Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 41353 

1Based on the Declaration from a DEA Diversion 

Investigator that the Government submitted with its 

RFAA, the Agency finds that the Government’s 

service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. 

RFAA, Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) B, at 1–2. 

Further, based on the Government’s assertions in its 

RFAA, the Agency finds that more than thirty days 

have passed since Registrant was served with the 

OSC and Registrant has neither requested a hearing 

nor submitted a written statement or corrective 

action plan and therefore has waived any such 

rights. RFAA, at 1–2; see also 21 CFR 1301.43(d) 

and 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). 

2Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an 

agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage 

in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ 

United States Department of Justice, Attorney 

General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure 

Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 

1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an 

agency decision rests on official notice of a material 

fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a 

party is entitled, on timely request, to an 

opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly, 

Registrant may dispute the Agency’s finding by 

filing a properly supported motion for 

reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen 

calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such 

motion and response shall be filed and served by 

email to the other party and to Office of the 

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov. 

3This rule derives from the text of two provisions 

of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term 

‘‘practitioner’’ to mean ‘‘a physician . . . or other 

person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, 

by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , 

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

controlled substance in the course of professional 

practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the 

requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s 

registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney 

General shall register practitioners . . . if the 

applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled 

substances under the laws of the State in which he 

practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has 

clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state 

authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under 

the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that 

revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the 

appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer 

authorized to dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, 76 FR at 71,371–72; Sheran Arden 

Continued 

satisfied the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the four asserted patents; (6) 

the ID’s finding that Philips has 

impliedly waived its rights to assert the 

four asserted patents; and (7) the ID’s 

finding that Respondents failed to prove 

either their express/implied license 

defense or their equitable estoppel 

defense with respect to any of the four 

asserted patents. See Beloit Corp. v. 

Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1422–23 

(Fed. Cir. 1984). Chair Johanson and 

Commissioner Karpel base their 

decision to review and take no position 

on the economic prong on the finding 

that the technical prong is not met. 

Commissioner Kearns would affirm the 

ID’s finding that the ‘271 patent is 

unenforceable under the doctrine of 

implied waiver (but takes no position on 

implied waiver for the other three 

asserted patents), and its findings that 

Respondents failed to prove both their 

express/implied license defense and 

their equitable estoppel defense with 

respect to the four asserted patents. 

Commissioner Kearns also notes that his 

determination to review and take no 

position regarding satisfaction of the 

economic prong is independent of his 

determination regarding the technical 

prong. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review, and thus adopts, the 

remaining findings in the ID, including 

that: (1) the asserted claims of the ’935 

patent, the ’711 patent, the ’943 patent, 

and the ’271 patent are not infringed; (2) 

Philips did not satisfy the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to any of the 

four asserted patents; (3) claim 9 of the 

’711 patent and claim 12 of the ’943 

patent are invalid as indefinite; and (4) 

the asserted claims of the ’271 patent are 

invalid as indefinite and for lack of 

written description. Recognizing the 

Commission has determined not to 

review the ID’s finding that Philips did 

not satisfy the technical prong of the 

domestic industry requirement with 

respect to any of the four asserted 

patents, Commissioner Schmidtlein 

would otherwise affirm the ID’s analysis 

concerning whether the asserted 

economic prong investments were 

significant under 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(3)(A) and (B). 

The Commission thus affirms the final 

ID’s finding of no violation of Section 

337 with respect to each of the four 

asserted patents. This investigation is 

hereby terminated. 

The Commission voted to approve 

this determination on July 6, 2022. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determinations 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: July 6, 2022. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14761 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Donald J. Murphy, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On April 15, 2022, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, DEA or Government), 

issued an Order to Show Cause 

(hereinafter, OSC) to Donald J. Murphy, 

M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). OSC, at 1 

and 3. The OSC proposed the revocation 

of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. AM2605561 at the registered 

address of 5920 McIntyre St., Golden, 

Colorado, 80403. Id. at 1. The OSC 

alleged that Registrant’s registration 

should be revoked because Registrant is 

‘‘without authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Colorado, the 

state in which [he is] registered with 

DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(3)). 

The Agency makes the following 

findings of fact based on the 

uncontroverted evidence submitted by 

the Government in its Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA) submitted June 

23, 2022.1

Findings of Fact 

On September 23, 2021, the Colorado 

Medical Board issued an Order 

suspending Registrant’s license to 

practice medicine in the State of 

Colorado. RFAAX C (Order of Summary 

Suspension), at 3. According to 

Colorado’s online records, of which the 

Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s 

license is still suspended. 2 Colorado 

Professional or Business License 

Lookup, https://apps.colorado.gov/ 

dora/licensing/Lookup/ 

LicenseLookup.aspx (last visited date of 

signature of this Order). Accordingly, 

the Agency finds that Registrant is not 

currently licensed to engage in the 

practice of medicine in Colorado, the 

state in which he is registered with the 

DEA. 

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under section 823 of the Controlled 

Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) 

‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . . 

has had his State license or registration 

suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by 

competent State authority and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the . . . dispensing of controlled 

substances.’’ With respect to a 

practitioner, the DEA has also long held 

that the possession of authority to 

dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which a 

practitioner engages in professional 

practice is a fundamental condition for 

obtaining and maintaining a 

practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 

(1978). 3


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
41354 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2022 / Notices 

Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); 

Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 

(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 

(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR at 27,617. 

