Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 55/Wednesday, March 24, 2021

15700 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 24, 2021 / Notices investigation are claims 1 and 12 of the 1337(a)(3)(A) & (B), but to vacate the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ’582 patent; claim 1 of the ’649 patent; ID’s value-added analysis (ID at 65–66). Antitrust Division and claims 1, 12, and 17 of the ’735 The Commission has determined that patent. the appropriate remedy in this On August 27, 2020, M–I filed a United States v. Anheuser-Busch investigation is a GEO prohibiting the InBev SA/NV, et al.; Response to motion for summary determination that unlicensed importation of certain shaker the Defaulting Respondents violated Public Comments screens for drilling fluids and section 337 and that M–I satisfies the components thereof that infringe claims Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures domestic industry requirement of 1 and 12 of the ’582 patent; claim 1 of and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), section 337. The motion sought issuance the United States hereby publishes of a general exclusion order (‘‘GEO’’) the ’649 patent; and claims 1, 12, and 17 below the Response to Public Comments and imposition of a one hundred of the ’735 patent. The Commission has on the Proposed Final Judgment in percent (100%) bond on accused further determined that the public United States v. Anheuser-Busch InBev products imported during the interest factors enumerated in section SA/NV, et al., Civil Action No. 4:20–cv– Presidential review period. On 337(d), 19 U.S.C. 1337(d), do not 01282–SRC, which was filed in the September 16, 2020, OUII filed a preclude issuance of the GEO. Finally, United States District Court for the response supporting M–I’s motion, the Commission has determined that a Eastern District of Missouri on March including the remedial relief requested bond in the amount of one hundred 17, 2021, together with a copy of the therein. (100) percent of the entered value of the two comments received by the United imported articles that are subject to the On November 19, 2020, the ALJ States. issued the subject ID granting M–I’s GEO is required to permit temporary motion and recommending issuance of importation of the articles in question A copy of the comments and the a GEO and imposition of a bond in the during the period of Presidential review, United States’ response to the comments amount of 100 percent of the entered 19 U.S.C. 1337(j). The investigation is is available at https://www.justice.gov/ atr/case/us-v-anheuser-busch-inbev- value of infringing products. hereby terminated in its entirety. Specifically, the ID found that (1) the sanv-et-al. Copies of the comments and The Commission’s order and opinion the United States’ response are available Commission has jurisdiction over the were delivered to the President and to products, the parties, and the for inspection at the Office of the Clerk the United States Trade Representative investigation; (2) the importation of the United States District Court for on the day of their issuance. The requirement is satisfied; (3) M–I has the Eastern District of Missouri. Copies standing to bring this investigation; (4) Commission has also notified the of these materials may also be obtained all of the remaining asserted claims are Secretary of the Treasury and Customs from the Antitrust Division upon infringed by one or more of the and Border Protection of the order. request and payment of the copying fee Defaulting Respondents’ products; and The Commission vote for these set by Department of Justice regulations. (5) M–I has satisfied the domestic determinations took place on March 18, Suzanne Morris, industry requirement of section 337. 2021. Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Additionally, the ALJ recommended The authority for the Commission’s Antitrust Division. that the Commission issue a GEO and determination is contained in section impose a bond in the amount of one United States District Court for the 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as hundred percent (100%) of the entered Eastern District of Missouri Eastern amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part value of infringing articles imported Division 210 of the Commission’s Rules of during the period of Presidential review. