components Thereof; Notice of a 

Commission Determination To Review 

in Part a Final Initial Determination 

Finding No Violation of Section 337; 

Request for Written Submissions on 

the Issues Under Review and on 

Remedy, the Public Interest, and 

Bonding 

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 a final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’), 

finding no violation of section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission 

requests written submissions from the 

parties on the issues under review and 

submissions from the parties, interested 

government agencies, and interested 

persons on the issues of remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding, under the 

schedule set forth below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy Chen, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2392. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket system 

(‘‘EDIS’’) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For 

help accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone 

(202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on February 3, 2023, based on a 

complaint filed Samsung Display Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘SDC’’ or ‘‘Complainant’’) of the 

Republic of Korea. 88 FR 7463–64 (Feb. 

3, 2023). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleged violations 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 active matrix 

organic light-emitting diode display 

panels and modules for mobile devices, 

and components thereof by reason of 

infringement of claims 1–5 and 19–21 of 

U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803 (‘‘the ’803 

patent’’); claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 13 of 

U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683 (‘‘the ’683 

patent’’); claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,414,599 (‘‘the ’599 patent’’); and 

claims 1–3, 6–8, and 14–22 of U.S. 

Patent No. 9,330,593 (‘‘the ’593 patent’’). 

Id. The complaint further alleged that a 

domestic industry exists. Id. The notice 

of investigation named the following 

parties as respondents: Injured Gadgets, 

LLC (‘‘Injured Gadgets’’) of Norcross, 

Georgia; Wholesale Gadget Parts, Inc. 

(‘‘Wholesale Gadget Parts’’) of Bixby, 

Oklahoma; Phone LCD Parts LLC and 

Parts4LCD (collectively, ‘‘Phone LCD 

Parts’’) of Wayne, New Jersey; AptAbility LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix of 

Chantilly, Virginia; Mobile Defenders, 

LLC of Caledonia, Michigan; Group 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 14 / Thursday, January 23, 2025 / Notices 8035 

Vertical, LLC (‘‘Group Vertical’’) of 

Grand Rapids, Michigan; Electronics 

Universe, Inc. d/b/a Fixez.com and 

Electronics Universe, Inc. d/b/a Repairs 

Universe, Inc. (‘‘Electronics Universe’’) 

of Las Vegas, Nevada; LCTech 

International Inc. d/b/a SEGMobile.com 

(‘‘LCTech’’) of City of Industry, 

California; Sourcely Plus, LLC 

(‘‘Sourcely Plus’’) of Tempe, Arizona; 

eTech Parts Plus LLC (‘‘eTech Parts 

Plus’’) of Southlake, Texas; Parts4Cells 

Inc. (‘‘Parts4Cells’’) of Houston, Texas; 

Captain Mobile Parts, Inc. (‘‘Captain 

Mobile Parts’’) of Dallas, Texas; DFW 

Imports LLC d/b/a DFW Cellphone and 

Parts (‘‘DFW Imports’’) of Dallas, Texas; 

Mengtor Inc. (‘‘Mengtor’’) of El Monte, 

California; and Gadgetfix Corp. 

(‘‘Gadgetfix’’) of Irvine, California. Id. 

The notice of investigation also named 

the Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) as a party. Id. 

On March 22, 2023, the Commission 

granted Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics 

Technology Co., Ltd.’s (‘‘BOE’’) 

unopposed motion to intervene as a 

respondent in this investigation. Order 

No. 7, unreviewed by, Comm’n Notice 

(Mar. 22, 2023). 

Two respondents, Apt-Ability LLC d/ 

b/a MobileSentrix and Mobile 

Defenders, LLC, were terminated based 

on a consent order. Order No. 43, 

unreviewed by, Comm’n Notice (Apr. 

18, 2024). Ten respondents, Captain 

Mobile Parts, Group Vertical, Sourcely 

Plus, Mengtor, Electronics Universe, 

LCTech, Parts4Cells, DFW Imports, 

Gadgetfix, and eTech Parts Plus 

(collectively, ‘‘the Defaulting 

Respondents’’), were found in default. 