1The OSC also alleged that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because Registrant 

has ‘‘committed such acts as would render [his] 

registration inconsistent with the public interest, as 

that term is defined under the Controlled 

Substances Act,’’ based on Registrant’s lack of 

compliance with a DEA Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA). OSC, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) 

and 824(a)(4)). However, in its Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA) submitted to this Office on 

June 22, 2022, the Government noted that while it 

does not concede that Registrant complied with the 

MOA, Registrant’s lack of state authority to handle 

controlled substances is ‘‘case dispositive and the 

Government does not seek a Final Order on the 

public interest allegations.’’ RFAA, at n.2. 

2By letter dated July 12, 2021, Registrant 

submitted a written statement in response to the 

OSC in which he waived his right to a hearing. 

RFAA, Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) B, at 1–2. As 

the Government seeks Final Agency Action solely 

on the ground that Registrant lacks state authority 

to handle controlled substances, the Agency will 

not consider Registrant’s explanation in response to 

the public interest allegations at this time. See id. 

Registrant also argues that his DEA registration 

should not be revoked for lack of state authority 

because he still has a North Carolina medical 

license in ‘‘inactive status.’’ Id. at 2. 

3On April 13, 2020, an Administrative Law Judge 

of the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings 

issued a Proposed Decision recommending that 

Registrant’s Maryland Controlled Dangerous 

Substances (CDS) license be revoked. RFAAX C–2, 

at 1, 21. On June 25, 2020, the Designee of the 

Maryland Secretary of Health issued a Final 

Decision and Order adopting the Proposed Decision 

in full and revoking Registrant’s Maryland CDS 

license. RFAAX C–3, at 1–4. 

4Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an 

agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage 

in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ 

United States Department of Justice, Attorney 

General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure 

Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 

1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an 

agency decision rests on official notice of a material 

fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a 

party is entitled, on timely request, to an 

opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly, 

Registrant may dispute the Agency’s finding by 

filing a properly supported motion for 

reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen 

calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such 

motion and response shall be filed and served by 

email to the other party and to Office of the 

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov. 

According to Colorado statute, 

‘‘[e]very person who manufactures, 

distributes, or dispenses any controlled 

substance within this state . . . shall 

obtain . . . a registration, issued by the 

respective licensing board . . . . For 

purposes of this section and this article 

[ ], ‘registration’ or ‘registered’ means 

. . . the licensing of physicians by the 

Colorado medical board . . . .’’ Colo. 

Rev. Stat. § 18–18–302(1) (2022). Here, 

the undisputed evidence in the record is 

that Registrant’s Colorado medical 

license was suspended by the Colorado 

Medical Board. As such, Registrant is 

not authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in Colorado and thus is not 

eligible to maintain a DEA registration. 

Accordingly, the Agency will order that 

Registrant’s DEA registration be 

revoked. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 

of Registration No. AM2605561 issued 

to Donald J. Murphy, M.D. Further, 

pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

823(f), I hereby deny any pending 

applications of Donald J. Murphy, M.D. 

to renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Donald J. Murphy, M.D. for additional 

registration in Colorado. This Order is 

effective August 11, 2022. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration was signed 

on July 6, 2022, by Administrator Anne 

Milgram. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DEA. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

DEA. This administrative process in no 

way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Heather Achbach, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14839 Filed 7–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Alphonsus Okoli, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On June 7, 2021, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, DEA or Government), 

issued an Order to Show Cause 

(hereinafter, OSC) to Alphonsus Okoli, 

M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). OSC, at 1 

and 4. The OSC proposed the revocation 

of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration 

No. BO4917780 at the registered address 

of 7525 Greenway Center Drive, Suite 

110, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770. Id. at 

1. The OSC alleged that Registrant’s 

registration should be revoked because 

Registrant is ‘‘without authority to 

handle controlled substances in 

Maryland, the state in which [he is] 

registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).1

The Agency makes the following 

findings of fact based on the 

uncontroverted evidence submitted by 

the Government in its Request for Final 

Agency Action (RFAA).2

Findings of Fact 

On March 23, 2021,3 Registrant and 

the Maryland State Board of Physicians 

(hereinafter, the Board) entered into a 

Consent Order suspending Registrant’s 

Maryland medical license and 

permanently prohibiting him from 

prescribing and dispensing Controlled 

Dangerous Substances (hereinafter, 

CDS). See RFAAX C–4 (Consent Order), 

at 12–18. On September 29, 2021, the 

Board issued an Order Terminating 

Suspension and Imposing Probation that 

ended the suspension of Registrant’s 

Maryland medical license, but 

maintained that, as had been ordered in 

Registrant’s Consent Order with the 

Board, Registrant was permanently 

prohibited from prescribing and 

dispensing all controlled dangerous 

substances. RFAAX C–5, at 1–4. 

According to Maryland’s online 

records, of which the Agency takes 

official notice, Registrant’s Maryland 

CDS license is still revoked.4 Maryland 

Department of Health CDS Search, 

https://health.maryland.gov/ocsa/ 

pages/cdssearch.aspx (last visited date 

of signature of this Order). Accordingly, 

the Agency finds that Registrant is not 

currently licensed to dispense 

controlled dangerous substances in 

Maryland, the state in which he is 

registered with the DEA. 

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under section 823 of the Controlled 

Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) 

‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . . 

has had his State license or registration 

suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by 

competent State authority and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the . . . dispensing of controlled 

substances.’’ With respect to a 

practitioner, the DEA has also long held 

that the possession of authority to 

dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which a 

practitioner engages in professional 

practice is a fundamental condition for 

obtaining and maintaining a 

practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1