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part On January 4, 2021, the Commission Anheuser-Busch INBEV SA/NV, Anheuser- determined to review the ID’s finding 210). Busch Companies, LLC, and Craft Brew that M–I’s investments in plant and While temporary remote operating Alliance, Inc., Defendants. equipment and M–I’s employment of procedures are in place in response to Civil Action No.: 4:20–cv–01282–SRC labor and capital are significant under COVID–19, the Office of the Secretary is Response of Plaintiff United States to section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B). Notice (Jan. not able to serve parties that have not Public Comments on the Proposed Final 4, 2021). The Commission also sought retained counsel or otherwise provided Judgment briefing on remedy, bonding, and the a point of contact for electronic service. public interest. M–I filed a submission Accordingly, pursuant to Commission Pursuant to the requirements of the in response on January 19, 2021 and Rules 201.16(a) and 210.7(a)(1) (19 CFR Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act filed a corrected version of that response 201.16(a), 210.7(a)(1)), the Commission (the ‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney Act’’), 15 on January 22, 2021. OUII filed a orders that the Complainant(s) complete U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), the United States submission in response on January 19, service for any party/parties without a hereby responds to the two public 2021 and filed a reply submission on method of electronic service noted on comments received regarding the January 26, 2021. No submissions were the attached Certificate of Service and proposed Final Judgment in this case. received from the public. shall file proof of service on the After careful consideration of the Having reviewed the written Electronic Document Information submitted comments, the United States submissions and the evidentiary record, System (EDIS). continues to believe that the divestiture the Commission has determined to required by the proposed Final affirm the ID’s finding that M–I satisfied By order of the Commission. Judgment provides an effective and the economic prong of the domestic Issued: March 18, 2021. appropriate remedy for the antitrust industry requirement on the basis that Lisa Barton, violation alleged in the Complaint and M–I made significant investments in Secretary to the Commission. is therefore in the public interest. The plant and equipment and significant United States will move the Court for [FR Doc. 2021–06016 Filed 3–23–21; 8:45 am] employment of labor under section entry of the proposed Final Judgment 337(a)(3)(A) & (B), 19 U.S.C. BILLING CODE 7020–02–P after the public comments and this VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Mar 23, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM 24MRN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 24, 2021 / Notices 15701 response have been published as II. The Complaint and the Proposed thereby restoring the competition that required by 15 U.S.C. 16(d). Final Judgment would otherwise likely be lost as a result of the transaction. PV Brewing I. Procedural History The Complaint alleges that ABI’s proposed acquisition of CBA would has elected to exercise its options and On November 11, 2019, Defendant likely eliminate important existing entered into supply, distribution, and Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC (‘‘AB transition services agreements with ABI, Companies’’), a minority shareholder in head-to-head competition in the state of Hawaii between ABI’s beer brands and as permitted by the proposed Final Defendant Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. Judgment. (‘‘CBA’’), agreed to acquire all of CBA’s CBA’s beer brands, particularly CBA’s remaining shares in a transaction valued Kona brand. Specifically, CBA’s Kona III. Standard of Judicial Review brand competes closely with ABI’s at approximately $220 million. AB The Clayton Act, as amended by the Stella Artois and Michelob Ultra brands, Companies is a wholly-owned APPA, requires that proposed consent and also competes with ABI’s Bud Light subsidiary of Defendant Anheuser- judgments in antitrust cases brought by and Budweiser brands. The Complaint Busch InBev SA/NV (‘‘ABI’’). After a the United States be subject to a 60-day also alleges that, but for the merger, the thorough and comprehensive comment period, after which the Court competition between ABI and CBA in investigation, the United States filed a shall determine whether entry of the Hawaii likely would have grown civil antitrust Complaint on September proposed Final Judgment ‘‘is in the significantly because CBA was investing 18, 2020, seeking to enjoin the proposed public interest.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In in its business in Hawaii, had plans to transaction because it would making that determination, the Court, in significantly grow its share of beer substantially lessen competition for beer accordance with the statute as amended volume sold in Hawaii, and planned to sold in the state of Hawaii, in violation in 2004, is required to consider: of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 open a new brewery in 2021. The (A) The competitive impact of such U.S.C. 18. See Dkt. No. 1. Complaint also alleges that the transaction would likely facilitate price judgment, including termination of alleged At the same time the Complaint was violations, provisions for enforcement and filed, the United States filed a proposed coordination between ABI and Molson modification, duration of relief sought, Final Judgment and an Asset Coors Beverage Company in Hawaii.

Load more