Order No. 16, unreviewed by, Comm’n 

Notice (June 7, 2023); Order No. 22, 

unreviewed by, Comm’n Notice (July 20, 

2023); Order No. 25, unreviewed by, 

Comm’n Notice (Aug. 18, 2023); Order 

No. 27, unreviewed by, Comm’n Notice 

(Aug. 30, 2023). Accordingly, 

respondents Injured Gadgets, Wholesale 

Gadget Parts, and Phone LCD Parts 

(collectively, ‘‘the BLF Respondents’’) 

and BOE remain active in the 

investigation. 

On April 20, 2023, the Commission 

granted SDC’s motion for leave to 

amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to add allegations of 

infringement related to claims 1–6, 10, 

12, 17, 19, 21–23, 40–47, and 51–52 of 

the ’578 patent. Order No. 8, unreviewed 

by, Comm’n Notice (Apr. 20, 2023). As 

a result of termination of all asserted 

claims of the ’683 patent and certain 

other asserted claims, see Order No. 34 

(Oct. 26, 2023), unreviewed by, Comm’n 

Notice (Nov. 27, 2024), Order No. 39 

(Dec. 7, 2023), unreviewed by, Comm’n 

Notice (Jan. 8, 2024), Order No. 51 (Jun. 

14, 2024), unreviewed by, Comm’n 

Notice (Jul. 3, 2024), Order No. 65 (Aug. 

27, 2024), unreviewed by, Comm’n 

Notice (Sept. 26, 2024), only claims 5 

and 21 of the ’803 patent, claims 5, 10, 

17, 40–41, and 47 of the ’578 patent, 

claims 2–3, 13, and 15–16 of the ’599 

patent, and claim 6 of the ’593 patent 

remain asserted in the investigation. 

On November 15, 2023, the BLF 

Respondents and BOE (collectively, 

‘‘Respondents’’) moved for summary 

determination that SDC lacked 

constitutional standing to bring and 

maintain this investigation. 

Respondents argued because SDC’s 

parent company, Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘SEC’’), ‘‘has an unfettered 

right to grant licenses, SDC lacks the 

exclusionary rights necessary to prove 

standing.’’ Mot. at 18. Finding that 

‘‘there is no genuine issue of material 

fact that SEC has an unrestricted right 

to sublicense the Asserted Patents to 

others’’ and that SEC’s possession of 

such a right divested SDC of 

exclusionary rights, on January 9, 2024, 

the ALJ granted Respondents’ motion 

for summary determination of no 

violation due to lack of standing. Order 

No. 44 at 13, 24–25 (Jan. 9, 2024). 

On April 24, 2024, the Commission 

vacated that initial determination and 

remanded the investigation for further 

proceedings consistent with its opinion. 

In its opinion, the Commission found 

that ‘‘(1) constitutional standing, the 

Article III requirements of the 

Constitution related to the authority of 

federal courts to adjudicate lawsuits, is 

not required at [the] Commission; and 

(2) there are genuine issues of material 

facts relating to [Complainant’s] rights 

in the asserted patents.’’ Comm’n Op. at 

2. The Commission remanded the 

investigation to the ALJ to ‘‘conduct 

further proceedings as appropriate and 

consistent with the Commission’s 

opinion herewith.’’ Id. 

On May 2, 2024, the ALJ held a case 

management conference to discuss how 

the case would proceed on remand. 

Respondent BOE indicated that it 

wished to argue that SDC lacked ‘‘all 

substantial rights’’ to the asserted 

patents when it filed its complaint and 

that it wished to pursue discovery from 

SEC on this issue. Order No. 50 at 3. 

SDC responded that a statutory cause of 

action defense had never previously 

been raised and thus was waived. Id. at 

5. OUII noted that ‘‘Respondents’ 

argument that [SDC] may not have 

owned the asserted patents when it filed 

the complaint because it did not hold all 

substantial rights is fundamentally 

different from the argument advanced in 

Respondents’ motion for summary 

determination.’’ Id. The ALJ then 

ordered ‘‘additional briefing’’ on ‘‘the 

effect of the Commission opinion on 

th[e] Investigation.’’ Order No. 47, EDIS 

Doc. ID 820416, at 1 (May 3, 2024). 

