`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 477-10 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 4 Page|D# 10746
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 13
`
`EXHIBIT 13
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 477-10 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 10747
`
`(PUBLIC VERSION)
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN TOBACCO HEATING
`ARTICLES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1199
`
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING POST-HEARING BRIEF
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 477-10 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 10748
`
`
`
`(Hrg.Tr.686:7-18, 688:5-689:5, 690:4-691:6; CDX-0004C.94.) As discussed in Section VII.A.4,
`
`supra, there are thousands of PRRPs available in the relevant market to satisfy U.S. consumer
`
`demand if IQOS is excluded. These two factors weigh in favor of excluding the Accused Products.
`
`Reynolds’s evidence is unrebutted. Respondents’ expert, Dr. Arnold, testified that he
`
`based his opinions on IQOS’ performance in other countries, and IQOS’ performance in the U.S.
`
`since its initial introduction. (Hrg.Tr.1123:18-1124:2.) He did not provide any testimony about
`
`the relevant U.S. market or how IQOS competes with other products in that market. Indeed,
`
`Respondents have waived any argument about the competition and capacity factors by omitting
`
`them from their Pre-hearing Brief and at trial.
`
`C.
`
`Respondents’ Public-Interest Case Is Built Solely On Speculation
`
`Respondents’ assertion that excluding IQOS from the U.S. market will allegedly harm the
`
`public interest is wrong. It is built entirely on uncorroborated speculation and baseless predictions.
`
`For example, Respondents’ dire predictions that public health will suffer if IQOS is excluded
`
`
`
`144
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 477-10 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 10749
`
`
`has established procedures that permit modification or rescission of an exclusion order, as
`
`appropriate based on a reassessment of the changed facts or public interest at such time. 19 C.F.R.
`
`§ 210.76(a)(1).” The result should be the same here.
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, the ALJ should find that a violation of Section 337 has
`
`occurred, that the public interest factors weigh in favor of the remedies sought by Reynolds, and
`
`recommend entry of Reynolds’s requested remedies and a bond of 100%.
`
`
`
`Ground Rule 1.6 Certification
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Complainants’ Opening Post Hearing
`
`Brief complies with the word limitations of Ground Rule 14.1, as modified by the ALJ on the
`
`record at Hrg.Tr.1585:3-10. Excluding the items listed in G.R. 1.6 as not included in the word
`
`count, and using the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare the paper
`
`(Microsoft Word), Complainants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief contains 26,006 words.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`JONES DAY
`
`/s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana
`Ryan B. McCrum
`Kenneth S. Luchesi
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Tel: (216) 586-3939
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`Email: rbmccrum@jonesday.com
`Email: kluchesi@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`146
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