Following briefing on remand, the ALJ 

found that Respondents waived their 

argument that SDC failed to satisfy the 

requirement of Commission Rule 210.12 

because Respondents did not address 

this issue in their prehearing brief, as 

required by the ALJ’s Ground Rules. ID 

at 4 (citing Order No. 50 at 4 (June 11, 

2024)). 

The evidentiary hearing was held on 

July 8–9, 2024, and July 15–17, 2024. 

On November 15, 2024, the ALJ 

issued a final ID finding no violation of 

section 337 because SDC failed to show 

the existence of a domestic industry, 

among other reasons. In particular, the 

ID found: (1) SDC failed to satisfy the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement for all asserted 

patents; (2) SDC satisfied the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement for the ’803, the ’578, and 

the ’599 patents but not for the ’593 

patent; (3) at least one representative 

accused product infringes claims 5 and 

21 of the ’803 patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 

40–41, and 47 of the ’578 patent, claims 

15–16 of the ’599 patent, and claim 6 of 

the ’593 patent but not claims 2–3 and 

13 of the ’599 patent; and (4) the claims 

have not been shown to be invalid. 

On November 29, 2024, SDC filed a 

petition for review of the ID challenging 

certain findings related to the ’803, the 

’578, and the ’599 patents, including the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement. SDC did not 

petition for review of the ID’s findings 

related to the ’593 patent. That same 

day, Respondent BOE and the BLF 

Respondents filed a joint contingent 

petition for review. OUII did not file a 

petition for review. On December 9, 

2024, Complainant, Respondents, and 

OUII each filed a response to the 

petitions. 

The Commission solicited 

submissions from the public on the 

public interest issues raised by the 

recommended determination. 89 FR 

92721 (Nov. 22, 2024). The Commission 

received comments from Representative 

John Moolenaar, Chairman of the House 

Select Committee on China, and Dr. 

Robert D. Atkinson of the Information 

Technology & Innovation Foundation. 

On January 8, 2025, SDC filed a notice 

of supplemental authority to apprise the 

Commission of the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board’s final written decisions 

in inter partes review proceedings on 

the ’578 patent and the ’803 patent. In 

the final written decisions, the Board 

found claim 21 of the ’803 patent 

unpatentable and all other asserted 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
8036 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 14 / Thursday, January 23, 2025 / Notices 

claims of the ’578 and ’803 patents at 

issue in this investigation have not been 

proven unpatentable. See Mianyang 

BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., Ltd. v. 

Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023– 

00987, Final Written Decision (Jan. 6, 

2025); Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics 

Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., 

Ltd., IPR2023–01075, Final Written 

Decision (Jan. 6, 2025). 

Having reviewed the record of the 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

parties’ submissions to the ALJ, the 

petitions for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

to review the ID in part. Specifically, the 

Commission has determined to review: 

(1) the ID’s findings that the 

Commission has statutory authority to 

investigate Complainant SDC’s alleged 

violation under section 337 and that 

Respondents waived their argument that 

SDC lacked the ability to bring this 

investigation under Commission Rule 

210.12; (2) the ID’s findings related to 

the technical prong for the ’803 patent; 

and (3) the ID’s findings regarding the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement. The Commission 

has determined not to review any other 

findings presented in the final ID, 

including the ID’s finding of no 

violation of section 337 with respect to 

the ’593 patent. 

In connection with its review, 

Commission requests responses to the 

following questions. The parties are 

requested to brief their positions with 

reference to the applicable law and the 

existing evidentiary record. 

1. Did Respondents raise in their 

prehearing brief an argument that 

Complainant was not the owner of the 

asserted patents or otherwise lacked all 

substantial rights in the asserts patents 

and therefore lacked the ability to bring 

this investigation under Commission 

Rule 210.12? If so, please identify where 

in the brief this argument was raised? 

2. Assuming SEC possessed an 

unrestricted right to sublicense the 

asserted patents when SDC filed the 

complaint, please address the merits of 

Respondents’ argument that SDC was 

not the owner of the asserted patents 

under Commission Rule 210.12. 

3. Did any party bring to the ALJ’s 

attention that the asserted claims of the 

’803 patent were subject to an inter 

partes review proceeding and that the 

outcome of the proceeding could affect 

this investigation including the ALJ’s 

technical prong findings for the ’803 

patent? 

The parties are invited to brief only 

the discrete issues requested above. 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 

statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, 

(1) an exclusion order that could result 

in the exclusion of the subject articles 

from entry into the United States; and/ 

or (2) cease and desist orders that could 

result in the respondents 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). 

The statute requires the Commission 

to consider the effects of that remedy 

upon the public interest. The public 

interest factors the Commission will 

consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and/or a cease and 

desist order 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, 

disapprove, or take no action on the 

Commission’s determination. 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 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues 

identified in this notice. The parties’ 

opening submissions should not exceed 

50 pages, and their reply submissions 

should not exceed 25 pages. Parties to 

the investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. Such 

submissions should address the 

recommended determination by the ALJ 

on remedy, public interest, and 

bonding. 

In their initial submissions, 

Complainant is also requested to 

identify the remedy sought and 

Complainant and OUII are requested to 

submit proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainant is further requested to 

provide the HTSUS subheadings under 

which the accused products are 

imported, and to supply the 

identification information for all known 

importers of the products at issue in this 

investigation. The initial written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than close 

of business on Thursday, January 30, 

2025. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

Thursday, February 6, 2025. No further 

submissions on 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. The Commission’s paper 

filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) 

are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 

(March 19, 2020). Submissions should 

refer to the investigation number (Inv. 

No. 337–TA–1351) in a prominent place 

on the cover page and/or the first page. 

(See Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ 

documents/handbook_on_filing_

procedures.pdf). Persons with questions 

regarding filing should contact the 

Secretary, (202) 205–2000. 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment by marking each document 

with a header indicating that the 

document contains confidential 

information. This marking will be 

deemed to satisfy the request procedure 

set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 

210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 

210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which 

confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. Any non-party 

wishing to submit comments containing 

confidential information must serve 

those comments on the parties to the 

investigation pursuant to the applicable 

Administrative Protective Order. A 

redacted non-confidential version of the 

document must also be filed with the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 14 / Thursday, January 23, 2025 / Notices 8037 

1The RFAA does not include an affidavit from 

the DEA Diversion Investigator or any other 

documentary evidence regarding the method of 

service; however, the Agency can conclude based 

on the email from Mr. M.H. that Respondent 

actually received the OSC and therefor that service 

was proper. 

2Mr. M.H. is ‘‘part owner of the [Xubex 

Community] Pharmacy.’’ RFAA, at 2. 

3The Agency need not adjudicate the criminal 

violations alleged in the instant OSC/ISO. Ruan v. 

United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022) (decided in the 

context of criminal proceedings). 

4Oxycodone is a schedule II opioid. OSC/ISO, at 

3; see also 21 CFR 1308.12(b)(1)(xiv). 

5Hydromorphone is a schedule II opioid. OSC/ 

ISO, at 3; see also 21 CFR 1308.12(b)(1)(vii). 

6The five factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A–E) are: 

(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State 

licensing board or professional disciplinary 

authority. 

(B) The [registrant’s] experience in dispensing, or 

conducting research with respect to controlled 

substances. 

(C) The [registrant’s] conviction record under 

Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, 

distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances. 

(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or 

local laws relating to controlled substances. 

(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the 

public health and safety. 

Commission and served on any parties 

to the investigation within two business 

days of 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, solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All contract personnel will 

sign appropriate nondisclosure 

agreements. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection on EDIS. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on January 16, 

2025. 

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 part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 16, 2025. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01563 Filed 1–22–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Xubex Community Pharmacy; Decision 

and Order 

On May 29, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause and Immediate Suspension of 

Registration (OSC/ISO) to Xubex 

Community Pharmacy of Casselberry, 

Florida (Respondent). Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit 

(RFAAX) 1, (hereinafter, OSC/ISO), at 1. 

The OSC/ISO informed Respondent of 

the immediate suspension of its DEA 

registration, No. FX3643081, pursuant 

to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that 

Respondent’s continued registration 

constitutes ‘ ‘‘an imminent danger to the 

public health or safety.’ ’’ Id. (quoting 21 

U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s registration, alleging that 

Respondent’s continued registration is 

inconsistent with the public interest. Id. 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a)(4)). 

The OSC/ISO notified Respondent of 

its right to file with DEA a written 

request for a hearing within 30 days 

after the date of receipt of the OSC/ISO. 

OSC/ISO, at 4 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43(a)). The OSC/ISO also notified 

Respondent that if it failed to file such 

a request, it would be deemed to have 

waived its right to a hearing and be in 

default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(c), 

(d)). The OSC/ISO further notified 

Respondent that ‘‘[d]efault constitutes a 

waiver of [Respondent’s] right to a 

hearing and an admission of the factual 

allegations of this [OSC/ISO].’’ Id. 

(citing 21 CFR 1301.43(e)). 

The RFAA asserts that on June 6, 

2024, a DEA Diversion Investigator 

personally served the OSC/ISO on ‘‘a 

representative of Respondent.’’ RFAA, 

at 1.1 On June 9, 2024, Mr. M.H.2

communicated via email to the 

Government that he represented 

Respondent and ‘‘[Respondent] was 

taking the default.’’ RFAAX 2, at 1. 

Accordingly, based on Respondent’s 

failure to request a hearing, answer, or 

otherwise plead or defend the 

allegations delineated in the OSC/ISO, 

the Agency finds that Respondent is 

deemed to be in default. 21 CFR 

1301.43(c). ‘‘A default, unless excused, 

shall be deemed to constitute a waiver 

of [Respondent’s] right to a hearing and 

an admission of the factual allegations 

of the [OSC/ISO].’’ 21 CFR 1301.43(e). 

To date, Respondent has not filed a 

motion to excuse the default with the 

Office of the Administrator. 

‘‘In the event that a registrant . . . is 

deemed to be in default . . . DEA may 

then file a request for final agency 

action with the Administrator, along 

with a record to support its request. In 

such circumstances, the Administrator 

may enter a default final order pursuant 

to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ 21 CFR 

1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has 

requested final agency action based on 

Respondent’s default pursuant to 21 

CFR 1301.43(c), (f), because Respondent 

did not request a hearing or file an 

answer, and it has not filed a motion 

with the Administrator seeking to 

excuse the default. See also id. 

§ 1316.67. 

I. Findings of Fact 

The Agency finds that, in light of 

Respondent’s default, the factual 

allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed 

to be admitted.3 21 CFR 1301.43(e). 

Accordingly, Respondent admits and 

the Agency finds substantial evidence 

that on two separate occasions, 

Respondent dispensed Schedule II 

controlled substances to a confidential 

source (CS) in exchange for cash 

without a prescription being presented 

for the controlled substances. OSC/ISO, 

at 3. Specifically, Respondent admits 

and the Agency finds substantial 

evidence that on November 30, 2023, it 

dispensed ten oxycodone 4 tablets to CS 

in exchange for $260 in the absence of 

a prescription. Id. Additionally, 

Respondent admits and the Agency 

finds substantial evidence that on 

December 19, 2023, Respondent 

dispensed two hydromorphone 5 tablets 

to CS in exchange for $50 in the absence 

of a prescription. Id. 

II. Discussion 

A. The CSA and the OSC Allegations 

Pursuant to the CSA, ‘‘[a] registration 

. . . to . . . distribute[ ] or dispense a 

controlled substance . . . may be 

suspended or revoked by the Attorney 

General upon a finding that the 

registrant . . . has committed such acts 

as would render his registration under 

. . . [21 U.S.C. 823] inconsistent with 

the public interest as determined by 

such section.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the 

case of a ‘‘practitioner,’’ Congress 

directed the Attorney General to 

consider five factors in making the 

public interest determination. 21 U.S.C. 

823(g)(1)(A–E).6 The five factors are 

considered in the disjunctive. Gonzales 

v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 292–93 (2006) 

(Scalia, J., dissenting) (‘‘It is well 

established that these factors are to be 

considered in the disjunctive,’’ (citing In 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1